House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin1

Congressional research reportJan 9, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RS20768

January 9, 2001

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining,

Losing, and on the Margin1

Royce Crocker

Specialist in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Summary

On December 28, 2000, the Commerce Department released 2000 Census

population figures and the resulting reapportionment of seats in the House of

Representatives. The apportionment population of the 50 states in 2000 is 281,424,177,

a figure 13.4% greater than in 1990. Twelve seats will shift among 18 states in the 108th

Congress as a result of the reapportionment. (In the 103rd Congress, 19 seats shifted

among 21 states after the 1990 Census.) The next census data release will occur by

April 1, 2001, when the Census Bureau will provide states the small area data necessary

to re-draw congressional and state legislative districts in time for the 2002 election. This

report will not be updated.

Background

The Census Bureau’s release of the first figures from the 2000 Census will shift 12

seats among 18 states for the 108th Congress (beginning in January 2003). Connecticut,

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin will each lose

one seat, and New York and Pennsylvania will each lose two seats. California, Colorado,

Nevada, and North Carolina, will each gain one seat, and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and

Texas will each gain two seats.2

The reapportionment of House seats in 2000 is based on an apportionment

population that is different from the actual resident population of each state. For

apportionment purposes since 1970, (with the exception of 1980) the Census Bureau has

added to each state’s resident population the foreign-based military and other federal

employees and their dependents who are from the state but not residing therein at the time

This report originally was authored by David C. Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.

See Table 1 for each state’s data. These allocations are based on a 435 seat House of

Representatives. The 435-seat House was established in 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment

Act, (46 Stat. 21, 26-27) which ended the 19th century practice of increasing the House size after

every census but one. There have been no permanent increases in the House size for most of the

20th century.

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2

of the census. In 2000, these additional persons increased the census count for the 50

states by 574,330. If the foreign-based military and federal employees had not been

included in the counts, North Carolina would have not gained its 13th seat. Utah would

have gained an additional seat instead.

Tables

Table 1 sets out the apportionment population as of April 1, 1990, April 1, 2000 and

the resulting seat assignments of each of the 50 states. The table also illustrates the

change from 1990 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat allocation, and

what it will be at the beginning to the 108th Congress, and the average sized congressional

district for each state. For the 108th Congress, the national average size congressional

district will be 645,632, and districts will range in size from 493,782 (for Wyoming’s

single district) to a maximum of 902,195 (for Montana’s single district).

Table 1. Apportionment of Seats in the House of Representatives

Based on the 2000 Census

1990 Census

State Apportion-

ment pop.a

4,040,587

550,043

3,665,228

2,350,725

29,760,021

3,294,394

3,287,116

666,168

12,937,926

6,478,216

1,108,229

1,006,749

11,430,602

5,544,159

2,776,755

2,477,574

3,685,296

4,219,973

1,227,928

4,781,468

6,016,425

9,295,297

4,375,099

2,573,216

5,117,073

799,065

1,578,385

1,201,833

1,109,252

7,730,188

1,515,069

17,990,455

6,628,637

2000 Census

Apportion- Overseas Change from 1990

Seats

ment pop.b federalc

Total

Percent

4,461,130

628,933

5,140,683

2,679,733

33,930,798

4,311,882

3,409,535

785,068

16,028,890

8,206,975

1,216,642

1,297,274

12,439,042

6,090,782

2,931,923

2,693,824

4,049,431

4,480,271

1,277,731

5,307,886

6,355,568

9,955,829

4,925,670

2,852,927

5,606,260

905,316

1,715,369

2,002,032

1,238,415

8,424,354

1,823,821

19,004,973

8,067,673

14,030

2,001

10,051

6,333

59,150

10,621

3,970

1,468

46,512

20,522

5,105

3,321

19,749

10,297

5,599

5,406

7,662

11,295

2,808

11,400

6,471

17,385

6,191

8,269

11,049

3,121

4,106

3,775

2,629

10,004

4,775

28,516

18,360

420,543

78,890

1,475,455

329,008

4,170,777

1,017,488

122,419

118,900

3,090,964

1,728,759

108,413

290,525

1,008,440

546,623

155,168

216,250

364,135

260,298

49,803

526,418

339,143

660,532

550,571

279,711

489,187

106,251

136,984

800,199

129,163

694,166

308,752

1,014,518

1,439,036

10.41

14.34

40.26

14.00

14.01

30.89

3.72

17.85

23.89

26.69

9.78

28.86

8.82

9.86

5.59

8.73

9.88

6.17

4.06

11.01

5.64

7.11

12.58

10.87

9.56

13.30

8.68

66.58

11.64

8.98

20.38

5.64

21.71

Seat

2003

change average

Seats from 1990 CD pop.d

-1

-2

635,300

626,932

641,329

668,350

639,088

614,466

681,113

783,600

639,295

629,727

605,768

646,976

653,647

675,609

585,265

672,104

673,628

638,425

637,462

662,061

634,910

662,563

614,935

711,164

621,690

902,195

570,421

666,086

617,893

647,258

606,349

654,361

619,178

CRS-3

1990 Census

State Apportion-

ment pop.a

Total:

638,800

10,847,115

3,145,585

2,842,321

11,881,643

1,003,464

3,486,703

696,004

4,877,185

16,986,510

1,722,850

562,758

6,187,358

4,866,692

1,793,477

4,891,769

453,588

248,102,973

2000 Census

Apportion- Overseas Change from 1990

Seats

ment pop.b federalc

Total

Percent

643,756

19 11,374,540

6 3,458,819

5 3,428,543

21 12,300,670

2 1,049,662

6 4,025,061

756,874

9 5,700,037

30 20,903,994

3 2,236,714

609,890

11 7,100,702

9 5,908,684

3 1,813,077

9 5,371,210

495,304

435 281,424,177

1,556

4,956

21,400

527,425

8,165

313,234

7,144

586,222

19,616

419,027

1,343

46,198

13,049

538,358

2,030

60,870

10,754

822,852

52,174 3,917,484

3,545

513,864

1,063

47,132

22,187

913,344

14,563 1,041,992

4,733

19,600

7,535

479,441

1,522

41,716

574,330 33,321,204

Seat

2003

change average

Seats from 1990 CD pop.d

0.78

4.86

9.96

20.62

3.53

4.60

15.44

8.75

16.87

23.06

29.83

8.38

14.76

21.41

1.09

9.80

9.20

13.43

642,200

-1 630,730

-1 690,131

684,280

-2 646,371

524,160

668,669

754,844

632,143

+2 651,619

744,390

608,827

643,501

654,902

602,781

-1 670,459

493,782

435 Nat. mean: 645,632

Minimum: 493,782

House size: Const. minimum:e

Median: 642,850

House size: Const. maximum:e

9,380

Maximum: 902,195

U.S. Congress, House, Apportionment Population and State Representation, H. Doc. 102-18, 102nd Cong., 1st sess.,

(Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 3,4.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Shows Resident Population of 281,421,906;

Apportionment Counts Delivered to President, Press Release CB00-CN..64 (Washington, Dec. 28, 2000), Table

1. (Please note that resident population total does not include the foreign-based military and other federal

employees included in the apportionment population.)

Ibid., Derived from Table 2.

The average size congressional district for each state is calculated on the resident population for each state (which

is the apportionment population minus the overseas military (and other federal) employees.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the minimum size of the House (one Representative per state), and

a maximum (one for every 30,000 persons).

Priority Lists and Seat Assignments

The reapportionment process for the House relies on rounding principles, but the

actual procedure involves computing a “priority list” of seat assignments for the states.

The Constitution allocates the first 50 seats because each state must have at least one

Representative. A priority list assigns the remaining 385 seats for a total of 435. Table

2 displays the end of the “priority list” that will be used to allocate Representatives based

on the 2000 Census apportionment population. The law only provides for 435 seats in the

House, but the tables illustrate not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment

formula (ending at 435), but the states that would just miss getting additional

representation.3

The figures in Table 2 for the “population needed to gain or lose a seat” are misleading because

it is unlikely that one state’s population total would be adjusted without others changing as well.

Since the method of equal proportions used to allocate seats in the House uses all state

populations simultaneously, changes in several state populations may also result in changes to

the “populations needed to gain or lose a seat.”

CRS-4

Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000

Census Apportionment Population

Priority

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

State

Seat

2000 apportionment

population

Priority value

Pop. needed to

gain or lose seat

33,930,798

671,929.90

-1,325,368

5,700,037

671,755.50

-221,227

6,355,568

669,935.36

-230,072

19,004,973

666,943.75

-605,818

4,311,882

665,337.67

-127,372

12,300,670

665,144.05

-359,885

20,903,994

663,702.45

-567,519

5,606,260

660,703.78

-127,450

33,930,798

658,881.42

-679,651

4,925,670

658,220.10

-93,814

8,206,975

657,083.72

-142,386

2,931,923

655,597.81

-44,337

16,028,890

654,376.65

-212,933

11,374,540

650,239.14

-79,688

33,930,798

646,330.20

-33,940

8,067,673

645,930.64

-3,084

Last seat assigned by law

436

2,236,714

645,683.70

+855

437

19,004,973

644,328.90

+47,245

438

20,903,994

643,275.93

+86,268

439

9,955,829

642,645.62

+50,891

440

6,090,782

642,024.48

+37,057

441

905,316

640,155.07

+8,168

442

12,439,042

638,109.37

+152,465

443

2,852,927

637,933.77

+35,763

444

33,930,798

634,248.18

+624,984

445

5,371,210

633,002.89

+109,696

446

3,458,819

631,490.94

+79,090

447

12,300,670

631,011.04

+290,837

448

16,028,890

628,704.74

+439,176

449

3,428,543

625,963.33

+109,365

450

5,307,886

625,540.08

+173,020

Source: Computations of priority values and populations needed to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS Report

RL30711, The House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by Royce Crocker, for an explanation of

formula for allocating House seats.

Each state’s claim to representation in the House is based on a “priority value” determined by the following formula:

PV = P / [n( n - 1 )]½; where PV = the state’s priority value, P = the state’s population, and n = the state’s nth

seat in the House. For example, the priority value of Wisconsin’s 9th seat is:

PVWI9 =

5,371,210 / [ 9( 9 - 1 ) ]½

5,371,210 / [ 72 ]½

5,371,210 / 8.485281374238570

633,002.89

The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states’ priority values from highest to lowest until 435 seats

are allocated.

These figures represent the population a state would either need to lose in order to drop below the 435th seat cutoff,

or to gain to rise above the cutoff. If, in the case of Wisconsin, 109,696 more persons had been counted in the

Census, the state’s priority value would have been increased to 645,930.77 which would have resulted in a new

sequence number of 435 because North Carolina’s 13th seat would have occupied the 436th position in the

priority list.

Options for States Losing Seats

The apportionment counts transmitted by the Census Bureau to the President (who

then sends them to Congress) are considered final. Thus, most states which will lose seats

CRS-5

in the 108th Congress, have only one possible option for retaining them: urge Congress to

increase the size of the House. Any other option such as changing the formula used in the

computations, or changing the components of the apportionment population (such as

omitting the foreign-based military and federal civilian employees) will only affect a

small number of states if the House stays at 435 seats.4

As noted above, the 435-seat limit was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-27.

Altering the size of the House would require new law setting a different limit. Article 1,

Section 2 of the Constitution establishes a minimum House size (one Representative for

each state), and a maximum House size (one for every 30,000, or 9,380 based on the 2000

Census). In 2003, a House size of 473 would result in no states losing seats they held

from the 103rd to the 107th Congresses, but, by retaining seats through an increase in the

House size, other states would also have their delegations become larger. At a House size

of 473, California’s delegation size, for example, would be 57 instead of 53 seats.5

The Redistricting Process

The apportionment figures released on December 28, 2000 are made up of three

components: total resident population figures for the 50 states and the District of

Columbia, the foreign-based military and other federal employees allocated to each state

and DC, and sum of these numbers which become the apportionment population.

These numbers (minus DC) are all that is needed to reapportion the House, but the

states need figures for very small geographic areas in order to draw new legislative and

congressional districts. The Census Bureau must provide small-area population totals to

the legislature and governor of each state by one year after the census (e.g., April 1, 2001).

The Census Bureau data to be delivered by April 1, 2001, is often referred to as the

PL 94-171 program (89 Stat.1023). This program provides to each state information from

the questionnaires sent to 100% of the households in the nation. As such, the information

is very limited — including age, race and Hispanic origin. No other demographic

information that might be useful to redistrictors, such as income or employment status,

are available in the 94-171 data.

Census data are usually reported by political jurisdictions (states, cities, counties, and

towns), and within political jurisdictions by special census geography (such as census

designated places, tracts, block numbering areas, and blocks). The PL 94-171 program

allows states which participate in it (46 in 2000), to request census data by certain nontraditional census geography such as voting districts (precincts), and state legislative

After the 1990 Census Montana and Massachusetts challenged the apportionment formula, and

the inclusion of the foreign-based military and civilians in the apportionment population. The

Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the equal proportions formula and the inclusion

of the foreign-based military and civilians in the counts in two separate cases: U.S. Dept. of

Commerce v. Montana 112 S.Ct. 1415 (1992) and Franklin v. Massachusetts 112 S.Ct. 2767

(1992).

For a fuller discussion of this topic see CRS Report 95-791 GOV, House of Representatives:

Setting the Size at 435, by David C. Huckabee.

CRS-6

districts.6 These special political jurisdiction counts enable redistrictors to assess past

voting behavior when redrawing congressional and state legislative districts.

In most states, redrawing congressional districts is the responsibility of the state

legislature with the concurrence of the governor. In six states: Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, New Jersey, and Washington, a non-partisan, or bi-partisan commission is

responsible for drawing the plans.7 Some states have explicit deadlines in law to

complete their congressional districting. Most do not, so the effective deadline for the

legislatures or commissions to complete their work will be whatever filing deadlines are

established in the states for primaries for the 2002 elections.

Although many states have standards mandating equal populations, compactness,

contiguousness, and other goals to not split counties, towns, and cities, federal law

controls the redistricting process. Other than a requirement that multi-member states

cannot elect Representatives at-large (2 U.S.C. 2c), no federal statutory law establishes

explicit standards for redistricting. The principle laws that apply are the Supreme Court

decisions mandating one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act.

The fundamental federal rule governing redistricting congressional districts, one

person, one vote, was promulgated by the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders (376

U.S. 7, 1964). The Court has refined that ruling in a series of cases culminating in

Karcher v. Daggett (462 U.S. 725, 1983) that one person, one vote means that any

population deviation among districts in a state must be justified, but the deviations from

absolute equality may be permitted if the states strive to make districts more compact,

respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, or avoid contests

between incumbents.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) applies nationwide. It prohibits states or

localities from imposing a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,

practice or procedure ... in a manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right

to vote on account of race or color.” Section 5 of the act applies only to certain

jurisdictions which must have their redistricting plans pre-cleared by a court or the Justice

Department before they become effective.8 The Supreme Court interpreted the VRA’s

application to redistricting in a series of cases responding, in part, to the extraordinarily

complicated districts created by many states in the 1990s to maximize minority

representation (beginning with Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 1993). The court ended the

decade by establishing new principles concerning such practices: (1) race may be

considered in districting to remedy past discrimination; (2) but, states must have a

compelling state interest to ignore traditional redistricting principles and “gerrymander”

to establish majority-minority districts; (3) courts will apply “strict scrutiny” to such

assertions that racial “gerrymanders” are necessary to determine whether such plans are

narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Strength in Numbers: Your Guide to Census

2000 Redistricting Data, (Washington: July, 2000), p. 4.

National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2000, (Washington: February,

1999), pp. 143-145. Arizona adopted a redistricting commission initiative in 2000 by 56% of the

vote.

Section 2: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(a) (1996); Section 5: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(c).

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.