How Does Apportionment Influence The Makeup Of Congress?

How 435 seats are distributed to 50 states

Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2020 elections, with the number of U.South. House seats each state will receive.

 Democratic control

 Republican command

 Split or bipartisan control

 Contained redistricting commission

 No redistricting necessary

The 435 seats of the House grouped by state (postal service-2010 Census reapportionment)

Allocation of seats by land, as percentage of overall number of representatives in the House, 1789-2020 Census

United states congressional circulation is the procedure^[i] by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent decennial census mandated past the United States Constitution. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.^[2] Every country is constitutionally guaranteed at least ane seat.

The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives has been 435 since 1913, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Deed of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Matrimony.^[3] The Huntington–Loma method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats amongst united states of america since the 1940 demography reapportionment.^{[1] [iv]} Federal law requires the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives to notify each land regime of the number of seats apportioned to the state no subsequently than Jan 25 of the year immediately post-obit each decennial census.

The size of a state'due south total congressional delegation (which in addition to representative(s) includes 2 senators for each country) too determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral College, which elects the U.S. president.

Ramble context [edit]

Article I, Section 2, Clause iii of the United States Constitution initially provided:

Representatives and straight Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their corresponding Numbers, which shall be adamant by adding to the whole Number of costless Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians non taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall accept at least one Representative;…

"Three-fifths of all other persons" refers to the inclusion of three⁄5 of the slaves in the population base.

Following the terminate of the Civil War, the offset of those provisions was superseded by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Subpoena:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their corresponding numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each Country, excluding Indians not taxed.^[five] Just when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the U.s., Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a Land, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-i years of age, and citizens of the U.s., or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other criminal offense, the footing of representation therein shall exist reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall conduct to the whole number of male person citizens twenty-ane years of historic period in such State.

Reapportionment [edit]

Reapportionments commonly occur following each decennial census, though the law that governs the full number of representatives and the method of apportionment to be carried into strength at that time are enacted prior to the census.

The decennial circulation also determines the size of each country's representation in the U.S. Balloter Higher. Under Article II, Department 1, Clause 2 of the U.Due south. Constitution, the number of electors of any state equals the size of its full congressional delegation (Business firm and Senate seats).

Federal law requires the Clerk of the House of Representatives to notify each state government no later than January 25 of the year immediately post-obit the census of the number of seats to which it is entitled. Whether or not the number of seats has changed, the state determines the boundaries of congressional districts—geographical areas within the state of approximately equal population—in a process called redistricting.^[6]

Because the deadline for the House Clerk to report the results does not occur until the following January, and the states need sufficient time to perform the redistricting, the decennial census does not affect the elections that are held during that same year. For instance, the electoral college circulation during the 2020 presidential election was still based on the 2010 census results.

Number of members [edit]

The U.Due south. population has increased more quickly than the membership of the Firm of Representatives.

The size of the U.S. House of Representatives refers to the full number of congressional districts (or seats) into which the land area of the The states proper has been divided. The number of voting representatives is currently set at 435. In that location are an additional five delegates to the House of Representatives. They represent the Commune of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, which first elected a representative in 2008,^[7] and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico also elects a resident commissioner every four years.

Controversy and history [edit]

Since 1789, when the federal government began operating under the Constitution, the number of citizens per congressional district has risen from an boilerplate of 33,000 in 1790 to over 700,000 as of 2018^[update]. Prior to the 20th century, the number of representatives increased every decade as more states joined the union, and the population increased.

Representation in the House, historical

Starting yearY	Source	Avg. Constituents per fellow member
1793	1790 Census	34,436
1803	1800 Census	34,609
1813	1810 Census	36,377
1823	1820 Census	42,124
1833	1830 Census	49,712
1843	1840 Demography	71,338
1853	1850 Census	93,020
1863	1860 Census	122,614
1873	1870 Census	130,533
1883	1880 Census	151,912
1893	1890 Demography	173,901
1903	1900 Census	193,167
1913	1910 Census	210,583
1923	1920 Census	243,728
1933	1930 Demography	280,675
1943	1940 Census	301,164
1953	1950 Census	334,587
1963	1960 Census	410,481
1973	1970 Demography	469,088
1983	1980 Census	510,818
1993	1990 Census	571,477
2003	2000 Census	646,946
2013	2010 Demography	709,760
2023	2020 Census	761,169
YElections are held the preceding year

The ideal number of members has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Constitutional Convention (one representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an alteration to reduce that number to 30,000.^[8] This was the only time that Washington pronounced an stance on any of the actual issues debated during the entire convention.^[ix] Five years later, Washington was so insistent on having no more than than xxx,000 constituents per representative that he exercised the first presidential veto in history on a bill which allowed one-half states to go over the quota.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to residuum the ability of the torso to legislate with the need for legislators to have a relationship close enough to the people to sympathise their local circumstances, that such representatives' social class be low enough to sympathize with the feelings of the mass of the people, and that their ability be diluted plenty to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

... first, that and so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper noesis of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will exist taken from that class of citizens which volition empathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent top of the few on the depression of the many; ...^[10]

Madison also addressed Anti-Federalist claims that the representation would be inadequate, arguing that the major inadequacies are of minimal inconvenience since these volition be cured rather quickly by virtue of decennial reapportionment. He noted, however,

I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the quaternary objection, hereinafter show, that the number of representatives will exist augmented from fourth dimension to time in the manner provided past the Constitution. On a opposite supposition, I should admit the objection to have very peachy weight indeed.

Madison argued against the assumption that more is better:

Sixty or seventy men may be more than properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a improve depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or vii m, the whole reasoning ought to exist reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.^[x]

Global comparison and disparities [edit]

When talking about the populations inside California's reapportioned House districts in 1951, a report from Duke University constitute that "[at that place] is not an excessive disparity in district populations, but [the populations and disparities are] possibly larger than necessary."^[xi] If the Firm continued to aggrandize as information technology did prior to the Reapportionment Human action of 1929, it would currently have 1,156 members (however just the second largest lower business firm, after Red china).^[12] This would requite the representatives, on boilerplate, about 287 thousand constituents, on par with Japan'south National Diet.

The United States also has insufficiently massive constituencies for OECD members, with virtually three times more constituents per legislator on average than Japan and United mexican states.^[12] The U.S. has the third most populous average legislative districts in the world (2d if the Eu'south European Parliament is non included).

Membership cap [edit]

The Apportionment Deed of 1911 (Public Law 62-5) raised the membership of the U.S. House to 433 and provided for an apportionment. It also provided for additional seats upon the admissions of Arizona and New United mexican states as states, increasing the number to 435 in 1912.

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the Usa Constitution. This failure to reapportion may accept been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the outcome such a reapportionment would have on their future electoral prospects.^{[13] [14]} A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats^{[ citation needed ]}, simply many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. By 1929, no reapportionment had been made since 1911, and there was vast representational inequity, measured by the average district size. By 1929 some states had districts twice as large as others due to population growth and demographic shift.^[15]

In 1929 Congress (with Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the Firm at 435 (the and then current number) and established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats. This cap has remained unchanged since then, except for a temporary increase to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Matrimony.^[xvi]

Two states – Wyoming and Vermont, – have populations smaller than the average for a single district, although none of those states have fewer people than the least populous congressional districts (as of the 2020 census, Montana's ii districts).

Proposed expansion [edit]

The first proposed amendment to the Constitution within the Bill of Rights attempted to ready a pattern for growth of the Firm forth with the population, but has not been ratified.

Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, in that location shall be i Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall exist so regulated by Congress, that there shall exist not less than 1 hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every xl thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; afterwards which the proportion shall be then regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty 1000 persons.^[17]

With the nation'southward population reaching approximately 308.seven meg co-ordinate to the 2010 demography, the proposed amendment would take chosen for an up-to 6,000-member House.^{[18] [19] [twenty]}

One proposal to fix the current constituency disparities and the high average number of constituents in many states' congressional districts is the "Wyoming dominion." Operating similar to New Zealand's method of allocation for proportional representation, information technology would give the least populous state (which has been Wyoming since 1990) one representative and then create districts in other states with the same population.^[21]

Another proposed expansion rule, the cube root rule,^[22] calls for the membership of the legislature to be based on the cube root (rounded upward) of the U.S. population at the concluding census. For case, such a rule would call for 692 members of the Business firm based on the 2020 United States Census. An boosted Firm member would be added each time the national population exceeds the next cube; in this example, the side by side Firm member would be added when the demography population reached 331,373,889, and the one after that at 332,812,558. A variation would split up the representation between the Firm and the Senate, e.one thousand. 592 members in the Firm (692 − 100 Senators).^[23]

On May 21, 2001, Rep. Alcee Hastings sent a dear colleague letter pointing out that U.S. expansion of its legislature had not kept pace with other countries.^[24]

In 2007, during the 110th Congress, Representative Tom Davis introduced a bill in the Firm of Representatives that would add ii seats to the Business firm, ane for Utah and ane for the District of Columbia. Information technology was passed past the Firm, only was tripped up by procedural hurdles in the Senate and withdrawn from consideration. An identical bill was reintroduced during the 111th Congress. In February 2009 the Senate adopted the measure 61–37. In April 2010, however, Firm leaders decided to shelve the proposal.^[25]

Apportionment methods [edit]

Circulation in the House of the United states population, 2010-2019

Country	Population Percent		House Percentage
	2019	2010	2019[annotation 1]	2010
California	12.06%	12.09%	11.95%	12.xviii%
Texas	8.85%	viii.16%	8.74%	viii.28%
Florida	half dozen.56%	6.10%	half-dozen.44%	6.21%
New York	5.94%	6.29%	5.98%	6.21%
Pennsylvania	iii.91%	iv.12%	iii.91%	4.14%
Illinois	3.87%	4.16%	three.91%	iv.14%
Ohio	3.57%	3.74%	3.68%	3.68%
Georgia	3.24%	3.14%	three.22%	3.22%
Northward Carolina	3.20%	three.09%	iii.22%	2.99%
Michigan	iii.05%	3.21%	2.99%	three.22%
New Jersey	2.71%	ii.85%	2.76%	2.76%
Virginia	2.61%	2.lx%	ii.53%	2.53%
Washington	2.32%	2.18%	ii.30%	2.30%
Arizona	2.22%	2.07%	ii.30%	2.07%
Massachusetts	2.x%	2.12%	2.07%	2.07%
Tennessee	2.09%	2.06%	2.07%	ii.07%
Indiana	2.06%	two.10%	2.07%	2.07%
Missouri	1.87%	1.94%	1.84%	1.84%
Maryland	1.85%	one.87%	1.84%	ane.84%
Wisconsin	1.78%	one.85%	one.84%	1.84%
Colorado	1.76%	1.63%	ane.84%	1.61%
Minnesota	i.72%	1.72%	1.61%	1.84%
South Carolina	i.57%	1.50%	i.61%	one.61%
Alabama	1.fifty%	one.55%	1.61%	1.61%
Louisiana	1.42%	1.47%	ane.38%	ane.38%
Kentucky	1.36%	1.41%	1.38%	1.38%
Oregon	ane.29%	1.24%	1.38%	1.15%
Oklahoma	1.21%	ane.22%	1.fifteen%	1.15%
Connecticut	ane.09%	one.xvi%	one.15%	1.15%
Utah	0.98%	0.xc%	0.92%	0.92%
Iowa	0.96%	0.99%	0.92%	0.92%
Nevada	0.94%	0.88%	0.92%	0.92%
Arkansas	0.92%	0.95%	0.92%	0.92%
Mississippi	0.91%	0.96%	0.92%	0.92%
Kansas	0.89%	0.93%	0.92%	0.92%
New Mexico	0.64%	0.67%	0.69%	0.69%
Nebraska	0.59%	0.59%	0.69%	0.69%
W Virginia	0.55%	0.sixty%	0.46%	0.69%
Idaho	0.55%	0.51%	0.46%	0.46%
Hawaii	0.43%	0.44%	0.46%	0.46%
New Hampshire	0.42%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Maine	0.41%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Montana	0.33%	0.32%	0.46%	0.23%
Rhode Island	0.32%	0.34%	0.23%	0.46%
Delaware	0.30%	0.29%	0.23%	0.23%
South Dakota	0.27%	0.26%	0.23%	0.23%
North Dakota	0.23%	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%
Alaska	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%	0.23%
Vermont	0.19%	0.20%	0.23%	0.23%
Wyoming	0.18%	0.18%	0.23%	0.23%
^ 2019 numbers are calculations from estimated population data

Apart from the requirement that each land is to exist entitled to at least one representative in the House of Representatives, the number of representatives in each land is in principle to be proportional to its population. Since the adoption of the Constitution, five distinct circulation methods have been used.

The kickoff apportionment was contained in Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution. After the first Demography in 1790, Congress passed the Circulation Act of 1792 and adopted the Jefferson method to apportion U.S. Representatives to usa based on population.^[26] The Jefferson method required partial remainders to be discarded when calculating each land's total number of U.S. Representatives and was used until the 1830 census.^{[27] [28] [29] [30]} The Webster method, proposed in 1832 by Daniel Webster and adopted for the 1840 Census, allocated an additional Representative to states with a fractional remainder greater than 0.5.^[31] The Hamilton/Vinton (largest residuum) method was used from 1850^{[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]} until 1900. The Vinton or Hamilton method was shown to be susceptible to an apportionment paradox.^[38] The Apportionment Act of 1911, in addition to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at 435, returned to the Webster method, which was used following the 1910 and 1930 censuses (no reapportionment was done after the 1920 demography). The electric current method, known as the Huntington–Hill method or method of equal proportions, was adopted in 1941 for reapportionment based on the 1940 census and across.^{[1] [4] [39] [40]} The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives ready in the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

The method of equal proportions [edit]

The apportionment method currently used is the method of equal proportions, which minimizes the pct differences in the number of people per representative amongst the dissimilar states.^[41] The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one state to some other would outcome in larger per centum differences.^[42]

In this method, every bit a first step, each of the 50 states is given its ane guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated i at a fourth dimension, to the land with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the virtually populous land (currently California). The priority number is determined past the ratio of the state population to the geometric mean of the number of seats it currently holds in the consignment process, northward (initially 1), and the number of seats information technology would hold if the seat were assigned to it, n+1. Symbolically, the priority number A_n is

${\displaystyle A_{n}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {n(n+1)}}}}$

where P is the population of the state, and n is the number of seats it currently holds before the possible allotment of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is

${\displaystyle A_{m+1}={\sqrt {\frac {g}{m+ii}}}\ A_{thousand}}$

${\displaystyle A_{northward}={\sqrt {\frac {n-one}{due north+one}}}\ A_{north-1}}$

where n is yet the number of seats the state has before allocation of the next (in other words, for the thousandth allotment, n = grand-1, where m > 1), and for n = ane, the initial A ₁ is explicitly defined by the non-recursive formula as

${\displaystyle A_{1}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {two}}}}$

Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. Census: beginning with all states initially being allocated one seat, the largest value of A ₁ corresponds to the largest state, California, which is allocated seat 51. Afterwards being allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A ₂ value, which is reordered to a position dorsum in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest country, because its A _ane priority value is larger than the A_n of any other state. Notwithstanding, the 53rd seat goes dorsum to California because its A _two priority value is larger than the A_n of whatsoever other land. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A _ane priority value is larger than the A_n of whatsoever other country at this point. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each time a state is assigned a seat, due north is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to exist reduced and reordered among u.s.a., whereupon another state unremarkably rises to the top of the list.

The Census 2010 Ranking of Priority Values^[43] shows the order in which seats 51–435 were apportioned afterward the 2010 Census, with additional listings for the next v priorities. Minnesota was allocated the final (435th) seat. Due north Carolina missed its 14th seat past fifteen,754 residents equally the 436th seat to be allocated; ten years earlier it had gained its 13th seat equally the 435th seat to exist allocated based on the 2000 census.^[44]

The Census 2020 Ranking of Priority Values^[45] shows the order in which seats 51–435 were apportioned after the 2020 Census, with additional listings for the next ten priorities. For the second time in a row, Minnesota was allocated the concluding (435th) seat. If either New York had registered 89 more residents or Minnesota had registered 26 fewer residents, New York would have been allocated the 435th seat instead.^{[46] [47]}

Past apportionments [edit]

Note: The offset apportionment was established by the Constitution based on population estimates fabricated past the Philadelphia Convention, and was not based on any census or enumeration.

Bold indicates the largest number of representatives each land has had.

Statehood guild	Census	Const.	1st	2d	3rd	fourth	5th	6th	seventh	eighth	9th	10th	11th	twelfth	13th	15th[a]	16th	17th	18th	19th	20th	21st	22nd	23rd	24th
	Year	1789	1790	1800	1810	1820	1830	1840	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890	1900	1910	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
	Effected	1789	1793	1803	1813	1823	1833	1843	1853	1863	1873	1883	1893	1903	1913	1933	1943	1953	1963	1973	1983	1993	2003	2013	2023
	Size	65	105	142	182	213	240	223	234	241	292	325	356	386	435
	State
22	AL	–	–	–	–	3	5	7	7	half-dozen	viii	8	9	nine	10	9	9	nine	8	seven	seven	7	vii	seven	7
49	AK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	1	1	one	1	1	1
48	AZ	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	3	4	five	half dozen	8	9	9
25	AR	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	2	iii	4	v	vi	7	7	7	vii	6	4	4	4	4	four	4	iv
31	CA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	iii	iv	6	7	8	11	20	23	30	38	43	45	52	53	53	52
38	CO	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	2	3	4	4	four	4	four	5	6	6	vii	7	8
five	CT	5	7	7	vii	6	6	4	4	4	four	four	4	five	v	vi	6	6	vi	half-dozen	half-dozen	6	5	5	5
i	DE	1	1	1	two	1	1	1	one	i	ane	1	ane	1	1	1	1	1	1	ane	one	i	1	1	1
27	FL	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	1	2	two	2	3	4	five	vi	viii	12	xv	19	23	25	27	28
4	GA	3	two	4	6	vii	nine	8	8	7	9	10	11	11	12	10	ten	ten	x	10	ten	xi	13	fourteen	14
fifty	HI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	two	2	ii	2	2
43	ID	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	1	2	2	two	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	two
21	IL	–	–	–	–	ane	3	7	9	14	19	twenty	22	25	27	27	26	25	24	24	22	20	nineteen	18	17
xix	IN	–	–	–	–	3	7	ten	11	11	13	13	xiii	13	13	12	11	11	xi	11	10	10	9	9	9
29	IA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	half dozen	ix	eleven	11	11	11	9	viii	8	vii	6	6	v	five	four	iv
34	KS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	3	7	8	8	8	seven	vi	6	five	5	five	4	4	4	4
15	KY	–	2	6	ten	12	xiii	x	10	9	ten	xi	eleven	eleven	11	nine	9	8	7	7	7	6	6	6	half-dozen
18	LA	–	–	–	ane	3	iii	4	4	5	half dozen	6	half dozen	7	8	eight	8	8	eight	8	8	7	7	6	6
23	ME	–	–	–	–	7	8	vii	6	5	v	4	4	4	4	3	3	3	2	ii	2	ii	2	2	2
seven	MD	6	eight	nine	9	9	8	6	6	5	vi	half-dozen	vi	6	half-dozen	half-dozen	6	7	8	8	eight	8	viii	eight	viii
vi	MA	8	14	17	20	xiii	12	x	11	10	11	12	13	14	16	15	14	14	12	12	11	x	10	9	9
26	MI	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	4	half-dozen	nine	11	12	12	thirteen	17	17	18	19	19	18	xvi	fifteen	14	13
32	MN	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	5	7	9	10	9	9	9	8	eight	8	8	8	8	8
twenty	MS	–	–	–	–	1	two	four	5	5	half dozen	7	vii	8	8	seven	7	six	5	5	5	v	4	four	4
24	MO	–	–	–	–	1	2	five	seven	9	13	14	xv	16	xvi	13	13	11	10	10	9	9	nine	8	8
41	MT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	two	2	ii	2	2	2	ii	1	1	1	two
37	NE	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	3	six	6	6	5	4	4	iii	3	3	iii	3	iii	3
36	NV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	one	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	one	2	2	3	4	four
ix	NH	3	4	5	6	half dozen	5	four	3	iii	three	2	2	ii	2	2	two	2	2	two	ii	2	2	2	two
3	NJ	four	5	half-dozen	6	half-dozen	6	5	5	5	7	vii	8	10	12	xiv	14	fourteen	xv	fifteen	xiv	13	xiii	12	12
47	NM	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	one	2	2	two	two	3	3	3	3	3
11	NY	six	10	17	27	34	xl	34	33	31	33	34	34	37	43	45	45	43	41	39	34	31	29	27	26
12	NC	5	x	12	xiii	13	13	nine	viii	7	viii	9	ix	10	10	11	12	12	11	11	11	12	13	13	14
39	ND	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	ii	3	2	two	two	2	ane	1	1	1	1	i
17	OH	–	–	1	six	14	19	21	21	19	20	21	21	21	22	24	23	23	24	23	21	nineteen	18	16	15
46	OK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	8	9	8	6	half dozen	6	6	6	five	5	v
33	OR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	1	1	two	2	iii	3	4	iv	4	4	5	5	5	5	6
ii	PA	8	thirteen	xviii	23	26	28	24	25	24	27	28	30	32	36	34	33	30	27	25	23	21	19	18	17
xiii	RI	1	2	2	ii	2	2	ii	2	2	two	ii	two	ii	3	two	2	2	2	2	2	ii	two	2	2
8	SC	5	half dozen	8	nine	ix	9	7	6	4	v	7	7	seven	seven	vi	six	6	6	6	half-dozen	six	6	7	7
xl	SD	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	three	2	2	2	2	two	i	1	one	1	one
sixteen	TN	–	–	3	6	ix	13	11	10	8	10	10	ten	10	10	nine	10	ix	ix	viii	nine	9	ix	nine	9
28	TX	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ii	4	six	11	13	16	18	21	21	22	23	24	27	30	32	36	38
45	UT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	two	2	2	2	ii	2	3	iii	iii	4	4
14	VT	–	2	4	half dozen	5	5	4	3	3	iii	two	2	2	2	one	ane	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
10	VA	x	19	22	23	22	21	fifteen	13	11	ix	ten	ten	10	ten	nine	9	10	10	10	10	11	11	xi	11
42	WA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	5	6	six	7	7	7	8	9	nine	x	10
35	WV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	4	4	5	6	6	6	half dozen	5	iv	4	three	three	three	2
30	WI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	6	8	ix	10	eleven	11	10	10	x	10	9	9	9	eight	eight	8
44	WY	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	1	1	ane	1	ane	one	1	ane	1	i	1	1

Changes post-obit the 2010 censuses [edit]

On Dec 21, 2010, the U.S. Demography Agency released its official apportionment results for congressional representation. The changes were in effect for the U.S. elections in 2012.^[48]

Proceeds 4	Gain ii	Gain ane	No alter	Lose one	Lose two
one. Texas	one. Florida	1. Arizona 2. Georgia iii. Nevada 4. South Carolina 5. Utah 6. Washington	(32 states)	1. Illinois 2. Iowa 3. Louisiana 4. Massachusetts 5. Michigan 6. Missouri seven. New Jersey eight. Pennsylvania	1. New York two. Ohio
+4	+2	+6		−8	−four
+12 seats gained total				−12 seats lost total

Changes post-obit the 2020 censuses [edit]

Apportionment results were released on April 26, 2021:

Proceeds ii	Gain one	No change	Lose one
1. Texas	1. Colorado ii. Florida 3. Montana iv. N Carolina 5. Oregon	(37 states)	1. California 2. Illinois iii. Michigan iv. New York five. Ohio six. Pennsylvania 7. Due west Virginia
+2	+5		−seven
+7 seats gained full			−vii seats lost full

List of apportionments [edit]

The size of the U.S. House of Representatives has increased and decreased as follows^[49]

Effective date	Size	Change	Legal provision	Reason and/or comments
March 4, 1789	59	n/a	Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. three	Seats apportioned by the Constitution
November 21, 1789	64	5		Due north Carolina ratified the Constitution with the seats apportioned by the Constitution
May 29, 1790	65	1		Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with the seat apportioned by the Constitution
March 4, 1791	67	2	i Stat. 191	Vermont admitted
June ane, 1792	69	2		Kentucky admitted
March iv, 1793	105	36	ane Stat. 253 (Apportionment Act of 1792)	Apportionment following the Commencement Census
June i, 1796	106	1	1 Stat. 491	Tennessee admitted
March 1, 1803	107	ane	2 Stat. 175	Ohio admitted.
March 4, 1803	142	35	2 Stat. 128	Apportionment following the 2nd Census.
Apr 30, 1812	143	i	2 Stat. 703	Louisiana admitted.
March 4, 1813	182	39	2 Stat. 669	Circulation following the Tertiary Census.
December 11, 1816	183	1	iii Stat. 290	Indiana admitted.
December 10, 1817	184	ane	3 Stat. 349	Mississippi admitted.
December 3, 1818	185	1	3 Stat. 430	Illinois admitted.
December 14, 1819	186	one	iii Stat. 492	Alabama admitted.
March 15, 1820			iii Stat. 555	Maine admitted, 7 seats transferred from Massachusetts
August 10, 1821	187	1	3 Stat. 547	Missouri admitted
March 4, 1823	213	26	three Stat. 651	Circulation post-obit the Fourth Census
March 4, 1833	240	27	4 Stat. 516	Circulation following the 5th Census
June xv, 1836	241	ane	v Stat. 51	Arkansas admitted
January 26, 1837	242	1	5 Stat. 50	Michigan admitted
March 4, 1843	223	xix	5 Stat. 491	Apportionment following the Sixth Census, the only time the size of the House was reduced, except for the minor readjustments in 1863 and 1963.
March 3, 1845	224	i	five Stat. 743	Florida admitted.
Dec 29, 1845	226	2	v Stat. 798	Texas annexed and admitted.
December 28, 1846	228	2	five Stat. 743 9 Stat. 52	Iowa admitted.
May 29, 1848	230	two	9 Stat. 58 9 Stat. 235	Wisconsin admitted.
March four, 1849	231	1	9 Stat. 235	Additional seat apportioned to Wisconsin.
September 9, 1850	233	2	nine Stat. 452	California admitted.
March 4, 1853			nine Stat. 432	Circulation following the Seventh Census.
	234	1	10 Stat. 25	Additional seat apportioned to California[b]
May 11, 1858	236	2	11 Stat. 166	Minnesota admitted.
February 14, 1859	237	i	11 Stat. 383	Oregon admitted.
January 29, 1861	238	1	12 Stat. 126	Kansas admitted
June 2, 1862	239	1	12 Stat. 411	California apportioned an actress seat
March 4, 1863	233	6	nine Stat. 432	Apportionment following the 8th Census, in accordance with the 1850 act, which provided for an apportionment of 233 seats
	241	eight	12 Stat. 353	Supplemental apportionment of 8 seats (one each for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island), for an overall increase of 2 seats in the 38th Congress
June 20, 1863			12 Stat. 633	Due west Virginia admitted, 3 seats transferred from Virginia
October 31, 1864	242	one	13 Stat. 32	Nevada admitted
March one, 1867	243	one	14 Stat. 391	Nebraska admitted
March 4, 1873	283	40	17 Stat. 28	Circulation following the Ninth Census, replacing the 1850 act
	292	nine	17 Stat. 192	Supplemental apportionment added one seat each for ix states
August 1, 1876	293	one	13 Stat. 34	Colorado admitted
March 4, 1883	325	32	22 Stat. five	Apportionment following the 10th Census.
November 2, 1889	328	three	25 Stat. 679	Due north and South Dakota admitted, with one and ii seats respectively.
November eight, 1889	329	1	25 Stat. 679	Montana admitted.
November xi, 1889	330	1	25 Stat. 679	Washington admitted.
July 3, 1890	331	1	26 Stat. 215	Idaho admitted.
July x, 1890	332	1	26 Stat. 222	Wyoming admitted.
March 4, 1893	356	24	26 Stat. 735	Circulation post-obit the Eleventh Demography.
January iv, 1896	357	ane	28 Stat. 109	Utah admitted.
March four, 1903	386	29	31 Stat. 733	Apportionment following the 12th Census (1900)
November sixteen, 1907	391	5	34 Stat. 271	Oklahoma admitted
January half-dozen, 1912	393	two	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	New United mexican states admitted
Feb 14, 1912	394	ane		Arizona admitted
March four, 1913	435	41	37 Stat. 13 (Circulation Act of 1911, §§ane–2)	Apportionment following the Thirteenth Census (1910)
March four, 1933			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Act of 1929)	Circulation following the Fifteenth Census (1930)[c]
January 3, 1943			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Human action of 1929) 54 Stat. 162	Apportionment following the Sixteenth Census (1940)
January 3, 1953			55 Stat. 761	Apportionment following the Seventeenth Demography[d]
January 3, 1959	436	one	72 Stat. 345	Alaska admitted
August 21, 1959	437	1	73 Stat. eight, §8	Hawaii admitted
January 3, 1963	435	ii	72 Stat. 345 73 Stat. 8 ii UsC. § 2a	Apportionment following the Eighteenth Census[e]
Jan iii, 1973			two U.South.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Nineteenth Census
January 3, 1983				Apportionment following the Twentieth Census
January iii, 1993				Apportionment post-obit the Xx-First Census
January 3, 2003				Apportionment post-obit the Twenty-2d Census
January 3, 2013				Circulation following the Xx-Third Census
Jan 3, 2023				Apportionment following the 20-Quaternary Demography

See likewise [edit]

• Circulation paradox
• Congressional Circulation Subpoena
• Gerrymandering
• List of U.S. states by population
• Listing of U.S. states by historical population (tables of country populations since 1790)
• Redistricting
• Electoral vote changes between United states presidential elections
• United states Congress

Notes [edit]

• Delegate counts in italics represent temporary counts assigned by Congress until the side by side decennial demography or by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 until the first U.South. Census.
• Elections held in the yr of a census apply the circulation determined past the previous demography.

1. ^ Congress failed to pass any reapportionment to implement the 1920 United States Census then despite population shift, distribution of seats from 1913 remained in upshot until 1933.
2. ^ The 1850 Apportionment bill provided a method to be used in future reapportionments, likewise as establishing the then-current 233 as the number of seats to be apportioned after future censuses. Due to census returns being incomplete in California, an boosted act provided that California retain the aforementioned representation information technology had when admitted, until a new demography could be taken. California would otherwise have lost i seat, and so the full number of seats was increased by ane to 234.
3. ^ Congress failed to reapportion in 1923, post-obit the Fourteenth Demography (1920).
4. ^ Pub.L. 77–291 amended section 22 of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 past wholly replacing its text.
5. ^ The Reapportionment Human action of 1929 stated that the "then existing number of Representatives" would be apportioned afterward each demography, which would have dictated an apportionment of 437 seats, just the Alaska Statehood Act and Hawaii Access Act explicitly stated that the new seats were temporary increases. Both acts included the phrasing "That such temporary increase in the membership shall not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the House of Representatives as prescribed in the Act of August viii, 1911 (37 Stat. thirteen) nor shall such temporary increase affect the basis of circulation established by the Act of Nov 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 U.Due south.C. § 2a), for the Eighty-third Congress and each Congress thereafter."^[50]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Kristin D. Burnett (Nov 1, 2011). "Congressional Circulation (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-08)" (PDF). U.South. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
2. ^ The populations of Washington, D.C. and federal territories are not included in this effigy.
3. ^ Public Police force 62-5 of 1911.
4. ^ ^{a b} "The History of Apportionment in America". American Mathematical Society. Retrieved Feb 15, 2009.
5. ^ Rendered moot by the Revenue Act of 1924 and Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
6. ^ two U.s.C. § 2c
7. ^ Bush signs federalization beak Archived Feb thirteen, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Agnes Eastward. Donato, Saipan Tribune, May x, 2008.
8. ^ Goldberg, Jonah (January xv, 2001). "George Will Called Me An Idiot". National Review. Archived from the original on February 13, 2009. Retrieved Apr xi, 2018.
9. ^ Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention - Tuesday September 17, 1787
10. ^ ^{a b} "The Federalist #55". constitution.org . Retrieved June 23, 2020.
11. ^ Todd, James (1952). "Police force and Contemporary Problems: Legislative Circulation (Chapter Title: The Apportionment Problem Faced by the States)". Law and Gimmicky Problems. Durham, Northward Carolina: Duke University. 17 (2): 314–337. eISSN 1945-2322. ISSN 1945-2322.
12. ^ ^{a b} DeSilver, Drew (May 31, 2018). "U.Southward. population keeps growing, but House of Representatives is same size as in Taft era". Pew Research Centre.
13. ^ Balinski, Michel; Young, H. Peyton. Fair Representation, Meeting The Ideal of I Man One vote". p. 51.
14. ^ "Congressional Apportionment". NationalAtlas.gov. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
15. ^ "Circulation of Representatives in Congress". CQ Researcher by CQ Printing. ISSN 1942-5635.
16. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
17. ^ "Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified". United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
18. ^ Stone, Lyman (Oct 17, 2018). "Pack the Business firm: How to Fix the Legislative Co-operative". Mere Orthodoxy. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
19. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June 4, 2018). "The case for massively expanding the US Business firm of Representatives, in one nautical chart". Vox. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
20. ^ Hurlbut, Terry (April 16, 2015). "Packing the House?". Conservative News and Views. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
21. ^ Taylor, Steven (Dec 14, 2010). "Representation in the Business firm: The Wyoming Dominion". Outside the Beltway.
22. ^ Kane, Caroline; Mascioli, Gianni; McGarry, Michael; Nagel, Meira (2020). Why the House of Representatives Must Exist Expanded and How Today'southward Congress Can Make information technology Happen (PDF). Fordham University Schoolhouse of Law.
23. ^ "The "Cube Root Rule": A Push to Make Congress More than Representative?". IVN. Contained Voter Network. Retrieved May 31, 2019.
24. ^ "FairVote - Hastings Letter". June 2, 2006. Archived from the original on June ii, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
25. ^ Marimow, Ann E.; Pershing, Ben (April 21, 2010). "Congressional leaders shelve D.C. voting rights bill". The Washington Mail.
26. ^ iii Register of Cong. 539 (1792)
27. ^ Human action of Jan. fourteen, 1802, 2 Stat. 128
28. ^ Deed of December. 21, 1811, 2 Stat. 669
29. ^ Human action of Mar. vii, 1822, three Stat. 651
30. ^ Human activity of May 22, 1832, 4 Stat. 516
31. ^ Act of 25 June 1842, ch 46, 5 Stat. 491
32. ^ Act of May 23, 1850, 9 Stat. 432-433
33. ^ Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572
34. ^ Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 28
35. ^ Human action of 1882, 22 Stat. 5
36. ^ Act of 1891
37. ^ Act of 1901, 31 Stat. 733
38. ^ "Congressional Apportionment-Historical Perspective". U.South. Census Bureau. Retrieved October 27, 2013. .
39. ^ "ii USC §2a". Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May xiii, 2008.
40. ^ "Calculating Apportionment". U.S. Demography Bureau. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
41. ^ "Congressional Apportionment". NationalAtlas.gov. U.Southward. Section of the Interior. Archived from the original on October thirty, 2008. Retrieved February fourteen, 2009.
42. ^ Edward V Huntington (1921). "The Mathematical Theory of the Apportionment of Representatives". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 7 (iv): 123–vii. Bibcode:1921PNAS....7..123H. doi:10.1073/pnas.7.4.123. PMC1084767. PMID 16576591.
43. ^ "Priority Values for 2010 Census" (PDF). U.South. Bureau of the Demography. Retrieved Baronial 29, 2020.
44. ^ "Census 2000 Ranking of Priority Values". U.Due south. Bureau of the Census. February 21, 2001. Retrieved May 13, 2008.
45. ^ "Priority Values for 2020 Demography" (PDF). U.S. Agency of the Demography. Retrieved April 27, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
46. ^ Goldmacher, Shane (April 26, 2021). "New York Loses House Seat After Coming Up 89 People Short on Census". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
47. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo (May ane, 2021). "How 26 People In The Census Count Helped Minnesota Trounce New York For A House Seat". Retrieved May 17, 2021.
48. ^ "Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by Land: 2010 Census" (PDF). United states of america Census. December 21, 2010. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
49. ^ The Size of the U. Due south. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations, thirty-grand.org.
50. ^ Run into, eastward.m., section viii of the Hawaii Admission Act, 73 Stat. 8.

References [edit]

• Balinski, Michael L.; Immature, H. Peyton (1982). Off-white Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN0-8157-0090-three.
• Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Historical and Judicial. Vol. 1. Boston: The Boston Volume Co. pp. 329–446.
• Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1831). The Federalist. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Co. ISBN0-8239-5735-7.
• Edelman, Paul H. (2006). "Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Besides Many Seats in the Business firm of Representatives". Vanderbilt Law Review. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. 102 (March): 297.
• Kromkowski, Charles A.; Kromkowski, John A. (1991). "Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetic" (PDF). Polity. 24 (Autumn 1991): 129–145. doi:x.2307/3234988. JSTOR 3234988. S2CID 155209561. Retrieved October 17, 2013.
• Agnew, Robert A. (2008). "Optimal Congressional Apportionment" (PDF). American Mathematical Monthly. Mathematical Association of America. 115 (April): 297–303. doi:10.1080/00029890.2008.11920530. JSTOR 27642473. S2CID 14596741.

Further reading [edit]

• Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Taren (2004). "Counting Matters: Prison house Inmates, Population Bases, and "1 Person, One Vote"". Virginia Periodical of Social Policy & the Police. Chicago. xi (Winter): 229.

External links [edit]

• Congressional Circulation past the U.Southward. Demography Bureau

How Does Apportionment Influence The Makeup Of Congress?,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#:~:text=The%20decennial%20apportionment%20also%20determines,(House%20and%20Senate%20seats).

Posted by: drummondtals1968.blogspot.com

Share this post