# District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARS22579 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** March 31, 2011 - **Citation:** RS22579 ## 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARS22579. Public record. Not legal advice.