District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Congressional research reportMar 31, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on
House Apportionment
name redacted
Specialist in American National Government
March 31, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RS22579
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Summary
Two proposals (H.R. 157/S. 160, District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009) were
introduced in the 111th Congress to provide for voting representation in the U.S. House of
Representatives for the residents of the District of Columbia (DC). H.R. 157/S. 160, for purposes
of voting representation, treated the District of Columbia as if it were a state, giving a House seat
to the District, but restricting it to a single seat under any future apportionments. The bills also
increased the size of the House to 437 members from 435, and gave the additional seat to the state
that would have received the 436th seat under the 2000 apportionment, Utah.
This report shows the distribution of House seats based on the 2010 Census for 435 seats and for
437 seats as specified in the proposal. North Carolina, which would receive the 436th seat in the
2010 apportionment is substituted for Utah, assuming that any new, similar legislation would
adopt the same language as H.R. 157.
Congressional Research Service
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Adding New States and Seats to the House..................................................................................1
Congressional Precedent .......................................................................................................1
Apportionment Impact ................................................................................................................2
Apportionment of the House of Representatives ....................................................................2
Winners and Losers...............................................................................................................7
Tables
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for D.C. Voting Representation in the
House of Representatives .........................................................................................................4
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia .........................................................7
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia .........................................................9
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Background
H.R. 157/S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 introduced in the
111th Congress, provided for a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. House of
Representatives, from 435 seats to 437 seats.1 The bills specified that one of the additional seats
was to be allocated to the District of Columbia while the other seat was to be assigned either by
using the normal apportionment formula allocation procedure (H.R. 157) or specifying that the
seat would be allocated to Utah, the state which would have received the 436th seat under the
2000 apportionment process. Thus, this would add a fourth seat to Utah’s three (S. 160). While
both versions treated the District of Columbia as if it were a state for the purposes of the
allocation of House seats, each bill restricted the District of Columbia to a single congressional
seat under any future apportionments.
Similar bills had been introduced in the 110th Congress. On April 19, 2007, the House approved
H.R. 1905 (a revised version of H.R. 1433) by a vote of 241 to 177 (Roll Call vote 231) and sent
it to the Senate for consideration. On June 28, 2007, S. 1257 was reported out of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with amendments. On September
18, 2007, cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the measure was not invoked in the
Senate on a Yea-Nay vote, 57 - 42, leaving the measure pending. No further action occurred on
the legislation.
Adding New States and Seats to the House
The 435 seat limit for the size of the House was imposed in 1929 by statute (46 Stat. 21, 26-27).
Altering the size of the House would require a new law setting a different limit. Article I, §2 of
the Constitution establishes a minimum House size (one Representative for each state), and a
maximum House size (one for every 30,000 persons, or 10,306 representatives based on the 2010
Census). For the 2010 apportionment, a House size of 468 would have resulted in no state losing
seats held from the 112th to the 116th Congresses. However, by retaining seats through such an
increase in the House size, other state delegations would become larger. At a House size of 468,
California’s delegation size, for example, would be 56 instead of 53 seats, Texas’s delegation size
would be 38 instead of 36 seats, and Florida’s delegation size would be 29 instead of 27 seats.
Congressional Precedent
General congressional practice when admitting new states to the Union has been to increase the
size of the House, either permanently or temporarily, to accommodate the new states. New states
usually resulted in additions to the size of the House in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The
exceptions to this general rule occurred when states were formed from other states (Maine,
Kentucky, and West Virginia). These states’ Representatives came from the allocations of
Representatives of the states from which the new ones had been formed.
1
See CRS Report RL33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative
Proposals, by (name redacted) for a complete discussion.
Congressional Research Service
1
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959 and 1960 the House size was temporarily
increased to 437. This modern precedent differed from the state admission acts passed following
the censuses in the 19th and early 20th centuries which provided that new state representatives
would be added to the apportionment totals.
The apportionment act of 1911 anticipated the admission of Arizona and New Mexico by
providing for an increase in the House size from 433 to 435 if the states were admitted.
As noted above, the House size was temporarily increased to 437 to accommodate Alaska and
Hawaii in 1960. In 1961, when the President reported the 1960 census results and the resulting
reapportionment of seats in the reestablished 435-seat House, Alaska was entitled to one seat, and
Hawaii to two seats. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Missouri each received one less seat than
they would have if the House size had been increased to 438 (as was proposed by H.R. 10264, in
1962).
Apportionment Impact
Apportionment of the House of Representatives
Table 1, below displays the apportionment of the seats in the House of Representatives based on
the 2000 Census apportionment population (the current House apportionment) and the
apportionment of seats in the House based on the 2010 Census apportionment population (the
distribution of seats among the states for the 113th Congress). In addition, Table 1 also shows the
impact on the distribution of seats in the House if the District of Columbia were to be treated as if
it were a state for apportionment purposes for both a House size of 435 seats and a House size of
437 seats.
First, due to population changes between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, Table 1 shows a
shift of 12 seats among 18 states for the 113th Congress (beginning in January 2013). Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will each
lose one seat; New York and Ohio will each lose two seats. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South
Carolina, Utah, and Washington will each gain one seat; Florida will gain two seats; and Texas
will gain four seats. These are the actual seats to be allocated based on the results of the 2010
Census.2
Second, if the District of Columbia were to be given a vote in the House of Representatives and
treated as if it were a state in the reapportionment of congressional seats following the 2010
census, and the House size remained at 435, Minnesota would lose a seat relative to what it is
scheduled to get as a result of the 2010 Census. Thus, Minnesota’s delegation would fall to seven
Representatives if the District of Columbia were to given a vote and the House size remained at
435 Representatives.
Third, if, on the other hand, the District of Columbia were to be given a vote in the House of
Representatives and treated as if it were a state and the House size were to be increased to 437,
the District of Columbia would receive one Representative and North Carolina would be entitled
2
CRS Report R41584, House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
to fourteen Representatives, one more than the state is scheduled to receive in the apportionment
following the 2010 census. Also, Minnesota would retain its eighth seat and no other state would
be affected by the change. 3
3
This assumes that the House version of the bill proposed in the 111th Congress is passed rather than the Senate
version, as it would not specify the name of the state that would benefit from such an increase in seats.
Congressional Research Service
3
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for D.C.Voting Representation in the House of Representatives
2010 Census Apportionment Population
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
DC vs.
No DC
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
4,802,982
7
0
4,802,982
7
0
0
721,523
1
0
721,523
1
0
9
1
6,412,700
9
0
6,412,700
9
0
2,926,229
4
0
2,926,229
4
0
2,926,229
4
0
53
37,341,989
53
0
37,341,989
53
0
37,341,989
53
0
4,311,882
7
5,044,930
7
0
5,044,930
7
0
5,044,930
7
0
CN
3,409,535
5
3,581,628
5
0
3,581,628
5
0
3,581,628
5
0
DE
785,068
1
900,877
1
0
900,877
1
0
900,877
1
0
604,598
1
1
604,598
1
0
State
2000
Apportionment
Population
(Current
House)a
20032012
House
Seats
AL
4,461,130
7
AK
628,933
AZ
2013
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
2002 vs.
2012
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
4,802,982
7
0
1
721,523
1
5,140,683
8
6,412,700
AR
2,679,733
4
CA
33,930,798
CO
2010
Apportionment
Population (2013
Congress)b
DC
House
Seats
Seat Gains
& Losses:
435 vs. 437
FL
16,028,890
25
18,900,773
27
2
18,900,773
27
0
18,900,773
27
0
GA
8,206,975
13
9,727,566
14
1
9,727,566
14
0
9,727,566
14
0
HI
1,216,642
2
1,366,862
2
0
1,366,862
2
0
1,366,862
2
0
ID
1,297,274
2
1,573,499
2
0
1,573,499
2
0
1,573,499
2
0
IL
12,439,042
19
12,864,380
18
-1
12,864,380
18
0
12,864,380
18
0
IN
6,090,782
9
6,501,582
9
0
6,501,582
9
0
6,501,582
9
0
IA
2,931,923
5
3,053,787
4
-1
3,053,787
4
0
3,053,787
4
0
KS
2,693,824
4
2,863,813
4
0
2,863,813
4
0
2,863,813
4
0
KY
4,049,431
6
4,350,606
6
0
4,350,606
6
0
4,350,606
6
0
LA
4,480,271
7
4,553,962
6
-1
4,553,962
6
0
4,553,962
6
0
ME
1,277,731
2
1,333,074
2
0
1,333,074
2
0
1,333,074
2
0
MD
5,307,886
8
5,789,929
8
0
5,789,929
8
0
5,789,929
8
0
MA
6,355,568
10
6,559,644
9
-1
6,559,644
9
0
6,559,644
9
0
CRS-4
State
2000
Apportionment
Population
(Current
House)a
20032012
House
Seats
MI
9,955,829
15
MN
4,925,670
MS
2013
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
2002 vs.
2012
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
9,911,626
14
-1
8
5,314,879
8
2,852,927
4
2,978,240
MO
5,606,260
9
MT
905,316
NB
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
DC vs.
No DC
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
9,911,626
14
0
9,911,626
14
0
0
5,314,879
7
-1
5,314,879
8
1
4
0
2,978,240
4
0
2,978,240
4
0
6,011,478
8
-1
6,011,478
8
0
6,011,478
8
0
1
994,416
1
0
994,416
1
0
994,416
1
0
1,715,369
3
1,831,825
3
0
1,831,825
3
0
1,831,825
3
0
NV
2,002,032
3
2,709,432
4
1
2,709,432
4
0
2,709,432
4
0
NH
1,238,415
2
1,321,445
2
0
1,321,445
2
0
1,321,445
2
0
NJ
8,424,354
13
8,807,501
12
-1
8,807,501
12
0
8,807,501
12
0
NM
1,823,821
3
2,067,273
3
0
2,067,273
3
0
2,067,273
3
0
NY
19,004,973
29
19,421,055
27
-2
19,421,055
27
0
19,421,055
27
0
NC
8,067,673
13
9,565,781
13
0
9,565,781
13
0
9,565,781
14
1
ND
643,756
1
675,905
1
0
675,905
1
0
675,905
1
0
OH
11,374,540
18
11,568,495
16
-2
11,568,495
16
0
11,568,495
16
0
OK
3,458,819
5
3,764,882
5
0
3,764,882
5
0
3,764,882
5
0
OR
3,428,543
5
3,848,606
5
0
3,848,606
5
0
3,848,606
5
0
PA
12,300,670
19
12,734,905
18
-1
12,734,905
18
0
12,734,905
18
0
RI
1,049,662
2
1,055,247
2
0
1,055,247
2
0
1,055,247
2
0
SC
4,025,061
6
4,645,975
7
1
4,645,975
7
0
4,645,975
7
0
SD
756,874
1
819,761
1
0
819,761
1
0
819,761
1
0
TN
5,700,037
9
6,375,431
9
0
6,375,431
9
0
6,375,431
9
0
TX
20,903,994
32
25,268,418
36
4
25,268,418
36
0
25,268,418
36
0
UT
2,236,714
3
2,770,765
4
1
2,770,765
4
0
2,770,765
4
0
VT
609,890
1
630,337
1
0
630,337
1
0
630,337
1
0
CRS-5
2010
Apportionment
Population (2013
Congress)b
House
Seats
Seat Gains
& Losses:
435 vs. 437
State
2000
Apportionment
Population
(Current
House)a
20032012
House
Seats
VA
7,100,702
11
WA
5,908,684
WV
2013
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
2002 vs.
2012
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
8,037,736
11
0
9
6,753,369
10
1,813,077
3
1,859,815
WI
5,371,210
8
WY
495,304
TOTALS
281,424,177
Average
Pop. Per
Seat
646,952
House
Seats
Seat
Gains &
Losses:
DC vs.
No DC
2010
Apportionment
Population
Including D.C.b
8,037,736
11
0
8,037,736
11
0
1
6,753,369
10
0
6,753,369
10
0
3
0
1,859,815
3
0
1,859,815
3
0
5,698,230
8
0
5,698,230
8
0
5,698,230
8
0
1
568,300
1
0
568,300
1
0
568,300
1
0
435
309,183,463
435
309,788,061
435
309,788,061
437
2010
Apportionment
Population (2013
Congress)b
710,767
712,156
House
Seats
Seat Gains
& Losses:
435 vs. 437
708,897
Source: All apportionment calculations by CRS using the “method of equal proportions” formula mandated by 2 U.S.C. §2a.(a).
Notes: The apportionment population is different from the actual resident population of each state because the Census Bureau adds 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 of the census. Source for
apportionment populations:
a.
http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2000_apportionment_results.html.
b.
The apportionment figures for all the states are provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Apportionment population for the District of Columbia were constructed by
adding the District of Columbia’For apportionment figures and overseas population, see http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data//
2010_apportionment_results.html. For the 2010 District of Columbia resident population, see http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php.
CRS-6
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Winners and Losers
Another way to see the impact is to examine the allocation of the last seats assigned to the states
when the District of Columbia is allocated a seat (presumably the 51st seat). The actual
apportionment is done through a “priority list” calculated using the equal proportions formula
provided in 2 U.S.C. §2a.(a).4 Table 2, below, displays the end of the priority list that was used to
allocate Representatives based on the 2010 Census, including the District of Columbia. 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. 5
Table 3 is similar to Table 2, in that it displays the end of the priority list, but the last seat is 437
instead of 435. The priority values and the population needed to gain or lose a seat do not change
if DC is treated like state, as DC is entitled the constitutional minimum of one Representative.
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia
435 House Seats
State
2010
Population
Priority Valuea
Pop. Needed to
Gain or Lose
Seatb
420
Rhode Island
1,055,247
746,172.310
-50,829
26
421
Florida
18,900,773
741,349.310
-793,375
7
422
Alabama
4,802,982
741,116.212
-200,162
51
423
California
37,341,989
739,481.573
-1,477,103
18
424
Illinois
12,864,380
735,407.656
-440,419
14
425
Michigan
9,911,626
734,698.600
-330,092
27
426
New York
19,421,055
733,000.485
-603,295
35
427
Texas
25,268,418
732,494.844
-768,036
18
428
Pennsylvania
12,734,905
728,006.063
-310,944
52
429
California
37,341,989
725,121.341
-766,838
14
430
Georgia
9,727,566
721,055.165
-146,032
7
431
South Carolina
4,645,975
716,889.506
-43,155
27
432
Florida
18,900,773
713,363.707
-83,013
10
433
Washington
6,753,369
711,867.597
-15,530
36
434
Texas
25,268,418
711,857.033
-57,733
Seat
Last Seat
Allocated
2
4
For a relatively thorough review of the apportionment formula, see CRS Report R41357, The U.S. House of
Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by (name redacted)
5
The values in Table 2 and Table 3 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.”
Congressional Research Service
7
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Seat
Last Seat
Allocated
53
435
State
2010
Population
Priority Valuea
Pop. Needed to
Gain or Lose
Seatb
California
37,341,989
711,308.241
-56,575
Last seat assigned if the House size were set to 435
8
436
Minnesota
5,314,879
710,230.581
8,064
14
437
North Carolina
9,565,781
709,062.863
30,292
9
438
Missouri
6,011,478
708,459.476
24,173
28
439
New York
19,421,055
706,336.941
136,688
13
440
New Jersey
8,807,501
705,164.437
76,736
2
441
Montana
994,416
703,158.297
11,526
7
442
Louisiana
4,553,962
702,691.592
55,842
6
443
Oregon
3,848,606
702,656.107
47,390
17
444
Ohio
11,568,495
701,443.041
162,701
12
445
Virginia
8,037,736
699,595.121
134,573
54
446
California
37,341,989
698,011.587
711,340
19
447
Illinois
12,864,380
695,626.002
290,015
37
448
Texas
25,268,418
692,350.388
691,897
10
449
Massachusetts
6,559,644
691,447.189
188,418
19
450
Pennsylvania
12,734,905
688,624.796
419,490
Source: Computations of priority values and populations needed to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS Report
R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by (name redacted).
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 Minnesota’s 8th seat is:
PVMO9
= 5,314,879 / [ 8( 8 - 1 ) ]
1/2
= 5,314,879 / [ 56 ]
½1/2
= 5,314,879 / 7.483314774
= 710,230.581
The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states’ priority values from highest to lowest until
435 seats/437 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 Minnesota, 8,064 more persons had been
counted in the state in 2010 (all other states being the same), the state’s priority value would have been
increased to 711,308.178, which would have resulted in a new sequence number of 435 because California’s
53rd seat would have occupied the 436th position in the priority list.
Congressional Research Service
8
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia
437 House Seats
State
2010
Population
Priority Valuea
Pop. Needed to
Gain or Lose
Seatb
420
Rhode Island
1,055,247
746,172.310
-53,334
26
421
Florida
18,900,773
741,349.310
-838,530
7
422
Alabama
4,802,982
741,116.212
-211,640
51
423
California
37,341,989
739,481.573
-1,566,539
18
424
Illinois
12,864,380
735,407.656
-471,401
14
425
Michigan
9,911,626
734,698.600
-353,985
27
426
New York
19,421,055
733,000.485
-650,221
35
427
Texas
25,268,418
732,494.844
-829,133
18
428
Pennsylvania
12,734,905
728,006.063
-341,926
52
429
California
37,341,989
725,121.341
-858,046
14
430
Georgia
9,727,566
721,055.165
-169,925
7
431
South Carolina
4,645,975
716,889.506
-54,633
27
432
Florida
18,900,773
713,363.707
-129,939
10
433
Washington
6,753,369
711,867.597
-32,332
36
434
Texas
25,268,418
711,857.033
-120,601
53
435
California
37,341,989
711,308.241
-149,553
8
436
Minnesota
5,314,879
710,230.581
-13,254
14
437
North Carolina
9,565,781
709,062.863
-8,140
Seat
Last Seat
Allocated
2
Last seat assigned if the House size were set to 437
9
438
Missouri
6,011,478
708,459.476
5,120
28
439
New York
19,421,055
706,336.941
74,950
13
440
New Jersey
8,807,501
705,164.437
48,691
2
441
Montana
994,416
703,158.297
8,350
7
442
Louisiana
4,553,962
702,691.592
41,291
6
443
Oregon
3,848,606
702,656.107
35,091
17
444
Ohio
11,568,495
701,443.041
125,669
12
445
Virginia
8,037,736
699,595.121
108,776
54
446
California
37,341,989
698,011.587
591,217
19
447
Illinois
12,864,380
695,626.002
248,491
37
448
Texas
25,268,418
692,350.388
609,948
10
449
Massachusetts
6,559,644
691,447.189
167,117
19
450
Pennsylvania
12,734,905
688,624.796
377,966
Congressional Research Service
9
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment
Source: Computations of priority values and populations needed to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS Report
R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by (name redacted).
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 Missouri’s 9th seat is:
PVMO9
= 6,011,478 / [ 9( 9 - 1 ) ]
1/2
= 6,011,478 / [ 72 ]
½1/2
= 6,011,478 / 8.485281374238570
= 708459.476
The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states’ priority values from highest to lowest until
435 seats/437 seats are allocated.
b.
These figures represent the population a state would either need to lose in order to drop below the 437th
seat cutoff, or to gain to rise above the cutoff. If, in the case of Missouri, 5,120 more persons had been
counted in the state in 2010 (all other states being the same), the state’s priority value would have been
increased to 709,062.874 which would have resulted in a new sequence number of 437 because North
Carolina’s 13th seat would have occupied the 438th position in the priority list.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in American National Government
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
10
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
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.