# Joint Appendix Vol II — Department of Commerce v. Montana > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0216%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix Vol II - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 503 U.S. 442 ## 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 15 20 34 76 78 DIANNA M. HILL AFFIDAVIT EXHIBITS 2 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. 3 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. 4 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 5 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. 6 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 8 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 9 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. 10 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 12 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: P 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. 13 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. 14 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- 15 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. 16 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. a 17 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. 18 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). 19 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 i REPOUCSENTATIVES 20 *_ e+ * © © © © © © @© © © © © © © © © © @ & Me s OMG = SAAINIRLRREGQRIAZIZE ASaMeUNNAUEAaNAES alr oe 2) eee ee NM@w~)| TOO wNMn wf ee he the fer ne 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 -—_ a : + 4 * ri 22 ¢ 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 , 23 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 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 35 34 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 40 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 41 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 44 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 61 60 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 62 63 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 z T+ t e L ¢ T+ z t+ é z+ 67 t- Oz e- 8T TT b- oc €- 6T t+ ZZ S+ os ZONWHD Sdiu - GOHLEW SWVCY O66T - t- B8ZTBTOb €660T9 dau/ 31d03d u 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— 69 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 $49278 VT 564964 VT 564964 MN 548379 70 EXHIBIT H — Continued ~ HILL METHOD — ~DEAN METHOD— —ADAMS METHOD - PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE STATE /REP STATE /REP STATE /REP HI 557637 HI 557637 Wi 545194 1A 557485 lA 557485 TE 544071 NH 556958 NH 556958 WA = 543105 IN 556423 IN 556423 LA 529777 NC 554803 NC 554802 KY 528424 AK 551947 Ak 551947 NB 528206 CO 551319 CO 551319 OK 526267 CT 549278 CT 549278 AZ 525426 MN = 548379 MN = 548379 MS 517289 WI 545194 WI 545194 NM = 507260 >. 544071 TE 544071 ID 505993 WA = 543105 NB 528206 RI 502992 NB 528206 OK 526267 KS 497120 OK 526267 MS 517289 WY 455975 MS 517289 NM = 507260 ME 411074 NM = 507260 ID 505993 MT 401828 ID 505993 RI 502992 SD 350000 RI 502992 WY = 455975 DE 334348 WY 455975 MT 401828 ND 320682 1 3DWd - I “HXS “daW TIIH LSS‘ +82 TLT’86Z2 OS9’LtE -- GOHLGW SWVYCW -- -- GOHLAZW NW30C -- -- GQOHLIW TIIH -- JON UuOT3eTAep PrepueWs = Ss eDuetTzreA = ;S pB°OLb‘THS = x 86°Tb6’69S = x 8L°079‘9LS = x 89° PLL‘69 = Ss 6S°861 ‘8h = s ZL°SL8°2S = s Zz" vese’Sos’s98’b = :S O6*LeS’COT’EcE Z = :S 9S°C89‘T8‘S6L'Z = :S -- GOHL3W SWvaY -- -- GOHL3W NV30 -- -- GOHL3W TIIH -- ‘THI Weaw SZTS JTTISTA TenIsy bursn (see = £€82L'7z0'6bZ) ZO (SEv = UOTIeTNdog “S'N) 99H’7LS = BZTS ZOTZISTA TeePl aurevarraes Jo 3002 ezenbs = A AATTITGQetszea = ;A LO*b6b‘9L = A 85°S97' St = A 70°70 ES = ($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 IL 72 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 x = 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 tl 74 €¢ 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 75 LAWRENCE R. ERNST DECLARATION EXHIBITS SSSrtrhausenwreSeeuavueavwnw= vw tv tv wwe = ty tv tv aw & J 4 ~ oa ecsesst nm an 76 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 7 Sawe wz a wWONNwWNECUBRSRHYORYNWWSESENNE- NWA ty Suwn—veaaned = _— — —- ua & wee wewrnevnvwney CYVeoomemnnd & = — ww xm Ya - hw wa CNN — hw eK BAN SO = - WwW “aA tv 8 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 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 77 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 78 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% --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0216%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.