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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARS20768

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** January 9, 2001
- **Citation:** RS20768

## 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
1

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

2

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
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC

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
7
1
6
4
52
6
6
1
23
11
2
2
20
10
5
4
6
7
2
8
10
16
8
5
9
1
3
2
2
13
3
31
12

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
7
1
8
4
53
7
5
1
25
13
2
2
19
9
5
4
6
7
2
8
10
15
8
4
9
1
3
3
2
13
3
29
13

+2
1
+1
-1
+2
+2

-1
-1

-1
-1

+1

-2
+1

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
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
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
1
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
1
756,874
9 5,700,037
30 20,903,994
3 2,236,714
1
609,890
11 7,100,702
9 5,908,684
3 1,813,077
9 5,371,210
1
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

1
642,200
18
-1 630,730
5
-1 690,131
5
684,280
19
-2 646,371
2
524,160
6
668,669
1
754,844
9
632,143
32
+2 651,619
3
744,390
1
608,827
11
643,501
9
654,902
3
602,781
8
-1 670,459
1
493,782
435 Nat. mean: 645,632
Minimum: 493,782
House size: Const. minimum:e
50
Median: 642,850
House size: Const. maximum:e
9,380
Maximum: 902,195
a
U.S. Congress, House, Apportionment Population and State Representation, H. Doc. 102-18, 102nd Cong., 1st sess.,
(Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 3,4.
b
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.)
c
Ibid., Derived from Table 2.
d
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.
e
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

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

CA
TN
MA
NY
CO
PA
TX
MO
CA
MN
GA
IA
FL
OH
CA
NC

51
33,930,798
671,929.90
-1,325,368
9
5,700,037
671,755.50
-221,227
10
6,355,568
669,935.36
-230,072
29
19,004,973
666,943.75
-605,818
7
4,311,882
665,337.67
-127,372
19
12,300,670
665,144.05
-359,885
32
20,903,994
663,702.45
-567,519
9
5,606,260
660,703.78
-127,450
52
33,930,798
658,881.42
-679,651
8
4,925,670
658,220.10
-93,814
13
8,206,975
657,083.72
-142,386
5
2,931,923
655,597.81
-44,337
25
16,028,890
654,376.65
-212,933
18
11,374,540
650,239.14
-79,688
53
33,930,798
646,330.20
-33,940
13
8,067,673
645,930.64
-3,084
Last seat assigned by law
436
UT
4
2,236,714
645,683.70
+855
437
NY
30
19,004,973
644,328.90
+47,245
438
TX
33
20,903,994
643,275.93
+86,268
439
MI
16
9,955,829
642,645.62
+50,891
440
IN
10
6,090,782
642,024.48
+37,057
441
MT
2
905,316
640,155.07
+8,168
442
IL
20
12,439,042
638,109.37
+152,465
443
MS
5
2,852,927
637,933.77
+35,763
444
CA
54
33,930,798
634,248.18
+624,984
445
WI
9
5,371,210
633,002.89
+109,696
446
OK
6
3,458,819
631,490.94
+79,090
447
PA
20
12,300,670
631,011.04
+290,837
448
FL
26
16,028,890
628,704.74
+439,176
449
OR
6
3,428,543
625,963.33
+109,365
450
MD
9
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.
a
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.
b
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

4

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).

5

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.
6

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Strength in Numbers: Your Guide to Census
2000 Redistricting Data, (Washington: July, 2000), p. 4.
7

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.

8

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARS20768. Public record. Not legal advice.