Joint Appendix Vol II — Department of Commerce v. Montana

Supreme Court brief1992

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

\\ FILED

JAN 16 1992

aca

In the Supreme Court of the

OCTOBER TERM, 1991

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

ET AL., APPELLANTS

Vv.

STATE OF MONTANA, ET AL.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

JOINT APPENDIX

Volume Il

(Exhibits)

MARK RACICOT _ KENNETH W. STARR

Attorney General Solicitor General

CLAY R. SMITH Department of Justice

Solicitor Washington, D.C. 20530

ELIZABETH S. BAKER ese 514-2217

Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Appellants

State of Montana

Justice Building

215 North Sanders

Helena, Montana 59620-1401

(406) 444-2026

Counsel for Appellees

a —___

Notice of Appeal Filed: October 24, 1991

Appeal Docketed: November 26, 1991

Probable Jurisdiction Noted: December 16, 1991

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

Relevant District Court Docket Entries ..........

Affidavit of Dianna M. Hill dated May 21, 1991,

ee cis cases sscee

Report of National Academy of Sciences Commit-

tee on Apportionment, forwarded to the Speaker

of the House of Representatives on February 5,

1929, as reprinted in H.R. Rep. No. 1314, 9Ist

Come. 20 Saas. 89-28 (IGF ow ccc ccc cccccces

Declaration of Lawrence R. Ernst dated August 23,

1991, including Exhibit A ....................

Order Noting Probable Jurisdiction .............

VOLUME fi ~

(EXHIBITS)

DIANNA M. HILL AFFIDAVIT EXHIBITS:

Dt ccc nGeipwisyGhaneseneresaresss

DE So cbhivewvavenatenesvabecesesesss

icc cens cenedt end en kehane o's

DT Ehs ccc eeheekdnendennneahedeces

ee ee re

A ee

tt cedceeeeseuseenseeenedhe ene

ee eta nau es baci neh nase eeeae’

Ct Ceti tirtsenees paaennsens6eseees

Ll AWRENCE R. ERNST DECLARATION

EXHIBITS:

re ee eee

sas sv angeee eeee es eawes eb eebes.ee s

DIANNA M. HILL AFFIDAVIT EXHIBITS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Counting for Representation: The Census and the C onstitution*

People counting people

Counting people is an old American practice dating

from colonial days. The need for a census of the new

United States arose soon after the 13 Colonies broke their

ties with Great Britain. The Revolutionary War (1775-83)

costs had been high, and the new Nation had to find ways

to pay the debt; one way was to divide it equally among

the people. Another reason for a census was to establish a

truly representative government to sit in the two Houses of

Congress. While each State, regardless of size, would have

two Senators in the Senate, Members of the House of Rep-

resentatives would be apportioned — divided up — among

the States according to their population. The only way to

find out how many people there were was to count them,

so for the first time-in history, a nation decided to make a

census part of its constitution. As adopted in 1787, the

U.S. Constitution included these words in Article I, Sec-

tion 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned

among the several States which may be included with-

in this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

... The actual Enumeration shall be made within

three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of

the United States, and w'thin every subsequent Term

of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law

direct.

When they wrote the Constitution, the Founding

Fathers tried to tind a proper balance in the way the

* Illustrations and Figure 3 omitted.

country was to be run. By counting people for both taxes

and representation at the same time, they believed the cen-

sus would be both accurate and fair. Had the census been

only for tax purposes, the count probably would have

been too low; if only for representation, each State would

want as many Members in the House as possible and might

report more people than it actually had. Counting for tax-

ation, nevertheless, never did follow from the constitu-

tional directive. On the other hand, the constitutional

order —to apportion (or reapportion) representatives fair-

ly among the States by a count of the population at least

every 10 years—has been followed since 1790 and is the

origin of today’s decennial census. Based on the 1790 cen-

sus, the original number of 65 House Members grew to

106, who represented a population of almost 4 million.

When the House reached its present size of 475 in 1911, ut

represented 92 million people —the number from the cen-

sus taken in 1910. The 1980 census counted over 226

million people for the same size House.

Ever since 1913, the Congress has delegated the au-

thority to conduct the census to the Secretary of Com-

merce, and has permitted the Secretary to further delegate

this authority to the Bureau of the Census. The Secretary

must report counts for each State to the President within 9

months from Census Day (for most of this century, this

has been April 1) of the year ending in “0.” Within one

week of the opening of the next session of the Congress,

the President must send to the Clerk of the House of

Representatives the census count for each State and the

number of Representatives to which each State is entitled,

tollowing the method of apportionment Congress chose.

Within 15 days, the Clerk of the House then notifies the

Governor of each State how many Representatives that

State will be entitled to in the next Congress.

Originally, Article 1, Section 2 based apportionment on

“the whole Number of free Persons, including those

bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding In-

dians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons [Editor's

note: slaves}].” The practice of “Service for a Term of

Years” soon died out. All American Indians have been

considered to be taxed since the 1940's, and the Civil War

of 1861-65 ended slavery and the three-fifths rule. The

Constitution (Amendment 14) now refers to the “whole

number” of persons, which the Census Bureau has taken

to mean that all those persons who are residents of the

United States should be included. Who are the exceptions

and what are the special situations? Here are the Bureau of

the Census’s rules about them:

Two groups of people are specifically excluded from the .

census count. Persons living on the grounds of an em-

bassy, ministry, legation, chancellery, or consulate are

considered to be living on foreign soil, and therefore not

residents of the United States. Also, citizens of foreign

countries temporarily visiting or traveling in the United

States are not counted in the census because they have not

established a residence. On the other hand, Americans

who are temporarily abroad on vacations, business trips,

and the like are counted at their usual residence in the

United States. Those Americans, however, who are over-

seas for an extended period (in the Armed Forces, working

at civilian jobs, studying im foreign universities, etc.)

generally are not included, because they are considered to

have a “usual residence” outside of the United States.

Should undocumented or illegal aliens be included in the count tor ap-

portioament?

Congress debated this question on a number of Occa-

sions. The results support the statement of James Madison

that the apportionment is to be “founded on the aggregaic

number of inhabitants” of each State. To the Census

Bureau, that means all people here as residents, whether or

not they are citizens or even not legally admitted as immi-

grants. In the 1970's, it became apparent that large numbers

of persons were illegally entering the United States. Believ-

ing that these numbers might affect the apportionment of

the U.S. Congress, the Federation for American Immigra-

tion Reform (FAIR) brought suit in 1979 to make the Cen-

sus Bureau keep illegal aliens out of the apportionment

count. The suit was decided in favor of the Census Bureau,

but on procedural grounds. Even so, the United States

District Court did address the real issue of whether or not

illegal aliens should be included in the census. The court

noted that “the Constitution requires the counting of the

whole number of persons” and that illegal aliens “are clearly

persons.” How many undccumented aliens were counted in

the census? Although the census does not ask anyone

whether he or she has the proper papers to be in this coun-

iry, a reasonable estimate of these persons included in the

1980 census is about 2 million, or less than | percent of the

U.S. population.

Where should people be counted?

As important as who should be included in the count is

the question of where the counted persons should be listed

as living. The basic rule laid down in the first census act of

March 1, 1790 states:

. . every person whose usual place of abode shall be

in any family . . . shall be returned as of such family;

and the name of every person, who shall be an inhabi-

tant of any district, but without a settled place of resi-

dence, shall be inserted . . . in that division where he

or she shall be. . . , and every person occasionally ab-

semt at the time of the enumeration, as belonging to

that place in which he usually resides in the United

States.

From that act came the term “usual residence” and the

idea of counting persons where they live and sleep most of

the time. That place is not necessarily the same as the per-

son's legal residence, voting residence, or the place where

he or she can be found on Census Day. There are rules to

determine where a person should be counted for certain

groups of people, among them members of the Armed

Forces (counted as residents of the area where they are

stationed), college students (counted where they are living

while at college, either in a dormitory or in local housing),

and persons in institutions (at the institution if long-term,

or at home, generally, if short-term).

But what is the Census Bureau's role — officially?

An agency in the Department of Commerce, the Bureau

of the Census conducts the census of population and hous-

ing in years ending in “O.” Title 13 of the United States

Code authorizes the census, outlines its timing and scope

(and the scope of other Bureau censuses and surveys), re-

quires the public to answer the questions and makes all the

information confidential, and sets the penalties for dis-

closing this information.

The role of the Bureau of the Census in the apportion-

ment process has two parts:

—To carry out the census itself—counting the

Nation’s people and recording information about

them, such as age, race, and so on.

— To unofficially calculate the apportionment by de

termining the number of Representatives for cach

State based upon the results of that census.

Hlow is apportionment calculated?

Three factors are needed to calculate apportionment:

—the population base

—the size of the body (the House of Representatives)

to be divided

—a method to use for the calculation

The first two are fairly straightforward. The census ob-

tains a count for each of the 50 States in accordance with

the enumeration and residence rules discussed above, and

the Congress determines the current size of the House of

Representatives. From 1800 to 1840, the number of seats

in the House increased as the population grew and new

States were admitted to the Union. In 1850, for the first

time, the number of seats was fixed before apportionment.

The current House size, 435 members, has not been

changed since the apportionment following the 1910 cen-

sus, except for a temporary increase when Alaska and

Hawaii became States in 1959.

How does one choose a method to calculate apportionment?

You might think, it’s easy — once you know the number

of people in the country and in a State and the number of

representatives in the House. Don’t you just divide the

nusber in the country by the number in the State and give

each of the SO States that same share of the votes in the

House? Bui what if there’s a fraction left over? Can any

Scate send a third of an elected official to Congress?

Generally, the assignment of seats for whole shares is

not a problem, no matter what method is used; the assign-

ment of seats for fractional shares is the issue that presents

the problem. The apportionment procedure affects only

ihe assignment of the Sist and successive seats, since the

Constitution provides that each State must have at least

one representative.

Finding a method that would solve the fraction problem

adequately was a concern of Congress from 1792 until the

early 1900’s, during which time mathematicians, statisti-

cians, and politicians came up with different ways (that

had their own problems), some of which were never used.

(See fig. 1.)

The 1792 Appoitionment Act was known as the Jeffer-

son plan, named for Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of

State in President George Washington’s cabinet. This plan

gave one Representative for every 33,000 people in each

State, the fractions—or remainders —being disregarded.

Essentially the same method was used after each of the

next four censuses, but with progressively larger numbers

to deal with.

In 1840, a change in the method of apportionment re-

sulted from lengthy Senate debates on reapportionment in

1832 led by Daniel Webster of Massachusetts. He main-

tained that Jefferson’s method was unconstitutional be-

cause it discriminated against small States by disregarding

the fractions. Webster’s position was that the Constitution

required Congress to apportion Representatives “as near

as may be” to the population of each State. Therefore, an

additional Member was awarded for a fraction of over

one-half. This practice, as Jefferson’s had, also resulted in

a House of Representatives of varying size, depending

upon the ratio chosen and the population of each State. In

the Nation’s early years, increasing the size of the House

of Representatives after each census was not a problem.

As new States joined the union, and as the population of

existing States grew, more members were added as needed,

but it became apparent that continued growth in the size

of the House would begin to sirain its workings.

Samuel F. Vinton, a Representative from Ohio during

the middle 1800’s, was responsible fro the method used in

1850. It seemed to be the answer to the problem of reap-

portionment because it appeared to be the fairest way to

distribute a fixed number of seats. The Vinton method

Figure 1. Deciphering the Methods

Five apportionment methods use formulas in which the

State’s total population (P) is the numerator and the

divisor creates a numerical value that determines each

State’s priority for its next seat. In the divisors below, “n”

represents the number of the State’s next seat. The dif-

ferent divisors are assigned to achieve different tests.

Here is a summary of the divisor methods, the for-

mulas, and their tests.

Method Divisor Test

Equal oe bee Smallest percent difference be-

Proportions Vn(n—1) tween number of persons per

(current representative and smallest per-

method) cent difference between number

of representatives per person

Major Fractions i Smallest absolute difference be-

2 tween number of representatives

per person

Harmonic 2(n — I)n Smallest absolute difference be-

Means (n-—l)+n tween number of person per

representative

Smallest n-1 Smallest absolute “representa-

Divisors tion surplus”

Greatest n Smallest absolute “representa-

Divisors tion deficiency”

Source: Adapted from Sam T. Davis, “Reapportion-

ment: Numerical Politics.” American Demographics, Vol.

3, No. 10 (November 1981), p. 27.

worked this way in 1850: A House size of 233 was selected.

The total population was divided by 233 to determine the

number by which each State’s population would be divid-

ed. The resulting “quotas” — each State’s exact share in the

House — were used to assign the 233 seats. First, each State

received the whole number of the quota. The remaining

seats needed to make 233 were allocated by giving the

States with the largest fractions each a seat until all 233

~ seats were assigned.

Vinton’s method served for several decades. After the

census Of 1880, however, people noticed that if the size of

the House increased from its then current size of 293 to

299, Alabama would not change from its 8-member

delégation. But if the House size were to be fixed instead

at 300, Alabama would actually lose a member and have

only 7. Fortunately for Alabama, the size of the House

was set at 332, and Alabama maintained an 8-member

delegation. This troublesome characteristic of the Vinton

method was named the “Alabama Paradox” (under which

a State would be entitled to fewer seats if the size of the

House were increased and the population of all State re-

mained constant).

In 1910, Congress adopted a more refined and complex

version of the Vinton method, known as Major Fractions.

Some call this “Webster’s method.” Major Fractions,

which was also used in 1930, is one of several methods that

use a priority list to assign representatives to States. (Con-

gress could not decide on an apportionment plan based on

the 1920 census, but later passed a bill that made re-

apportionment automatic even if no action was taken.)

The present method of Equal Proportions, adopted in

1941 (Title 2, Section 2a, United States Code) is another

system that uses a priority list. The priority value is calcu-

lated by dividing the population of the State by a divisor.

(See fig 1.) Each of the priority list methods has a difter-

—

ent divisor, designed to reach certain objectives. For ex-

ample, following the 1980 results, each of the 50 States

was awarded one seat out of the current 435 total. Then,

the SIst seat went to the State that had the highest priority

value for its second seat. In computing the apportionment

from the 1980 State totals, seat 51 went to California,

whose priority value under the method of Equal propor-

tions was 16,736,300. The next seat, number 52, went to

New York, with a _ second-seat priority value of

12,414,877, and Texas received seat number 53, with a

priority value of 10,060,986. (See fig. 2.)

Once the number of seats assigned to the individual

States is determined, the task of drawing the new congres-

sional districts is generally that of each State legislature.

This process of redistricting has required much legislative

action.

Redistricting

When setting up or changing the boundaries of con-

gressional or legislative districts, there are two ways to

control the districts for political purposes — by geography

or by population. Almost from the beginning, election

districts began to take on all sorts of strange shapes and

population sizes to favor some particular group or party,

not always in keeping with the Constitution’s principle of

equal representation.

Hiow do you tinker with geography?

A practice sometimes followed by some State legisla-

tures when redistricting is called gerrymandering, after

Elbridge Gerry, the Governor of Massachusetts in 1812,

when Essex County’s senatorial election districts were

drawn to make sure his party’s candidate was elected. The

map that resulted looked like a salamander. One of

Figure 2. Apportionment Mini-Guide

How does the method of Equal Proportions work?

California receives the Slst seat because it is the most

populous State. Whey does California receive the 54th seat

(its third) before Pennsylvania receives its second?

The formula is:

Vv n(n— 1)

where “P” is the State population and “n” is the number of

seats a State would have if it gained a seat. Thus, each

State’s claim to a seat (the priority value) would be the

total State population divided by the geometric means of

its current and next seats (V n(n—1) ).

Listed below are the first 10 seats awarded on the basis

of the method of equal proportions in 1980. The list con-

tinues in this fashion until the 385 seats (numbers 51

through 435) have been allocated. (Each State got one of

the first 50 seats.)

1980 Seat Priority

Seat State population number Multiplier® velue

$i California 23,668,562 2 0.70710078 16,936,200)

$2 New York 17,557,288 2 0.70710678 12,414,877

53 Texas 14,228,383 2 0.70710678 10,060,986

$4 California 23,668,562 3 0.40824829 9,682,650

$5 Pennsylvania 11,866,728 2 0.70710678 8,391,044

56 IIlinois 11,418,461 2 0.70710678 8,074,071

57 Ohio 10,797,419 2 0.70710678 7,634,928

58 New York 17,557,288 3 0.40824829 7,167,733

59 Florida 9,739,992 2 0.70710678 6,887,214

60 California 23,668,562 4 0.28867513 6,832,525

Note: * The multiplier is merely the reciprocal of the geometric mean

( . e- » )

Source: Penelope E. Harvison et al. “Drawing the Lines — By the

Numbers: The Statistical Foundations of the Electoral Process.”

Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (November 1985),

p. 395. Statistics are taken from the 1980 Decennial Census.

Gerry’s critics called it a gerrymander and the name stuck.

In 1842, Congress required that congressional districts be

contiguous (no separate parts), but some States got

around this by connecting the parts with strips of land that

might or might not contain people; others created long,

narrow districts that wound across a State. In 1872, Con-

gress said that districts had to be compact, but this also

was interpreted in different ways.

How about population?

In the history of redistricting, if you wanted to discrimi-

nate against certain people because of their race, national

origin, beliefs, income, or the way they vote, you made

sure any such groups either were divided up among several

districts, or that they were outnumbered by the people you

wanted to favor. This was done even after 1901, when

Congress said that districts not only had to be compact but

also approximately equal in population. In any case, all of

these provisions were dropped in 1929.

How was representation brought back into constitutional “balance”?

For over 30 years after 1929, some States established

new districts with litthe or no attention to “balance.” They

simply failed to redistrict despite major population move-

ments or elected “members at large” to avoid redistricting.

The result was that a district with a large population would

have no more political “clout” than one that had few peo-

ple: Each district still had only one representative. '

' Some examples of great disparities in congressional district

population sizes in modern U.S. history include: New York (1930)

776,425 in the largest district and 90,671 in the smallest district; Ohio

(1946) 698,650 and 163,561; Illinois (1946) 914,053 and 112,116;

Arkansas (1946) 423,152 and 177,476; Texas (1962) 951,527 and

216,371; Michigan (1962) 802,994 and 177,431; Maryland (1962)

711,045 and 243,570; and South Dakota (1962) 497,669 and 182,545.

In a series of decisions beginning in 1962, the U.S.

Supreme Court restored the equal-population rule and ex-

tended it to State and local legislative districts as well. In

the case of Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), for example, the

Court ruled that “as nearly as practicable, one man’s vote

in a congressional election is to be worth as much as

another’s.” After the Voting Rights Act was passed in

1964, Federal courts held that using race to discriminate in

drawing district boundaries was unconstitutional; in 1986,

the U.S. Supreme Court stated that redistricting plans

could not be challenged only because the proposed bound-

aries might discriminate against parts of the total popula-

tion, such as Blacks or persons of Spanish origin. Thus

race and population had to be considered in redistricting

at any level.

What is the Census Bureau's role in the redistricting process?

When there has been a change in population or its distri-

bution within States, almost all States use census data in

altering their congressional and legislative district bound-

aries.

The States themselves — and not the Census Bureau — set

these boundaries. Once they are law, however, the Bureau

adds up the decennial census population of each congres-

sional district and publishes the figures for official use.

The States, then, need the census and the Census

Bureau’s help in determining population counts for small

areas. Congress passed legislation in December 1975,

Public Law 94-171, which set up a voluntary program be-

tween the Bureau and States that wished to receive popula-

tion tabulations for election precincts and certain other

geographic areas. Those responsible for the legislative ap-

portionment or redistricting of each State were to submit

to the Secretary of Commerce a plan identifying the geo-

graphic areas for which they wanted specific tabulations

of population from the 1980 census. This plan had to be

submitted not later than 3 years before the census date,

developed in a nonpartisan manner, and meet Census

Bureau technical guidelines. In February and March 1981,

the Bureau delivered the “Public Law 94-171 Population

Counts” on computer tape, microfiche, and paper to 23

participating States and similar data to the other 27 States.

In addition to the total population, there were counts of

people in five race groups and of Hispa.iic/Spanish origin.

The data covered the major geographic areas recognized in

the census — States, counties, county subdivisions, places,

census tracts (or block numbering areas), enumeration dis-

tricts or block groups, census blocks, and election

precincts where asked for, together with the numeric code

for each area to help with the calculations. These statistics,

which anyone could purchase, were for approximately 2.5

million blocks and over 300,000 additional small areas.

For 1990, the Census Bureau plans to block-number the

entire country and to have counts for each of 8 to 12

million blocks. By offering State population figures by

block as well as voting district, the legislators will be able

to be much more flexible in creating redistricting plans to

satisfy political considerations and legal guidelines. The

21st Decennial Census will be taken as of April 1, 1990. By

April 1, 1991, the Census Bureau will deliver copies of cen-

sus block maps, the 1990 Public Law 94-171 tape files, and

prints of these data to the Governor and legislature of each

State. :

Much of the success of the 1980 redistricting data pro-

gram and the 1990 program that follows is the result of a

decade-long partnership involving State officials, the Na-

tional Conference of State Legislatures, and the Census

Bureau.

Aside from its direct goals, the program has served as an

example of how State and Federal governments can work

together to identify and fulfill a critical constitutional

need.

What does the future hold for census data and elections?

The relationship between census statistics and represen-

tation has become more closely knit in the last two

decades, largely because of the redistricting data program.

Census Bureau planners are looking to the future and the

increasing use of technological developments to meet the

time requirements that States have to redraw their

districts.

— Duplicating and providing the enormous number

of maps for everyone engaged in the redistricting

process has been expensive and time-consuming. The

automated geographic system the Census Bureau is

developing should make it easier and faster to pro-

duce maps with voting district boundaries. As States

begin to have their own computerized map files, the

exchange of current geographic information should

be made more convenient.

The Bureau of the Census has recognized that it must be

alert to the social and governmental changes that affect

the people of the United States and the way in which they

are represented. If there are new laws and rules, the

Bureau may need to provide the States with more

Statistics; and as new developments occur in individual

States and legislatures, it may need to change its pro-

cedures to adapt to new needs. The Census Bureau’s con-

nection to representation is a vital part of the constitu-

tional system, and the commitment to work with the indi-

vidual States in this basic governmental process is most

important.

Summary

Given the laws and court decisions that require numbers

and information about people, the importance of the

decennial census cannot be overstated. The completeness

and accuracy of population counts from every section of

the country directly affect every citizen’s voting strength.

States use census information to define their congressional

and legislative districts. If there is a disproportionate

undercount in any area, the results will correspondingly

lessen the effect of the people’s vote in that area.

Just as “being counted” spelled equal representation in

the Constitution in 1787, it means the same today. At a re-

cent meeting of city officials planning for the 21st census

in 1990, a demographer from Anchorage, Alaska, said, “If

you’re not counted, you’re not represented, and if you’re

not represented, you’re not going to have the same clout as

others.”

Today the census is even more important than it was 200

years ago. Equal representation is for everyone, citizen or

not, and everyone must be counted for that. But the cen-

sus results provide more than just the figures for appor-

tionment. Distributing Federal and State funds among

some 39,000 local governments also depends on census

data. In addition, social and economic data are used in

marketing studies and in locating new businesses; aca-

demic research; Federal, State, and local planning (such as

for child-care and senior-centers, schools, and transporta-

tion); affirmative action programs; and many other ac-

tivities. Finally, the people of the United States expect in-

formation about themselves, their community, State, and

Nation. Much of that information is available only

through the census, which remains distinctively a corner-

stone of the Constitution itself.

READING LIST

Balinski, Michel, and H. Peyton Young. Fair Representa-

tion: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).

Congressional Quarterly. Representation and Apportion-

ment (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1966).

Conk, Margo. According to Their Respective Numbers

(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987).

Davis, Sam T. “Reapportionment: Numerical Politics.”

American Demographics, Vol. 3, No. 10 (November

1981), pp. 24-29.

Dixon, Robert. Democratic Representation: Reapportion-

ment in Law and Politics (New York: Oxford, 1968).

Grofman, Bernard, et al. Representation and Redistricting

Issues (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982).

Hacker, Andrew, Congressional Districting (Washington,

DC: The Brookings Institution, 1963).

Harvison, Penelope E., Robert C. Speaker, and Marshall

L. Turner, Jr. “Drawing the Lines — By the Numbers: The

Statistical Foundations of the Electoral Process.” Govern-

ment Information Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (November,

1985), pp. 389-405.

Martis, Kenneth C. The Historical Atlas of the United

States Congressional Districts, 1789-1983 (New York: The

Free Press, 1982).

Mckay, Robert. Reapportionment: The Law and Politics

of Equal Representation (New York: Twentieth Century

Fund, 1965).

Schmeckebier, Laurence F. Congressional Apportionment

(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1941).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Congressional District Atlas,

Districts of the 100th Congress (Jan. 1987 to Jan. 1989}.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.

Atlas and companion wall map also show maps of the Ist,

25th, 50th, and 75th Congresses.

U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census

and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service. 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., House- Report No.

91-1314. The Decennial Population Census and Congres-

sional Apportionment (Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office, 1970).

Wiebe, Robert. The Opening of American Society (New

York: Vintage, 1985).

Lwrerce

Jnited itetes Jepaertzment 2

Surceu of tne Coneus

CEC 26 isce

ov stare

1990 POPULATION ANG AmEER OF IEPEESENTATIVES,

BOE; The papuletion camts set ferth herein ere amijest te peasible correction fer wdercaunt

The United States Depertmene of Commerce is caruidering wether

or gvercamnt,.

te correct these caamts arg will maamiisr

corrected counts, If any, net later then Jyly 15,

ToTat popuarion’ 269, 32, 92

STATE

REPOUCSENTATIVES

*_ e+ * © © © © © © @© © © © © © © © © © @ &

Me s OMG =

SAAINIRLRREGQRIAZIZE

ASaMeUNNAUEAaNAES

alr oe 2) eee ee

NM@w~)| TOO wNMn wf ee he

the

fer

United Stetee Code,

comes of silitery ens federsi civilian empicyees are ¢

13,

1 Tetet poguietion insiudes eumerstiaw for

UmiTED states roras*

Aleajame

Gecarmial cereus wwer Titie

Federal egercies.

of Colummpie.

2 Tetat population, ret including the district

HILL AFF. EXH. C. - PAGE l

1Z.

¢ ZOWd - °D *“HXS *agagw Tits

ie 6 t96 298"? uo i6uiuser

\- bt ws "912°9 rubra

- t 396995 su0WI8 A

¢ vel" 222° vein

{+ ot $0’ 6S0'Z1 sera;

- 6 199° 968"? sesso,

‘ 666 “669 @.03€9 wanos

9 201° S0s°¢ U1 }0se) yanos

: 2 786 °S00°) Puve}s: apouy

2 42 012 °926 41 \stURA Asai,

s ce "cse*2 u06e50

co 09" 251°C SOY } 40

2 6 S20" 298" 01 e140

t C199 ®230900 YI 40K

i ra ory 2s59°9 @U! 04) Yi40N

c 1¢ SOS" 7970'S 4404, Ran

t 422 °425"1 Oi Kay Ran

t ct 9° PL 2 Aassar nan

2 Ste*fui*t asi ysawey RON

: 2 2S: ° 902": epersn

: ¢ 219" 98S") @7SE1Q24

\- 1 $s9 coe GUS LOW

- 6 vos‘ z61°S LINOss tw

4 res "og"? IGS SSI SSi py

. 9 620° Z9t°? 053i»

2- 91 ye *S20"s Ye6 1 y>iw

\- OL 1$0°620°9 Si asNYy es SeH

. g 729° 86.°9 pue Aven

: 2 <22° cs2"1 auiew

\- 2 W2°RE2"? eue1s ino)

\- 9 696 °969°¢ Aqonj ue}

t- ? 009" Sa7 "2 setucy

- ¢ 927° 282°2 eno |

- OL 922" 795s eve (pu

2- 02 289°997 "4 Srowr)y!

: r4 986" 110'% ovep |

: 2 222°St0s tienew

te bh 6t7°90S‘9 #164029

% @ 290° £00 "C1 Piso} 4

: t 969 899 arene }2ac

- 9 699° S$62°¢ IND 1 3au0)

- 9 246° 200°¢ opeso)o)

ie 2s OSZ "ote 62 @1us041)eD

? 6<2°29¢°2 Sesvexsy

le ° spa*z79°¢ @uorisy

° ‘ 276°4SS e7s0)y

: Z 909°290"9 esege jy

st? ©RL°720'62 (Z) W101 S3iVIS aazLIMM

SMSNZD 0661 the

LNIWNOLLBOSEY = - BML NO CRSVE cw

086i S3A1LVIN3S3ua3¥ NOL LVWNeod S

wOUs 2ONVKD 30 B38 8 = LNWNOLLBOcy =

269°209°692 (4) nOLLV INGOs x

“s :

“$664 “SL Aynr weys 4a20) 30u “Aue 4) ‘s3unc> per:

WS} 197d 111" Pus Syuno> asay2 33531703 03 sayIay Buisepisu02 8) 8:

gO 2UBELIOGSG $32825 P2Ij;UN ay, -3UNGIJEAD vo 3UNCUamUN 30) UOye

#)Q:330d ©) 330/qns ase wiasey y340; 388 s3uUNC>D 01 3@ )Nnclod

OR?) ae

Wen

yo 4

ths

-—_

: +

4 *

¢ BOWd - °D “EYS °ddW TIIH

“@yGAN}POD JO 33443510 SY2 Buypnysy; ou *wOI3e)NGod 7830) (2)

"Sai suebe )esapey S701 eA

AQ P23s0Gas SE SB2T1BA0 SUDZDUSGEP 4}8Y) PUS SBBAO)Gsd UB) ) AID 1849094

pue Ase3} 19) gO SRUMCS Pus BFQEI!CD JO 33543550 OYI PUe SaIEI5 OS SUI 40;

*epod S8303S PSIjUN “Cf, 21351 JepUN Sreus> yesuUssep 3842 Sy) YU} P839%))0>

Be UO} IE}MGod JweP Sas OY JO; SU0jIGJSEFUD SEPM} su) wos3e)nMded 76301(1)

nn Se mebhe

~S. 6 — Sxt*906"9 ,

EXHIBIT D

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1)}

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

51 CA 2 210995360

52 NY 2 127593919

53 CA 3 121818228

54 TX 2 120631038

55 FL 2 91947655

56 CA 4 86138495

57 PA 2 84320433

58 IL 2 81081686

59 OH 2 76985013

60) NY 3 73666383

61 TX 3 69646362

62 CA 5 66722591

63 Ml 2 65964464

64 NJ 2 54791117

65 CA 6 54478768

66 FL 3 53086003

67 NY 4 52089999

68 TX 4 49247415

69 PA 3 48682425

70 NC 2 47076553

71 IL. 3 46812533

-72 CA 7 46042962

73 GA 2 46021472

74 OH 3 44447318

75 VA 2 43957774

76 MA 2 42631829

77 NY 5 40348740

78 CA 8 39874375

79 IN 2 39345034

80 TX 5 38146884

24 25

EXHIBIT D— Continued EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{n(n — 1)] HILL FORMULA —SQRT[n(n — 1)}

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

81 MI 3 38084601 111 VA 3 25379033

82 FL 4 375374473 112 SC 2 24774950

83 MO 2 36329761 113 MA 3 24613498

84 CA g 35165893 114 OH 5 24344799

85 WI! ? 34695927 115 NY 8 24112984

86 TN 2 34624481 116 CA 13 23890520

87 WA ? 34562962 117 FL 6 23740782

88 PA 4 34423673 118 CO 2 23390470

89 MD 2 33931382 119 CT 2 23303899

90 IL. 4 33101460 120 TX 8 22797123

9] NY 6 32944608 121 IN 3 22715866

92 NJ 3 31633666 122 NJ 4 22368380

93 CA 10 3145333] 123 OK 2 22327632

94 OH 4 31429000 124 CA 14 22118324

95 TX 6 31146800 125 PA 6 21771442

96 MN 2 31020980 126 NY 9 21265653

97 LA 2 29968713 127 MO 3 20974997

98 FL 5 29076401 128 IL 6 20935201

99 AL 2 28726977 129 MI 5 20859795

100 CA 11 28450609 130 CA 15 20591039

101 NY 7 27843276 | 131 OR 2 20178940

102 NC 3 27179661 132 TX y 20105173

103 MI 4 26929880 133 FL 7 20064623

104 PA 5 26664462 134 Wi 3 20031703

105 GA 3 26570509 135 ™N 3 19990453

106 TX 7 2632385] 136 WA 3 19954936

107 KY 2 26155661 137 OH 6 19877445

108 AZ 2 26007281 138 1A 2 19710064

109 CA 12 25971734 139 MD 3 19590292

110 IL 5 25640280 140 CA 16 19261153

% 27

EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS HILL FORMULA —SQRT{n(n — 1)]

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[ni(n 1)) ws - -

- me SEQ i = SEAT | PRIORITY

_SEQ st ; SEAT | PRIORITY | 17] AZ 3 15015311

141 NC 4 19218922 172 NC 5 14886913

142 NY 10 19020578 173 TX 12 14848654

143 GA 4 18788187 174 MO 4 14831563

144 PA 7 18400227 175 CA 21 14560063

145 MS 2 18288914 176 GA 5 14553267

146 CA 17 18092703 177 OH 8 14548800

147 TX 10 17982613 178 NY 13 14447166

148 VA 4 17945686 179 MI 7 14394626

149 MN 3 1790997] 180 SC 3 14303824

150 IL. 7 17693475 18] Wi 4 14164553

1S] KS 2 17575846 182 NJ 6 14147005

152 MA 4 17404371 183 TN 4 14135385

154 NJ 5 17326472 185 PA 7] 14053406

155 LA 3 17302444 186 VA 5 13900669

156 NY 11 17204761 187 CA 22 13882476

157 CA 18 7057 188 MD 4 13852429

158 MI 6 a 189 FL 10 13706747

161 AL 3 16585528 192 CO 3 13504494

162 TX 7 16265886 193 MA 5 13481368

163 CA 19 16135219 194 Cl 3 13454512

“6 ; 16062543 [COA 3 13265165

165 PA x pon A ‘

oa ne 7 root 197 Ok 3 12890864

167 EL y 15324609 198 OH y 12830836

> o 3 a

need CA 20 15307212 201 MN 4 12664262

170 KY 3 15100978 :

——

28 29

EXHIBIT D— Continued EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{n(n — 1)] HILL FORMULA —SQRT{n(n — 1)]

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEO ST SEAT PRIORITY

202 TX 14 12645569 232 TN 5 10949222

203 PA 10 12569748 233 NY 17 10941088

204 MI 8 12466112 234 IL 11 10933052

205 NY 15 12451891 235 WA 5 10929768

206 IN 5 12441992 236 CA 28 10852430

207 FL 11 12398219 237 NM 2 10760603

208 LA 4 12234676 238 MD 5 10730045

209 UT 2 12217136 239 KY 4 10678004

210 CA 25 12181823 240 AZ 4 10617428

211 NC 6 12155114 241 MS 3 10559109

212 iL 10 12086944 242 CA 29 10471524

213 NJ 7 11956402 243 FL 13 10411022

214 GA 6 11882693 244 OH 11 10380657

215 TX 15 11772384 245 PA 12 10379128

216 AL 4 11727739 246 NJ 8 10354548

217 CA 26 11703917 247 TX 17 10344026

218 OR 3 11650316 248 NY 18 10315357

219 NY 16 11647678 249 NC 7 10272946

220 MO BS « 11488479 250 IN 6 10158844

221 OH 10 11476248 251 KS 3 10147420

222 1A 3 11379611 252 CA 30 10116453

223 PA 11 11369765 253 SC 4 10114331

224 VA 6 11349848 254 GA 7 10042709

225 FL 12 11317974 255 IL 12 9980466

226 CA 27 11262099 256 MI 10 9833402

227 NB 2 11204934 257 MN 5 9809695

228 TX 16 11012057 258 CA 31 9784676

229 MA 6 11007491 259 NY 19 9757351

230 MI y 10994077 260 TX 18 9752441

231 Wl 5 10971815 261 AR 3 9643800

ie...

30 : 31

EXHIBIT D— Continued EXHIBIT D — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1)} HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1)}

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

262 FL 14 9638733 292 GA 8 8697241

263 VA 7 9592373 293 CA 35 8649966

264 CO 4 9549119 294 IN 7 8585790

265 PA 13 9547409 295 NV 2 8528783

266 CT 4 9513777 296 IL 14 8499670

267 LA 5 9476939 297 CA 36 8406256

268 OH 12 9476200 298 NY 22 8395064

269 CA 32 9473971 299 FL 16 8393634

270 MO 6 9380304 300 TX 21 8324333

271 MA 7 9303028 301 VA 8 8307238

272 NY 20 9256636 302 KY 5 8271146

273 TX 19 9224886 303 OR 4 8238018

274 CA 33 9182394 304 PA 15 8228832

275 IL 13 9180693 305 AZ 5 $224225

276 NJ 9 9131853 306 CA 37 8175904

277 OK 4 9115218 307 NJ 10 8167777

278 AL 5 9084268 308 MI 12 8119664

279 FL 15 8973172 309 OH 14 8070222

280 WI! 6. 8958450 310 MA 8 8056658

281 TN 6 8940002 311 1A 4 8046600

282 WA 6 8924119 312 NY 23 8021761

283 CA 34 8908231 313 MN 6 8009583

284 NC 8 8896632 314 CA 38 7957841

285 MI 11 8894647 315 TX 22 7936940

286 PA 14 8839183 316 MO 7 7927804

287 NY 21 8804817 317 IL. 15 7912762

288 MD 6 8761045 318 Hl 2 7886178

289 TX 20 8751495 318 EL 17 7884446

290 ME 2 8720204 320 NH 2 7876569

291 OH 13 8716836 321 NC y 7846092

32 33

EXHIBIT D— Contiaued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA—SQRT{[n(n - 1)]

EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1))

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

322 SC 5 7834527 352 ID 2 7155822

323 CA 39 7751108 353 RI 2 7113381

324 LA 6 7737888 354 MA 9 7105305

325 PA 16 7697367 355 NY 26 7077637

326 NY 24 7680251 356 OK 5 7060617

327 GA 9 7670245 357 UT 3 7053567

328 TX 23 7584008 358 FL 19 7031413

329 WI 7 7571272 359 OH 16 7027738

330 TN 7 7555681 360 CA 43 7021486

331 CA 40 7554846 61 NC 10 7017758

332 WA 7 7542257 62 TX 25 6964636

333 OH 15 7512968 63 IL. 17 6952697

334 MI 13 7469005 364 MI 14 6914955

335 MS 4 7466418 365 MO 8 6865679

336 IN 8 7435512 66 GA 10 6860476

337 FL 18 7433527 67 CA 44 6860051

338 AL 6 7417274 68 AR 4 6819197

339 MD 7 7404435 369 PA 18 6816903

340 IL 16 7401711 370 NY 27 6810460

341 CO 5 7396716 371 MIN 7 6769333

342 NJ 1] 7388033 372 KY 6 6753363

343 CT 5 7369340 373 NJ 1? 6744320

344 CA 4) 7368278 374 AZ 6 6715051

345 NY 25 7366638 375 CA 45 6705873

346 WV 3 7355103 376 TX 26 6691406

347 VA 9 7326296 377 EL 20 6670584

348 TX 24 7261135 278 OH 17 6601410

349 PA 17 7230418 379 NY 28 6562723

350 CA 42 7190703 380 CA 46 6558473

351 KS 4 7175309 8] IN S) 6557506

EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1)}

EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{[n(n — 1)}

SEQ ST SEAT _ PRIORITY

SEQ ST SEAT _ PRIORITY a — : 6054960

382 WI 8 6556914 pe FL 2? 6049712

383 IL 18 6555066 pw CO 6 6039393

384 VA 10 6552838 por CA 50 6028439

385 TN x 6543412 pow val 16 6021704

386 LA 7 6539709 po CT 6 6017041

387 WA 8 6531786 po TX 29 5986818

388 NB 3 6469172 419 VA 1] §927265

389 PA 19 6448145 420 NY 31 5917026

390 TX 27 6438809 42] CA $1 5909052

391 MI 15 6437473 42? OH 19 5887191

392 CA 47 6417414 423 IL 20 5882284

393 MD 8 6412428 424 IN 10 5865211

394 sc 6 6396865 425 MN 8 5862414

395 OR 5 6381141 426 PA 24 5818663

396 MA 10 6355178 427 NC |? $794723

397 NC rT 6347801 pra CA 5? 5794302

398 FL 21 6344991 pos Tx 30 5783816

399 NY 29 Cw 6332380 430 MS 5 5783462

400 CA 48 6282295 pon WI 9 5782654

401 AL 7 6268740 432 FL 23 5780700

402 1A 5 6232870 433 TN 9 $770747

403 OH 18 6223869 434 OK 6 5764970

404--. NM 3 6212637 pe WA 9 5760494

406 TX 28 6204591 437 NJ 14 5743670

407 NJ 13 6203872 438 NY 32 5729136

———F08 IL. 19 6200472 439 KY 7 5707633

409 CA 49 6152750 440 CA 53 5683924

410 NY 30 6117660 44] MT ? 5682699

411 PA 20 6117247

36 37

EXHIBIT D— Continued EXHIBIT D— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

HILL FORMULA —SQRT{n(n — 1)] HILL FORMULA —SQRT[n(n — 1)]

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY _ SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

442 AZ 7 5675254 472 CA 57 5281490

443 GA 12 5664852 473 TX 33 5249792

444 LA 8 5663554 474 MA 12 5247615

445 MI 17 5656406 475 NY 35 5230841

446 MD 9 5655230 476 GA 13 5210906

447 IL 21 5595168 477 OR 6 5210180

448 TX 31 5594130 478 WV 4 5200843

449 OH 20 5585080 479 CA 58 5189631

450 CA 54 5577674 480 WI 10 5172163

451 KS 5 5557971 481 MN y 5170163

452 NY 33 5552813 482 TN 10 5161513

453 PA 22 5547877 483 WA 10 $152342

454 FL 24 5534598 484 CO 7 5104219

455 CA 55 5475322 485 CA 59 5100913

456 AL 8 5428888 486 FL 26 5100338

457 TX 32 5416494 487 iL 23 5097562

458 MO 10 5415721 488 TX 34 5093046

459 VA 12 5410828 489 1A 6, 5089117

460 SC 7° $406337 490 CT 7 5085328

461 NY 34 5387020 491 NY 36 5083463

462 CA 56 5376660 492 PA 24 5075494

463 NJ 15 5347066 493 OH 22 5065242

464 IL 22 5334783 494 MD 10 5058192

465 MI 18 5332911 495 MI 19 5044429

466 NC 13 5330370 496 ME 3 5034612

467 OH 2! 5312471 497 CA 60 5015177

468 FL 25 5308600 498 NJ 16 5001722

469 IN 1 5305283 499 LA 9 4994786

470 PA 23 5301180 500 - UT 4 4987625

471 AR 5 $282127

38 39

EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT EF — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA —[2(N ~ I)NJ/{(N — 1 + NJ DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — 1)NJ/[(N— 1 +N]

_ SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ _ ST SEAT PRIORITY

5 CA 2 22379438 81 MO 2 3853353

52 NY 2 13533379 82 TX 5 3838456

53 TX 2 12794854 83 FL 4 3792647

54 CA 3 12433021 84 WI 2 3680059

55 FL 2 9752522 85 TE 2 3672481

56 PA 2 8943532 86 WA 2 3665956

57 CA 4 8703115 87 MD 2 3598966

58 IL 2 8600012 88 CA 9 3522689

59 OH 2 8165494 89 PA 4 3478040

60 NY 3 7518544 90 IL 4 3344449

6! TX 3 7108252 91 NY 6 3308159

62 MI 2 6996588 y? MIN 2 3290272

63 CA 5 6713831 93 NJ 3 3228598

64 NJ 2 5811476 94 LA 2 3178662

65 CA 6 5470529 95 OH 4 3175470

66 FL 3 5418068 96 CA 10 3149699

67 NY 4 5262981 97 TX 6 3127631

68 NC 2 4993222 98 AL 2 3046956

69 TX 4 4975776 99 FL 5 2925756

70 PA 3 4968629 100 CA 1 2848292

7 GA 2 4881314 101 NY 7 2792602

72 IL 3 4777784 102 KY 2 2774227

73 VA 2 4662426 103 NC 3 2774012

74 CA 7 4617979 104 Ad 2 2758489

75 OH 3 4536385 105 MI 4 2720895

16 MA 2 4521788 106 GA 3 2711841

77 IN 2 4173171 ; 107 PA 5 2683060

78 NY 5 4060014 108 TX 7 2640208

79 CA 8 3996328 109 sc 2 2627780

80 MI 3 3886993 110 CA 12 2599632

EXHIBIT FE — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA — [2(N — 1)N]/[(N— 1 + N}

__ SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

111 VA 3 2590237

112 IL 5 2580003

113 MA 3 2512105

114 CO 2 2480934

115 CT 2 2471752

116 OH 5 2449648

117 NY 8 2416675

118 CA 13 2390966

119 FL 6 2383950

120 OK 2 2368203

121 IN 3 2318428

122 TX S 2284795

123 NJ 4 2260018

124 CA 14 2213351

125 PA 6 2186197

126 MO 3 2140752

127 OR 2 2140300

128 NY 9 2130254

129 IL 6° 2102225

130 Ml 5 2098976

131 1A 2 2090568

132 CA 15 2060329

133 WI 3 2044477

134 TE 3 2040267

135 WA 3 2036642

136 T™ 9 2014005

137 FL 7 2012425

138 MD 3 1999426

139 OH 6 1996010

140 NC 4 1941809

EXHIBIT E — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA — [2(N — I)N}/[(N- 1 +N]

SEQ _ ST SEAT PRIORITY

141 MS 2 1939832

142 CA 16 1927118

143 NY i0 1904698

144 GA 4 1898289

145 KS 2 1864200

146 PA 7 1845491

147 MN 3 1827929

148 VA 4 1813166

149 CA 17 1819102

150 T™X 10 1800757

1S] IL. 7 1774606

152 AR 2 1771679

153 LA 3 1765923

154 MA 4 1758473

155 NJ 5 1743443

156 FL 8 1741522

157 NY li 1722430

158 Ml 6 1710277

159 CA 18 1706493

160 AL 3 1692753

161 OH 7 1684943

162 ™ 11 1628436

163 IN 4 1622900

164 CA 19 1614111

165 PA 8 1597059

166 NY 12 1572059

167 KY 3 1541237

168 IL. 8 1535716

169 FL 9 1S3S119

170 AZ 3 1532494

42 43

EXHIBIT E — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

EXHIBIT FE — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — I)NJ/[(N — 1 + NJ DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — 1)NJ/[(N— 1 + NJ

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEO ST SEAT PRIORITY

171 CA 20 1531225 301 MIN 4 1279550

172 MC 4 1498526 0? CA 24 1270330

174 TX 12 1486271 04 PA 10 1258719

175 GA 5 1464394 05 IN 5 1251951

176 Sc 3 1459878 06 MI 8 1249391

177 OH 8 1458124 07 NY 15 1245930

178 CA 21 1456440 208 FI i] 1241230

179 NY 13 1445874 209 LA 4 1236146

180 MI 7 1443740 210 NC f 1220566

181 Wi 4 1431134 r11 CA 25 1218436

182 TE + 1428187 42 il 10 1210372

183 WA 4 1425649 213 NJ 7 1199193

186 MD 4 1399598 216 NB ? 1188463

187 VA 5 1398728 247 AL 4 1184927

188 CA 22 1388623 218 TX 15 1177939

189 CO _ 1378297 219 CA 26 1170617

190 CT 3 1373195 2%) NY 16 1165374

191 FL 10 1372577 24 1A 3 1161427

192 TX 13 1366972 22? MO 5 1156006

193 MA 5 1356536 223 OH 10 1149218

195 WV 2 1351219 225 VA 6 1139704

196 NY 14 1338466 % pA i] 1138268

197 CA 23 1326844 297 bi 1? 1132869

198 OK 3 1315668 28 CA 27 1126410

199 UT 2 1295823 29 MTA 6 1105326

200 OH y 1285309 30 WI F 1104018

- 45

EXHIBIT & — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

EXHIBIT EF — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS DEAN FORMULA —[2(N - 1I)NJ/[(N- 14+ .N]

DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — I)NJ/[(N— 1 + NJ SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY _

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY | 6) TX 18 975642

231 TX 16 1101779 2 CO 4 964808

232 TE 5 1101744 63 FL i4 964535

233 MI 9 1101315 4 VA 7 962088

234 WA 5 1099787 265 CT 4 961237

235 NY 17 1094612 66 PA 13 955506

236 IL 1] 1094547 267 LA 5 YS3599

237 CA 28 1085422 268 OH 12 948517

238 MD 5 1079690 269 CA 32 947517

239 KY 4 1078866 270) MO 6 941931

240 MS 3 1077685 271 MA 7 933067

241 AZ 4 1072746 27? NY 20 925968

242 CA 29 1047314 173 ME 2 924917

243 FL 13 1041936 274 TX 19 922826

244 OH 1} 1039245 275 OK 4 920968

245 PA 12 1038895 1716 iL 13 918805

246 NJ s 1037763 277 CA 33 918348

247 KS 3 1035667 278 NJ y 914769

248 TX 17 1034878 279 AL 5 914087

249 NY 18 1031957 280 NV 2 904614

250 NC 6 1030348 81 WI 6 899570

251 SC 4 1021915 28) PL 15 89T7HSI

253 CA 30 1O11791 284 WA 6 896123

254 GA 7 1007255 285 NC 8 891647

255 IL 12 Y9IRYII 286 CA 34 890922

256 MN 5 987082 287 Mi 11 890475

257 Mi 10 984705 28x PA 4 884525

258 AR 3 984266 if 2xY NY 21 880744

259 CA 3] 978599 9) MID 6 879747

260 NY ly 976092

46 47

EXHIBIT E— Continued EXHIBIT E— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA — [2(N — 1)N]/[(N — 1 +N] DEAN FORMULA — [2(N — 1)NJ/[((N— 1+ N)]

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

291 TX 20 875437 321 SC 5 788334

292 OH 13 872382 322 NC 9 785970

293 GA 8 871663 323 LA 6 777006

294 CA 35 865088 324 CA 39 775176

295 IN 7 861131 325 PA 16 770138

296 IL 14 850551 326 GA 9 768355

297 CA 36 840709 327 NY 24 768199

298 FL 16 839800 328 Wi 7 759377

299 NY 22 839733 329 ID 2 758990

300 HI 2 836456 330 T™ 23 758588

301 NH 2 835436 331 TE 7 757813

302 TX 21 832681 332 WA 7 756467

303 VA 8 832576 333 CA 40 755545

304 OR 4 832339 334 RI 2 754488

305 KY 5 832268 335 MS 4 754379

306 AZ 5 827547 336 OH 15 751744

307 PA 15 823373 337 WV 3 750677

308 NJ 10 817911 338 Mil 13 747499

309 CA 37 817667 339 IN 8 745209

310 lA 4 812999 340 AL 6 744811

311 MI 12 812735 341 CO 5 744280

312 OH 14 807576 342 FL 18 743656

313 MA 8 807462 343 MD 7 742644

314 MN 6 804289 344 CT 5 741526

315 NY 23 802374 345 IL. 16 740557

316 CA 38 795855 346 NJ 11 739642

317 MO 7 795136 347 CA 41 736884

318 TX 22 793909 348 NY 25 736817

319 IL 15 791747 349 VA y 733900

320 FL 17 788807 | 350 TX 24 726278

48 j 49

EXHIBIT E— Continued EXHIBIT E— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — 1)N]/{(N — 1 +N] DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — I)NJ/[(N — 1 + N]

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

351 KS 4 724967 381 IN ) 656888

352 PA 17 723374 382 NY 28 656381

353 UT 3 719902 383 VA 10 656193

354 CA 42 719122 384 LA 7 655914

355 MA 9 711763 385 CA 46 655887

356 OK 5 710461 386 TE 8 655800

357 NY % 707900 387 IL 18 655774

358 FL 19 703398 388 WA 8 654635

359 OH 16 703140 389 PA 19 645050

360 - NC 10 702750 390 MI 15 644130

361 CA 43 702197 391 TX 27 643995

362 TX 25 696609 392 MD 8 642673

363 IL 17 695589 393 SC 6 642346

364 MI 14 691970 394 OR 5 642090

365 AR 4 688986 395 CA 47 641778

366 MO \ 688099 396 MA 10 636400

367 GA 10 687000 397 NC 11 635501

368 CA 44 686050 398 FL 21 634688

369 PA 18 681969 399 NM 3 634075

370 NY 27 681167 400 NY 29 633335

371 MN 7 678945 401 AL 7 628737

372 KY 6 678144 402 CA 48 628264

373 NJ 12 675070 403 lA 5 627170

374 AZ 6 674297 404 OH 18 622641

375 CA 45 670630 405 GA 11 621258

376 TX %6 669269 406 NJ 13 620884

377 FL 0 667278 407 TX 28 620562

378 OH 17 660444 408 IL 19 620274

379 NB 3 660257 409 CA 49 615308

380 WI N 657153 410 PA 20 611926

50 5]

EXHIBIT E— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA — [2(N — 1I)NJ/[(N —- 1+ N]

EXHIBIT E— Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

DEAN FORMULA —[2(N — I)NJ/[((N—1+N]

SEQ ST SEAT E — SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

a rn et

pe an : “ 442 CA 53 568418

6064 443 LA 8 567618

414 FL 22 605135

ye ried : pera 444 GA 12 567021

445 MD 9 566504

416 CA 50 602875

446 MI 17 565900

417 MT 2 602741

| 447 IL 21 559683

418 M! 16 602484 |

| 448 TX 31 559488

419 TX 29 598774 te

449 KS 5 559260

420 VA 1! 593400

450 OH 20 558692

421 NY 31 591782 c 54 $5779?

422 CA $1 590934 = : .

22 452 NY 33 555347

423 OH 19 588934

453 PA 22 554938

424 IL 20 588422 : ‘

454 FL 24 553585

425 MN 8 587549

455 CA 55 547555

426 IN 10 587335 | 456 AL 8 544099

427 PA 21 582039 | 457 MO 10 542324

428 MS 5 581950 458 SC 7 542240

429 NC 12 580021 459 TX 32 541718

430 CA 52 579458 460 VA 1? 541595

431 WI 9 579269 461 _NY 34 538762

432 OK 6 578894 462 CA 56 537688

433 TX 30 578465 463 NJ 15 535025

434 FL 23 578213 464 IL 22 533623

435 TE 9 578076 465 MI 18 533509

436 WA 9 577049 466 NC 13 533464

437 MA Il 575500 467 AR 5 531504

438 NJ l4 574761 468 OH 21 531405

439 NY 32 572986 469 IN 11 531131

52 53

EXHIBIT E—Continued EXHIBIT F

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEO ST SEAT PRIORITY

471 PA 23 530249 51 CA 2 29839250

472 CA 57 528170 52 NY 2 18044505

473 WV 4 525474 53 TX 2 17059805

474 MA 12 525258 $4 CA 3 14919625

475 TX 33 525041 55 FL 2 13003362

476 SD 2 524999 56 PA 2 11924710

477 OR 6 523184 57 IL 2 11466682

478 NY 35 523139 58 OH 2 10887325

479 GA 13 521508 59 CA 4 9946417

480 CA 58 518983 60 MI 2 9328784

481 WI 10 517934 61 NY 3 9022252

482 MN 9 517913 62 TX 3 8529902

483 TE 10 516868 63 NJ 2 7748634

484 WA 10 515949 64 CA 5 7459812

485 ME 3 $13843 65 NC 2 6657630

486 CO 7 511939 66 GA 2 6508419

487 1A 6 511028 67 FL 3 6501681

488 FL 26 519132 68 VA 2 6216568

489 CA 59 $10110 69 MA 2 6029051

490 CT 7 510044 10 NY 4 6014835

491 IL 23 509882 71 CA 6 §967850

492 TX 34 509361 72 PA 3 §962355

493 NY 36 508397 3 IL 3 5733341

494 PA 24 507664 74 TX 4 5686602

495 OH 22 506661 75 IN 2 §$64228

496 MD 10 506521 6 OH 3 5443662

497 MI 19 504627 77 MO 2 5137804

498 UT 4 503931 78 CA 7 4973208

499 NV 3 502563 79 wl 2 4906745

500 CA 60 501535 80 TE 2 4896641

54 55

EXHIBIT F — Continued EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1) ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

81 WA 2 4887941 111 NY 7 3007418

82 MD 2 4798622 112 CA 11 2983925

83 MI 3 4664392 113 PA 5 2981178

84 NY 5 4511126 114 IL 5 2866670

85 MN 2 4387029 115 OR 2 2853733

86 FL 4 4334454 116 TX 7 2843301

87 TX 5 4264951 117 1A 2 2787424

88 CA 8 4262750 118 IN 3 2782114

89 LA 2 4238216 119 OH 5 2721831

90) AL 2 4062608 120 CA 12 2712659

91 PA 4 3974903 121 FL 6 2600672

92 NJ 3 3874317 122 MS 2 2586443

93 IL 4 3822227 123 NJ 4 2582878

94 CA 9 3729906 124 NY 8 2577786

95 KY 2 3698969 125 MO 3 2568902

96 AZ 2 3677985 126 CA 13 2486604

97 OH 4 3629108 127 KS 2 2485600

98 NY 6 3608901 128 Wi 3 2453372

99 SC 2 3503707 129 TE 3 2448320

100 TX 6 3411961 130 WA 3 2443970

101 NC 3 3328815 131 TX 8 2437115

102 CA 10 3315472 132 MD 3 2399311

103 CO 2 3307912 133 PA 6 2384942

104 CT 2 3295669 134 AR 2 2362239

105 GA 3 3254210 135 Mi 5 2332196

106 FL 5 3250840 136 CA 14 2295327

107 OK 2 3157604 137 IL 6 2293336

108 MI 4 3109595 138 NY Y 2255563

109 VA 3 3108284 139 NC + 2219210

110 MA 3 3014526 140 MIN 3 2193514

56 57

EXHIBIT F — Continued EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1) ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

141 OH 6 2177465 171 NC 5 1664408

142 GA 4 2169473 172 CA 19 1657736

143 FL 7 2167227 173 CO 3 1653956

144 TX ) 2132476 174 CT 3 1647834

145 CA 15 2131375 175 NY 12 1640410

146 LA 3 2119108 176 IL 8 1638097

147 VA 4 2072189 177 WI 4 1635582

148 AL 3 2031304 178 TE 4 1632214

149 MA 4 2009684 179 WA 4 1629314

150 NY 10 2004945 180 GA 5 1627105

151 CA 16 1989283 181 FL 9 1625420

152 PA 7 1987452 182 MD 4 1599541

153 NJ 5 1937158 183 NB 2 1584617

154 IL 7 1911114 184 OK 3 1578802

155 TX 10 1895534 185 CA 20 1570487

156 MI 6 1865757 186 OH S 1555332

157 CA 17 1864953 187 MI 7 1554797

158 FL ~ 1857623 188 VA 5 1554142

159 IN 4 1854743 189 TX 12 1550891

160 KY 3 1849484 190 NJ 6 1549727

161 AZ 3 1838992 191 NM 2 1521779

162 OH 7 1814554 192 MA 5 1507263

163 NY 11 1804450 193 NY 13 1503709

164 WV 2 1801625 194 CA 21 1491962

165 CA 18 1755250 195 PA Y 1490589

166 SC 3 1751854 196 MN 4 1462343

167 UT 2 1727764 197 FL. 10 1444818

168 MO 4 1712601 198 IL Y 1433335

169 TX 11 1705980 199 OR 3 1426866

170 PA 8 1703530 200 TX 13 1421650

58 59

EXHIBIT F — Continued EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1) ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

201 CA 22 1420917 231 OH 10 1209703

202 LA 4 1412739 232 NV 2 1206152

203 1A 3 1393712 233 MA 6 1205810

204 IN 5 1391057 234 NY 16 1202967

205 NY 14 1388039 235 MD 5 1199656

206 OH ) 1360916 236 CA 26 1193570

207 CA 23 1356330 237 PA 1! 1192471

208 Al 4 1354203 238 FL 12 1182124

209 MI 8 1332683 239 AR 3 1181120

210 NC 6 1331526 240 SC 4 1167902

211 PA 10 1324968 241 Ml ) 1166098

212 TX 14 1312293 242 CA 27 1147663

213 GA 6 1301684 243 mae 11 1146668

214 FL 1] 1300336 244 TX 16 1137320

215 CA 24 1297359 245 NY 17 1127782

216 MS 3 1293222 246 HI 2 1115274

217 NJ 7 1291439 247 NH 2 1113915

218 NY 15 1288893 248 IN 6 1112846

219 MO 5 1284451 249 NC 7 1109605

220 IL 10 1274076 250 NJ 8 1106948

221 VA 6 1243314 251 CA 28 1105157

222 CA 25 1243302 252 CO 4 1102637

223 KS 3 1242800 253 CT 4 1098556

224 ME 2 1233223 254 MN 5 1096757

225 KY 4 1232990 255 OH 11 1088732

226 WI 5 1226686 256 GA 7 1084736

227 AZ 4 1225995 257 PA 12 1084065

228 TE 5 1224160 258 Lh 13 1083614

229 WA 5 1221985 259 TX 17 1066238

230 TX 15 1218558 260 CA 29 1065688

EXHIBIT F — Continued

EXHIBIT F —Continued 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

ADAMS FORMULA —(N - I) SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY 291 CA 33 932477

261 NY 18 1061441 292 GA 8 929774

262 LA 5 1059554 293 IA 4 929141

263 OK 4 1052535 294 FL 15 928812

264 IL 12 1042426 295 IN 7 927371

265 MI 10 1036532 296 KY 5 924742

266 VA 7 1036095 297 AZ 5 919496

267 CA 30 1028940 298 PA 14 917285

268 MO 6 1027561 299 OH 13 907277

269 AL 5 1015652 300 CA 34 904220

270 ID 2 1011986 301 NY 21 902225

271 RI 2 1005984 302 WV 3 900812

272 MA 7 1004842 303 TX 20 897884

273 TX 18 1003518 304 VA 8 888081

274 NY 19 1002472 305 IL 14 882052

275 FL 14 1000259 306 CA 35 877625

. & & a

278 OH 12 989757 os a : are

2 2 309 FL 16 866891

ve WI 6 981349 310 UT 3 863882

280 TE 6 979328 311 MS 4 862148

28] WA 6 977588 312 MA 8 861293

282 NJ 9 968579 rr - ho oeanne

283 CA 32 962556 sha sane * 930069

284 MD 6 959724 os aan : osanes

285 IL 13 955557 i rx pe ocsnen

286 OR 4 951244 317 CA 36 852550

287 NC 8 951090 318 PA 15 851765

288 NY 20 949711 oo a +> aeaan

289 TX 19 947767 ne “y . nana

290 MI 1] 932878

EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS EXHIBIT F — Continued

ADAMS FORMULA —(N ~ I) 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

321 OH 14 837487 SEO ST SEAT PRIORITY

322 NC 9 832204

351 CA 40 765109

323 CA 37 828868

; 352 FL 18 764904

324 KS 4 828533

; 353 IL 16 764445

325 CO 5 826978

354 NM 3 760890

326 CT 5 823917

355 MA 9 753631

327 NY 23 820205

356 NY 25 751854

328 IL 15 819049 .

357 CA 4] 745981

329 WI 7 817791 |

358 PA 17 745294

330 TE 7 816107

359 TX 24 741731

331 WA 7 814657 ;

360 KY 6 739794

332 GA 9 813552 ;

61 NC 10 739737

333 FL 17 812710 -

362 AZ 6 735597

334 AL 6 812522

363 MO 8 733972

335 TX 22 812372 one aane ; oanaee

336 CA 38 806466 363 CA 42 727787

337 MT 2 803655 366 OH 16 723422

338 MD 7 799770 367 GA 10 723158

339 PA 16 794981 368 FL 9 722409

340 IN s 794890 369 NY 26 721780

341 NB 3 792308 370 MI 14 717599

342 OK 5 789401 = IL 17 716668

343 AR 4 787413 372 OR S 713433

344 CA 39 785243 373 TX 25 710825

345 NY 24 784544 374 CA 43 710458

346 OH 15 177666 375 LA 7 706369

347 MI 13 777399 376 NJ 12 704421

348 VA 9 777071 377 PA 18 701454

349 TX 23 175446 378 WI s 700964

350 NJ 11 774863 379 SC 6 700741

380 SD 2 699999

64 65

EXHIBIT F — Continued EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

ADAMS FORMULA -—(N - 1) ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

381 TE 8 699520 411 MO 9 642226

382 WA 8 698277 412 ND 2 641364

383 IA 5 696856 413 OH 18 640431

384 IN 9 695528 414 IL 19 637038

385 NY 27 694019 415 CA 48 634878

386 CA 44 693936 416 TX 28 631845

387 VA 10 690730 417 OK 6 631521

388 MD 8 685517 418 PA 20 627616

389 FL 20 684387 419 MN 8 626718

390 TX 26 682392 420 NY 30 622224

391 OH 17 680458 421 MI 16 621919

392 CA 45 678165 422 VA 1] 621657

393 AL 7 677101 423 CA 49 621651

394 IL 18 674511 424 KS 5 621400

395 MA 10 669895 425 FL 22 619208

396 DE 2 668696 426 IN 10 618248

397 NY 28 668315 427 ME 3 616612

398 MI 15 666342 428 KY 7 616495

399 NC 11 665763 429 Wi 9 613343

400 CA 46 663094 430 AZ 7 612998

401 PA 19 662484 431 TE 9 612080

402 CO 6 661582 432 WA 9 610993

403 CT 6 659134 433. TX 29 609279

404 TX 27 656146 434 CA 50 608964

405 GA 1] 650842 435 LA 8 605459

406 FL 21 650168 436 NC 12 605239

407 CA 47 648679 437 OH 19 604851

408 MS 5 646611 438 IL 20 603510

409 NJ 13 645720 439 NV 3 603076

410 NY 29 644447 440 MA 1] 602905

66 67

EXHIBIT F — Continued EXHIBIT F — Continued

1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS 1991 PRIORITY ASSIGNMENTS

ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1) ADAMS FORMULA —(N - 1)

SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY SEQ ST SEAT PRIORITY

44] NY 31 601484 471 NH 3 556958

44? WV 4 600542 472 IN 1] 556423

443 MD 9 599828 473 NC 13 554802

444 CA $1 596785 ; 474 NJ 15 553474

445 PA 21 596236 475 CA 55 §52579

446 NJ 14 596049 476 AK 2 §51947

447 GA 12 591674 477 CO 7 551319

448 FL 23 591062 478 TX 32 550316

449 AR 5 590560 479 CT 7 $49278

450 TX 30 588269 480 MI 18 548752

451 CA 52 585083 431 MN 9 548379

452 SC 7 583951 : 482 MA 12 548096

453 MI 17 583049 483 NY 34 546803

454 NY 32 $82081 484 IL 22 §46032

455 AL & 580373 485 WI 10 545194

456 UT 4 575921 486 OH 21 544366

457 CA 53 573832 487 TE 10 544071

458 IL. >] 573334 488 WA i0 543105

459 OH 20 §73017 489 CA 56 $42532

460 MO 10 570867 490 GA 13 542368

461 OR 6 $70747 491 PA 23 §42032

462 TX 31 568660 49? BL 25 541807

463 PA 22 $67843 493 MD 10 §33180

464 FL >4 565364 494 TX 33 §33119

465 VA 12 $65143 495 CA 57 532844

466 VT 2 564964 496 NY 35 §30721

467 NY 33 563891 pond A . sare?

468 CA 54 563005 498 KY 8 528424

469 HI 3 557637 499 NB 4 528206

470 1A 6 §57485 500 OK 7 526267

OOOOSE

ZT89OTE

8Z78TOF

vpLOTT?

LLL672S

bZvSzs

OZTLEP

BEPC’

9Z7PS7S

69788S

9€796S

TS8%09

6€7S09

v8Prrto9s

OTS€O9

Z90TE6S

S8L96S

du /

31d03d

T+ rd

Tr z

T+ t

T+ z

t+ é

z+ 67

t- Oz

e- 8T

b- oc

€- 6T

t+ ZZ

S+ os

ZONWHD Sdiu

- GOHLEW SWVCY O66T -

B8ZTBTOb

€660T9

dau/

31d03d

GOHLIW

u+(T-u

)

u(T-u)z

:GOHLAW SWvdW CANV

0 v4

0 8

SONWHD Sd3¥

NW30 066T -

>GOHLIW NW3C UNV

666669

p9CTHS

SS9Cf08

ZTI99TS

6S¢SO09

S6P9T9

OOFTCS

969899

866719

099896

Crsi9s

LTOCLS

FOSeSS

T8078S

veces

y9ES9S

ZEBELS

dau /

T 35Wd

wrt woOrntane

31dO03d 3ONWHD Sd3u

-- GOHLSW TIIH 066T

{(t-u)u) Leds

SS9E08

SOTE*S

d3u/

31d03sd

[(t-u)u)Lyds

5 LIarHx3

T-

:GOHLIW TIIH JO

ZONWHD Sdiu

-- GOHLSW TIIH O066T

- 5 ‘HXZ ‘diW TIIH

T as

T CN

z LA

z an

8 b a8 |

L Am

S P|

T 3a

S zWv

LZ Xi

cc Vd

TZ HO

TT ON

be AN

ze TI

6T 14

Sb WoO

Sd3zu 3LVLS

6861

:GOHLSW TIIH JO NOSIUWdWOD

8 WM

Sd3u 3IVLS

6861

NOS I¥WdWoOo

e—

EXHIBIT H

— HILL METHOD— ~DEAN METHOD— —ADAMS METHOD—

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE

STATE ‘REP STATE REP STATE /REP

MT 803655 SD 699999 NC 605239

SD 699999 DE 668696 OH 604851

DE 668696 ND 641364 IL 603510

ND 641364 KS 621400 NV 603076

KS 621400 ME 616612 MA _ 602905

ME 616612 KY 616495 NY 601484

KY 616495 AZ 612998 WV 600542

AZ 612998 WA 610993 MD 599828

LA 605459 LA 605459 CA 596785

NV 603076 NV 603076 PA $96236

MA 602905 MA 602905 NJ 596049

WV 600542 WV 600542 GA 591674

MD 599828 MD 599828 FL 591062

NJ 596049 NJ 596049 AR 590560

GA $91674 GA 591674 TX 588269

AR 590560 AR 590560 SC 583951

SC $83951 SC 583951 = MI-_—s« 583049

MI 583049 «= MI-_—s 583049. AL. ~—s 80373

NY 582081 NY $8208! UT 575921

AL 580373. AL. ~—s 880373. += MO_—_—-$70867

UT 575921 UT $75921 OR 570867

CA $73832, CA_~—s 873832, «VA —s«S865143

IL $73334 IL $73334 VT 564964

OH 573017 OH $73017. HI s«857637

MO 570867 MO 570867. IA 557485

OR 570747 OR 570747. NH 556958

TX 568660 TX 568660 IN 556423

PA 567843 = PA —s 867843, AK ~—s«S51947

FL 65364 SiR ss 865304 CO sS51319

VA 565143 VA $65143 CT $49278

VT 564964 VT 564964 MN 548379

EXHIBIT H — Continued

~ HILL METHOD — ~DEAN METHOD— —ADAMS METHOD -

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE

STATE /REP STATE /REP STATE /REP

HI 557637 HI 557637 Wi 545194

1A 557485 lA 557485 TE 544071

NH 556958 NH 556958 WA = 543105

IN 556423 IN 556423 LA 529777

NC 554803 NC 554802 KY 528424

AK 551947 Ak 551947 NB 528206

CO 551319 CO 551319 OK 526267

CT 549278 CT 549278 AZ 525426

MN = 548379 MN = 548379 MS 517289

WI 545194 WI 545194 NM = 507260

>. 544071 TE 544071 ID 505993

WA = 543105 NB 528206 RI 502992

NB 528206 OK 526267 KS 497120

OK 526267 MS 517289 WY 455975

MS 517289 NM = 507260 ME 411074

NM = 507260 ID 505993 MT 401828

ID 505993 RI 502992 SD 350000

RI 502992 WY = 455975 DE 334348

WY 455975 MT 401828 ND 320682

1 3DWd - I “HXS “daW TIIH

LSS‘ +82 TLT’86Z2 OS9’LtE

-- GOHLGW SWVYCW -- -- GOHLAZW NW30C -- -- GQOHLIW TIIH --

JON

UuOT3eTAep PrepueWs = Ss

eDuetTzreA = ;S

pB°OLb‘THS = x 86°Tb6’69S = x 8L°079‘9LS = x

89° PLL‘69 = Ss 6S°861 ‘8h = s ZL°SL8°2S = s

Zz" vese’Sos’s98’b = :S O6*LeS’COT’EcE Z = :S 9S°C89‘T8‘S6L'Z = :S

-- GOHL3W SWvaY -- -- GOHL3W NV30 -- -- GOHL3W TIIH --

‘THI Weaw SZTS JTTISTA TenIsy bursn

(see = £€82L'7z0'6bZ) ZO (SEv = UOTIeTNdog “S'N) 99H’7LS = BZTS ZOTZISTA TeePl

aurevarraes Jo 3002 ezenbs = A

AATTITGQetszea = ;A

LO*b6b‘9L = A 85°S97' St = A 70°70 ES = ($A

CL°S6ZT‘EKE’TSBE’*S = 2A L9°8CS’vO9’67E°2 = 24 pI'OLT’9OSt’ECTS’°Z = 2A

-- GOHLAW SWYCW -- -- GOHLSIW NW3C -- -- GQOHLAW TIIH --

TUPSn Se SZTS Jotaastq Yeepl BUTSH

NOILVIAGO GUVGNWLS ONY ZONWIUWA

YT IYatHxa

T 3DWd - C °HXS “dd TIIH

uoT3senb ut a3e3s ayy O23

peuotjzizodde Apesite SeaTaRqueseaide- jo 2equNnU seyQ = Saawun>

AT 03 peuot ziodde

S2emM SATAeAUSeSSeIder STYR JT SAPY PTNOA UOT ASeNdb

UT @3eAS SQ SeaTQZeQUeSeidezr Jo AequmU eu = deuLXIN ‘+FTHIHM

d3JuaLXIN + SdazwaNno

= YOLYNIWONIG

G3GLXSN * SdTWaND * FZ

2ST AOQeUTMOUSP sUQ sRZeTNSTeS

02 poyujem ueeg ey Aq pesn eTnwi0z eyL :(3 “Uxga) TOHISW NVad

uoT3senb uT eReAs eYyA OF peuoTIiCdde

Apeeate SoATReRQUeSeIde2 jo 2tequmu ey = sazwund

3T 03 peuotziodde

dIeM SATARAQUeSeIder STYR JT eAPY PTNOA uCTAZSeNb

uT eQeAQsS ou SeATRe{UeSeIder Jo AequnU eR = dFULXIN

juemnbize euyy jo 3002

ezenbs ey suTMISeRZep OF pesn UoTRZOUNZ = {jueumb2e) Los

uoTRZeOTTATATNU sjZouep OF joquAs e = «* :3JNIHM

((Saazyund »« dTULXSN) ]LHYOS = YOLYNIWONAG

2ST aeqeuTEouSp euy eqQeTnoTeo

03 poujzew TITH eu Aq pesn etTnmz0z3 eyL :(a “Yxa) DOHLIAW TIIH

spoyujzeu ueeg pue suepy ‘TITH eu ‘seeTnmio;

sertyuR JO yore Aq paqQeRZoTp AOReUTMOUSepP eA = YOLYNIWONGCG

066T 203 neering snsueD eyA Aq

peuTmrejzep se ejeqs yore jo uot zeTndod = NOIIWINdOd GIVLS

"SATAeRQUeSeIder 4xeU

SUR SATSSDEI OF 93eRS SYR SUTMISRZep OF pesn oNTeA = ALINOINd +‘FUSHM

YOLYNIWONIG

= ALINOTad

NOILW1INdOd 3LVLS

:ST pasn eTnmz0z OTseq euL :WInndos OISva

ft ITaTHXa

@ ZJDWd - C *HXS ‘dsSV TIIH

99p‘7is = (Stv/C8L‘720‘ 62)

zo 6(Scr/uotjzetndog *S*n) = e2ZTS AdTAISTpP Teept = d

SATAeAQUeSeIdser Aed sjueN AT AsUOD Jo rJequmMu $,aQeQSs Yore = ‘x

(seqejas jo zequmu) os = uU

AARTTTqetzea Jo Roor ezenbs = s

AATTTqQetzea = -A iFHRSHM

Af = A

(I =u) / ela - ‘x) z= A

:@29M pesn eeTnmiIoj

PUL ‘*“Spoujew seryQA eUuQ JO YoRe I0J R002 ezeNbs sqrt pue AQTTtqetszea

JO SAINsesM & SUTMISAZSP Of SZTS ZOTAASTP Teept euyQ pesn I ‘ATTeTATUI

2SMOTTOJ se pe QeTNoTeo

@eIeM UOTZeETASeP pazepuejygs pue souPTIeEA ‘ueem uUOoTReTNdOd ey

= 0

uoT3zetTndod eye ys

fe) r x A LS

dzu/

a1d0ad aZINWHD Sd3zu Sdzau ALVLS

-- SWVOW ONW ‘NWa0 ‘TIIH JO SGOHLZW O66T -- 686T

:uotjzenbe BbutmoTTos ey Aq paeQeTnoTeS sien

Raodezx eu uo UMOYUS SedUerTeTJTp euL (5 *YxXE) pemrzojszed sem (ues|g

pue smepy) eeTnmz0zy OMA AeYAO eYQ JO Yyoee pue eTnmI0J TITTH euR

usemMjZeq UCSTIedUOCDS e ‘pejersueb sem eTNMIOJ yore ACJ ejZep sy souO

uoT3senb UT e3eR3S eA OF

peuoctjzazodde ApeerzrTe seat zejuessrzdselz jo zequmu eyQ = SdsuwunD :FYaHM

SdFwWaND = AOLYNIWONGC

2ST AOVeUTMOUEP etR SsQeTNOTed

O03 poyujzeuw smepy eyj Aq pesn eTnmi03 eyL :(3 *Yyxa) TOHIGN SWVAV

€¢ ZoWd - £ *HXZ ‘diW TIIE

'y cura - 'x ‘xem = JONWY

*SATReQUeSeAdeI A2ed squeN{TysuCS jo zEequNuU

UNUTXeM SYR URTIM 3QeAs syA JO SZTS ASTAASTP sy Worj @eaTAZeAQUesSerdel

aed equengtqsuo> jo Zzequru wmsTuT@ eyt YQTA 83eRS) = 6~8U3

JO SZTS ZOTAASTP eyQ BHutTyeq Aq pe Ve[MoTeds st B3ep eyRZ JO ebuez euL

eaTRZeQUeSeIdsezr red sjuenqTysucd jo Jequmu $,37e3S Yours = 'x

(sereys JO Aequmu) OS = U

uoTIeTAep pzrepueAs = FS

aouetzIeA = -S ‘:3YSHM

's / = Ss

(t- wu) / (x -'x) Ze 8

seeTnm103 HuTMoTTos euyQ Bursn uotjzetaAep pzepuejzs pue

SOURTILPA PSREMTASS SYR SReTNOTeS Of SenTea eseyQ pesn pue spoyzeu

SeryuR eYQ JO yore AcyJ uesm uOoTReTNdod eyQ peQetTNoTeo I ‘ATTeutd

LAWRENCE R. ERNST DECLARATION EXHIBITS

SSSrtrhausenwreSeeuavueavwnw=

vw tv tv

wwe =

ty tv tv

aw &

ecsesst

EXHIBIT B

THEORETICAL 1990 APPORTIONMENTS UNDER

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

lowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oho

DIFFERENT METHODS

EXACT Q ADAMHARM EQPR WEBS JEFFS HAM

7.097

0.964

6.425

4.126

§2.124

5.778

5.757

1.168

22.715

11.369

1.948

1.768

20.030

9.720

4.869

4.342

6.461

7.403

2.154

8.382

10.532

16.296

7.663

4.518

8.975

1.404

2.768

2.107

1.946

13.536

2.658

31.521

11.630

1.120

19.018

Sawe wz

wWONNwWNECUBRSRHYORYNWWSESENNE- NWA

Suwn—veaaned

_— —

—-

ua &

wee wewrnevnvwney CYVeoomemnnd &

— ww

- hw wa

CNN — hw eK BAN SO =

- WwW “aA

Nw tv

-_— ww

cme iam wwnsvivewe CUYUEBGDSCMOMNA Ds US

_— we

Cer iam wwnsyvivewe CYB DNA kU OS

7 7

l l

6 6

4 4

$4 $2

6 6

l l

23.023

1) odd

2 2

l 2

21 Ww

— ww

cCmeivewnNweenweivewe Ce Bn DBnNwvNnasorsk UO

— ww

certyame we nv ivewe Ce etEGOe— DMNA SUS

EXHIBIT B— Continued

THEORETICAL 19990 APPORTIONMENTS UNDER

DIFFERENT METHODS

EXACT Q ADAMHARM LOPR WEBS JEFFS HAM

36 Oklahoma 5.516 6 6 6 5 5 5

37 Oregon 4.985 5 5 5 5 5 5

38 Pennsylvania 20.830 WW 21 2) 28 2)-~= 21

39 Rhode Island 1.757 2 2 2 2 l 2

40 South Carolina 6.124 6 6 6 6 6 6

41 South Dakota 1.223 2 | | l l l

42 Tennessee 8.554 9 9 9 9 8 9

43 Texas 29.801 oo WwW WwW W FB Bl

44 Utah 3.018 3 3 3 3 3 3

45 Vermont 0.987 l | l l | l

46 Virginia 10.859 De 0 ee 2 ee 2 ee 2 ee |

47 Washington 8.538 9 i) 9 9 8 9

48 West Virginia 3.147 3 3 3 3 3 3

49 Wisconsin 8.571 9 9 9 9 i) 9

50 Wyoming 0.797 l I l l l l

EXACT Q =EXACT QUOTA (The integer and fraction of seats

due a State given its population)

ADAM = ADAMS (SMALLEST DIVISORS) METHOD — Never

used

HARM =DEAN (HARMONIC MEAN) METHOD -— Never

used

EOPR =EQUAL PROPORTIONS (HILL) METHOD — Used

1940-1990

WEBS = WEBSTER (MAJOR FRAC TIONS) METHOD — Used

1840, 1880-1910, 1930

JEFF = JEFFERSON (GREATEST DIVISORS) METHOD —

Used 1790-1830

HAM = HAMILTON/VINTON METHOD — Used 1850-1870

EXHIBIT C

POSSIBLE APPORTIONMENTS FOR MONTANA

UNDER VARIOUS METHODS

EXACT Q ADAM HARM EQPR WEBS JEFFS HAM

1960 1.644 2 2 2 2 l 2

1970 1.496 2 2 2 l l l

1980 1.515 2 2 2 2 l l

1990 1.404 2 2 l I l |

EXACT Q =EXACT QUOTA (The integer and fraction of seats

due a State given its population)

ADAM = ADAMS (SMALLEST DIVISORS) METHOD — Never

used

HARM =DEAN (HARMONIC MEAN) METHOD — Never

used

EFQOPR =EQUAL PROPORTIONS (HILL) METHOD — Used

1940-1990

WEBS = WEBSTER (MAJOR FRACTIONS) METHOD — Used

1840, 1880-1910, 1930

JEFF = JEFFERSON (GREATEST DIVISORS) METHOD —

Used 1790-1830

HAM = HAMIL TON/VINTON METHOD — Used 1850-1870

US GOVERNMENT PRitvtitaG OFFICE 1991 j12 324 470%

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.