Potential House Apportionment Following the 2010 Census Based on Census Bureau Population Projections1

Congressional research reportApr 26, 2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RS22124

April 26, 2005

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Potential House Apportionment Following the

2010 Census Based on Census Bureau

Population Projections1

Royce Crocker

Specialist in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Summary

The Census Bureau’s 2005 population projections for the year 2010 raise the

possibility of potentially significant changes in the allocation of Representatives among

the states. If the projections for the year 2010 presage the actual Census, 10 seats will

shift, affecting a total of 15 states. CRS experience with prior Census Bureau

population projections suggests, however, they are an imperfect predictor of actual

number of Representatives states will be granted after a census.

Although the Bureau of the Census estimates the population for each state annually,

state-level population projections are usually issued once each decade. On April 21,

2005, the Bureau released projected state populations for the year 2010. If the House of

Representatives were to be reapportioned based on these projected numbers, 10 seats

would shift among 15 states from the official apportionment following the 2000 Census.

Arizona, California, Georgia, Nevada and Utah would each gain one seat; Florida would

gain two seats; and Texas would gain three seats. The following states would lose one

seat: Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Pennsylvania; New York and

Ohio would lose two seats if these projections prove to be accurate.

Caveats

The official apportionment based on the 2010 Census will probably differ from the

trial apportionment based on the projections. This is because population projections are

of uncertain accuracy.

First, projections for large geographic units are more likely to be accurate than those

for smaller units. Thus, a projection of the total U.S. population is likely to be more

accurate than one for an individual state. Also, adding or subtracting a small number of

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

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2

people from a state’s population can make a difference in whether or not a seat is assigned

to that state.

Second, the assumptions that underlie the projections and that can have a significant

effect on the resulting apportionment estimates may prove to be erroneous. For example,

the 1983 population projection for California for 1990 was 27,525,600, compared to

29,839,250 in the actual 1990 census count — the 1983 projection suggested a four-seat

gain, but the 1990 numbers resulted in a seven-seat increase of Representatives for

California. Furthermore, the Census Bureau population projections for 2000 were

imperfect predictors of the actual reapportionment of the House of Representatives. Ten

states had different totals of Representatives after the census than had been expected

based on the population projections.2

Third, population projections are not directly comparable to Census figures. For

example, following the practice of the annual population estimates, projections are

computed for July 1 of the projection year, whereas the Census is taken on April 1 of each

year ending in zero. Thus, the date used for the projection is three months later than the

2000 Census.

Fourth, a further complicating factor in using projections to compute prospective

apportionments concerns the status of federal employees who are stationed abroad

(chiefly military personnel and their dependents, totaling 574,330 persons in 2000). In

2000, the Census Bureau included these people in the populations used to reapportion the

House.3 The projections used to calculate the prospective apportionment in this report are

not adjusted to account for federal employees stationed abroad.

Nevertheless, as imperfect as population projections are, they provide a rough basis

for estimating what representation in the House may be after the next reapportionment.

Tables

Table 1 sets out the state populations used to reapportion the House of

Representatives after the 2000 Census (the April 1, 2000, census apportionment

population), and the Census Bureau’s July 1, 2010 population projection. It also

illustrates the change from 2000 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat

allocation, and what it would be if the House were to be reapportioned based on these

population projections.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic

Origin: 1993 to 2020, Current Population Reports, P25-1111, (Washington: 1994). The

projections suggested that Arizona would have received seven seats instead of eight it actually

received. Other states would have changed as follows if the projections had been used to

apportion seats rather than the actual census results: California would have received 55 seats,

rather than 53; Colorado 6, rather than 7; Florida 24, rather than 25; Georgia 12, rather than 13;

Indiana 10, rather than 9; Massachusetts 9, rather than 10; Montana 2, rather than 1; North

Carolina 12, rather than 13; and Washington 10, rather than 9 seats.

See CRS Report RS20768, House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining, Losing, and on the

Margin. by David C. Huckabee, p. 3. This report describes how the equal proportions formula

allocates Representatives among the states.

CRS-3

Table 1. Possible Apportionment of Seats in the House of

Representatives Based on the 2000 Census and 2010 Census

Bureau Population Projections

2000 Census

2010 population projection

Expected change

from 2000

Apportionment No. of Projected

State

populationa Seats population

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

643,756

11,374,540

3,458,819

3,428,543

12,300,670

1,049,662

4,025,061

756,874

5,700,037

20,903,994

2,236,714

609,890

4,596,330

694,109

6,637,381

2,875,039

38,067,134

4,831,554

3,577,490

884,342

19,251,691

9,589,080

1,340,674

1,517,291

12,916,894

6,392,139

3,009,907

2,805,470

4,265,117

4,612,679

1,357,134

5,904,970

6,649,441

10,428,683

5,420,636

2,971,078

5,922,078

968,598

1,768,997

2,690,531

1,385,560

9,018,231

1,980,225

19,443,672

9,345,823

636,623

11,576,181

3,591,516

3,790,996

12,584,487

1,116,652

4,446,704

786,399

6,230,852

24,648,888

2,595,013

652,512

135,200

65,176

1,496,698

195,306

4,136,336

519,672

167,955

99,274

3,222,801

1,382,105

124,032

220,017

477,852

301,357

77,984

111,646

215,686

132,408

79,403

597,084

293,873

472,854

494,966

118,151

315,818

63,282

53,628

688,499

147,145

593,877

156,404

438,699

1,278,150

-7,133

201,641

132,697

362,453

283,817

66,990

421,643

29,525

530,815

3,744,894

358,299

42,622

3.03

10.36

29.11

7.29

12.19

12.05

4.93

12.65

20.11

16.84

10.19

16.96

3.84

4.95

2.66

4.14

5.33

2.96

6.21

11.25

4.62

4.75

10.05

4.14

5.63

6.99

3.13

34.39

11.88

7.05

8.58

2.31

15.84

-1.11

1.77

3.84

10.57

2.31

6.38

10.48

3.90

9.31

17.91

16.02

6.99

No. of Seat change

seats from 2000b

-1

-2

-1

CRS-4

2000 Census

2010 population projection

Expected change

from 2000

Apportionment No. of Projected

State

populationa Seats population

Total

Percent %

7,100,702

5,908,684

1,813,077

5,371,210

495,304

281,424,177

435

8,010,245

6,541,963

1,829,141

5,727,426

519,866

308,405,442

909,543

633,279

16,064

356,216

24,562

26,981,265

12.81

10.72

0.89

6.63

4.96

9.59

No. of Seat change

seats from 2000b

435

Notes: a. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Projections Branch, Population Division, Florida, California

and Texas to Dominate Future Population Growth, Census Bureau Reports, Census Bureau Press Release

CB05-52, April 21, 2005. (Seat allocations computed by CRS .)

b. Numbers following + and - signs represent net gain or loss in projected seats over 2000 levels.

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 would be used to allocate Representatives

based on 2010 projections. The law only provides for 435 seats in the House, but the

table illustrates not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment formula (ending at

435), but the states that would just miss getting additional representation.4

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

Bureau Population Projections for 2010

Priority

rank

State

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

Seat

2000

apportionment

population

Priority valuea

38,067,134

12,916,894

24,648,888

6,230,852

19,443,672

19,251,691

38,067,134

5,420,636

1,768,997

9,018,231

10,428,683

12,584,487

24,648,888

739,202.40

738,409.65

735,869.63

734,312.62

733,854.07

726,608.22

725,121.12

724,362.69

722,189.92

722,036.17

719,646.94

719,407.20

714,535.55

Population needed to

gain or lose seatb

-1,543,551

-510,451

-892,358

-212,841

-652,445

-460,464

-834,292

-113,249

-31,747

-159,960

-150,969

-178,044

-183,053

Please note that 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 “population needed to gain or lose a seat.”

CRS-5

Priority

rank

State

Seat

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

2000

apportionment

population

Priority valuea

4,612,679

711,751.64

38,067,134

711,566.24

9,589,080

710,789.33

Last seat assigned by law

4,596,330

709,229.12

19,443,672

707,159.50

11,576,181

701,909.06

6,649,441

700,912.28

19,251,691

700,177.22

6,637,381

699,641.05

38,067,134

698,508.84

12,916,894

698,465.63

5,922,078

697,923.27

8,010,245

697,202.23

5,904,970

695,907.08

24,648,888

694,403.72

9,345,823

692,757.94

3,790,996

692,137.88

6,541,963

689,583.11

Population needed to

gain or lose seatb

-16,348

-125,030

-21,048

+10,112

+99,804

+146,457

+93,702

+291,785

+105,762

+669,259

+227,905

+109,172

+156,104

+126,280

+581,631

+243,257

+102,158

+201,180

Notes: 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 Alabama’s 7th seat

is:

PVAL7 = 4,596,330 / [ 7(7 - 1 ) ]½

= 4,596,330 / [ 42 ]½

= 4,596,330 / 6.480741

= 709,229.12

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 Alabama, the population projection had

yielded 10,111 more persons, the state’s priority value would increase to 710,789.43 which would result

in a new sequence number of 435 because Georgia’s 14th seat would now occupy the 436th position in the

priority list.

Source: Computations by CRS using Census Bureau 2010 population estimates. See CRS Report

RL30711, The House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by David C. Huckabee, for an

explanation of the formula for allocating House seats.

Options for States Losing Seats

Apportionment counts transmitted by the Census Bureau to the President after a

decennial census (who then sends them to Congress) are considered final. Thus, most

states that will lose seats after the 2010 Census will 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

CRS-6

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.5

The 435 seat limit was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-27. Altering the size

of the House would require a 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). An

increase of the size of the House to 473 would have resulted in no states losing seats they

held from the 103rd to the 107th Congresses. Those states retaining seats through an

increase in the House size would not have been able to retain their pre-2000 Census

proportional share of House seats, because other states would also have their delegations

become larger. At a House size of 473, California’s delegation size, for example, would

have been 57 instead of 53 seats.6

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 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, The

House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by David C. Huckabee, CRS Report RL30711

(Washington: July 11, 1995).

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.