Correct, not constitutional, but by federal statute. This was done variously by allowing and disallowing multi member districts, after reapportionment via a de

Correct, not constitutional, but by federal statute. This was done variously by allowing and disallowing multi member districts, after reapportionment via a decenial census. Multi-member districts were un-regulated in the early 1800s, then disallowed in the 1842 statute, but had a number of states with multi-member districts were in the subsequent election allowed to have their multi-member-district representatives seated. Then allowed again by silence in the statutes in 1850, then disallowed by statute again in 1862, and generally not allowed in subsequent reapportionment statutes through 1911, allowed by absence of regulation in 1929 (via Supreme Court ruling in 1932, Wood v. Broom, that the provisions of each apportionment act affected only the apportionment for which they were written). Then disallowed most recently in 1967 by statute (as part of a civil rights concerns, after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, that southern states might resort to winner-take-all at-large elections to eliminate voting strength of recently-enfranchised blacks in the South). See: The History of Single Member Districts for Congress: Seeking Fair Representation Before Full Representation - by Tory Mast http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526 http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526