Order Code RS20768
January 9, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining,
Losing, and on the Margin1
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
On December 28, 2000, the Commerce Department released 2000 Census
population figures and the resulting reapportionment of seats in the House of
Representatives. The apportionment population of the 50 states in 2000 is 281,424,177,
a figure 13.4% greater than in 1990. Twelve seats will shift among 18 states in the 108th
Congress as a result of the reapportionment. (In the 103rd Congress, 19 seats shifted
among 21 states after the 1990 Census.) The next census data release will occur by
April 1, 2001, when the Census Bureau will provide states the small area data necessary
to re-draw congressional and state legislative districts in time for the 2002 election. This
report will not be updated.
Background
The Census Bureau’s release of the first figures from the 2000 Census will shift 12
seats among 18 states for the 108th Congress (beginning in January 2003). Connecticut,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin will each lose
one seat, and New York and Pennsylvania will each lose two seats. California, Colorado,
Nevada, and North Carolina, will each gain one seat, and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and
Texas will each gain two seats.2
The reapportionment of House seats in 2000 is based on an apportionment
population that is different from the actual resident population of each state. For
apportionment purposes since 1970, (with the exception of 1980) the Census Bureau has
added to each state’s resident population the foreign-based military and other federal
employees and their dependents who are from the state but not residing therein at the time
1 This report originally was authored by David C. Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.
2 See Table 1 for each state’s data. These allocations are based on a 435 seat House of
Representatives. The 435-seat House was established in 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment
Act, (46 Stat. 21, 26-27) which ended the 19th century practice of increasing the House size after
every census but one. There have been no permanent increases in the House size for most of the
20th century.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
of the census. In 2000, these additional persons increased the census count for the 50
states by 574,330. If the foreign-based military and federal employees had not been
included in the counts, North Carolina would have not gained its 13th seat. Utah would
have gained an additional seat instead.
Tables
Table 1 sets out the apportionment population as of April 1, 1990, April 1, 2000 and
the resulting seat assignments of each of the 50 states. The table also illustrates the
change from 1990 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat allocation, and
what it will be at the beginning to the 108th Congress, and the average sized congressional
district for each state. For the 108th Congress, the national average size congressional
district will be 645,632, and districts will range in size from 493,782 (for Wyoming’s
single district) to a maximum of 902,195 (for Montana’s single district).
Table 1. Apportionment of Seats in the House of Representatives
Based on the 2000 Census
1990 Census
2000 Census
Seat
2003
State Apportion-
Apportion- Overseas
Change from 1990
change
average
Seats
ment pop.a Seats ment pop.b federalc
Total
Percent
from 1990 CD pop.d
AL
4,040,587
7
4,461,130
14,030
420,543
10.41
7
635,300
AK
550,043
1
628,933
2,001
78,890
14.34
1
626,932
AZ
3,665,228
6
5,140,683
10,051
1,475,455
40.26
8
+2
641,329
AR
2,350,725
4
2,679,733
6,333
329,008
14.00
4
668,350
CA
29,760,021
52 33,930,798
59,150
4,170,777
14.01
53
1
639,088
CO
3,294,394
6
4,311,882
10,621
1,017,488
30.89
7
+1
614,466
CT
3,287,116
6
3,409,535
3,970
122,419
3.72
5
-1
681,113
DE
666,168
1
785,068
1,468
118,900
17.85
1
783,600
FL
12,937,926
23 16,028,890
46,512
3,090,964
23.89
25
+2
639,295
GA
6,478,216
11
8,206,975
20,522
1,728,759
26.69
13
+2
629,727
HI
1,108,229
2
1,216,642
5,105
108,413
9.78
2
605,768
ID
1,006,749
2
1,297,274
3,321
290,525
28.86
2
646,976
IL
11,430,602
20 12,439,042
19,749
1,008,440
8.82
19
-1
653,647
IN
5,544,159
10
6,090,782
10,297
546,623
9.86
9
-1
675,609
IA
2,776,755
5
2,931,923
5,599
155,168
5.59
5
585,265
KS
2,477,574
4
2,693,824
5,406
216,250
8.73
4
672,104
KY
3,685,296
6
4,049,431
7,662
364,135
9.88
6
673,628
LA
4,219,973
7
4,480,271
11,295
260,298
6.17
7
638,425
ME
1,227,928
2
1,277,731
2,808
49,803
4.06
2
637,462
MD
4,781,468
8
5,307,886
11,400
526,418
11.01
8
662,061
MA
6,016,425
10
6,355,568
6,471
339,143
5.64
10
634,910
MI
9,295,297
16
9,955,829
17,385
660,532
7.11
15
-1
662,563
MN
4,375,099
8
4,925,670
6,191
550,571
12.58
8
614,935
MS
2,573,216
5
2,852,927
8,269
279,711
10.87
4
-1
711,164
MO
5,117,073
9
5,606,260
11,049
489,187
9.56
9
621,690
MT
799,065
1
905,316
3,121
106,251
13.30
1
902,195
NE
1,578,385
3
1,715,369
4,106
136,984
8.68
3
570,421
NV
1,201,833
2
2,002,032
3,775
800,199
66.58
3
+1
666,086
NH
1,109,252
2
1,238,415
2,629
129,163
11.64
2
617,893
NJ
7,730,188
13
8,424,354
10,004
694,166
8.98
13
647,258
NM
1,515,069
3
1,823,821
4,775
308,752
20.38
3
606,349
NY
17,990,455
31 19,004,973
28,516
1,014,518
5.64
29
-2
654,361
NC
6,628,637
12
8,067,673
18,360
1,439,036
21.71
13
+1
619,178

---

CRS-3
1990 Census
2000 Census
Seat
2003
State Apportion-
Apportion- Overseas
Change from 1990
change
average
Seats
ment pop.a Seats ment pop.b federalc
Total
Percent
from 1990 CD pop.d
ND
638,800
1
643,756
1,556
4,956
0.78
1
642,200
OH
10,847,115
19 11,374,540
21,400
527,425
4.86
18
-1
630,730
OK
3,145,585
6
3,458,819
8,165
313,234
9.96
5
-1
690,131
OR
2,842,321
5
3,428,543
7,144
586,222
20.62
5
684,280
PA
11,881,643
21 12,300,670
19,616
419,027
3.53
19
-2
646,371
RI
1,003,464
2
1,049,662
1,343
46,198
4.60
2
524,160
SC
3,486,703
6
4,025,061
13,049
538,358
15.44
6
668,669
SD
696,004
1
756,874
2,030
60,870
8.75
1
754,844
TN
4,877,185
9
5,700,037
10,754
822,852
16.87
9
632,143
TX
16,986,510
30 20,903,994
52,174
3,917,484
23.06
32
+2
651,619
UT
1,722,850
3
2,236,714
3,545
513,864
29.83
3
744,390
VT
562,758
1
609,890
1,063
47,132
8.38
1
608,827
VA
6,187,358
11
7,100,702
22,187
913,344
14.76
11
643,501
WA
4,866,692
9
5,908,684
14,563
1,041,992
21.41
9
654,902
WV
1,793,477
3
1,813,077
4,733
19,600
1.09
3
602,781
WI
4,891,769
9
5,371,210
7,535
479,441
9.80
8
-1
670,459
WY
453,588
1
495,304
1,522
41,716
9.20
1
493,782
Total:
248,102,973
435 281,424,177
574,330 33,321,204
13.43
435 Nat. mean:
645,632
Minimum:
493,782
House size: Const. minimum:e
50
Median:
642,850
House size: Const. maximum:e
9,380
Maximum:
902,195
a U.S. Congress, House, Apportionment Population and State Representation, H. Doc. 102-18, 102nd Cong., 1st sess.,
(Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 3,4.
b U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Shows Resident Population of 281,421,906;
Apportionment Counts Delivered to President, Press Release CB00-CN..64 (Washington, Dec. 28, 2000), Table
1. (Please note that resident population total does not include the foreign-based military and other federal
employees included in the apportionment population.)
c Ibid., Derived from Table 2.
d The average size congressional district for each state is calculated on the resident population for each state (which
is the apportionment population minus the overseas military (and other federal) employees.
e Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the minimum size of the House (one Representative per state), and
a maximum (one for every 30,000 persons).
Priority Lists and Seat Assignments
The reapportionment process for the House relies on rounding principles, but the
actual procedure involves computing a “priority list” of seat assignments for the states.
The Constitution allocates the first 50 seats because each state must have at least one
Representative. A priority list assigns the remaining 385 seats for a total of 435. Table
2 displays the end of the “priority list” that will be used to allocate Representatives based
on the 2000 Census apportionment population. The law only provides for 435 seats in the
House, but the tables illustrate not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment
formula (ending at 435), but the states that would just miss getting additional
representation.3
3 The figures in Table 2 for the “population needed to gain or lose a seat” are misleading because
it is unlikely that one state’s population total would be adjusted without others changing as well.
Since the method of equal proportions used to allocate seats in the House uses all state
populations simultaneously, changes in several state populations may also result in changes to
the “populations needed to gain or lose a seat.”

---

CRS-4
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000
Census Apportionment Population
2000 apportionment
Pop. needed to
Priority
State
Seat
Priority value
population
gain or lose seat
420
CA
51
33,930,798
671,929.90
-1,325,368
421
TN
9
5,700,037
671,755.50
-221,227
422
MA
10
6,355,568
669,935.36
-230,072
423
NY
29
19,004,973
666,943.75
-605,818
424
CO
7
4,311,882
665,337.67
-127,372
425
PA
19
12,300,670
665,144.05
-359,885
426
TX
32
20,903,994
663,702.45
-567,519
427
MO
9
5,606,260
660,703.78
-127,450
428
CA
52
33,930,798
658,881.42
-679,651
429
MN
8
4,925,670
658,220.10
-93,814
430
GA
13
8,206,975
657,083.72
-142,386
431
IA
5
2,931,923
655,597.81
-44,337
432
FL
25
16,028,890
654,376.65
-212,933
433
OH
18
11,374,540
650,239.14
-79,688
434
CA
53
33,930,798
646,330.20
-33,940
435
NC
13
8,067,673
645,930.64
-3,084
Last seat assigned by law
436
UT
4
2,236,714
645,683.70
+855
437
NY
30
19,004,973
644,328.90
+47,245
438
TX
33
20,903,994
643,275.93
+86,268
439
MI
16
9,955,829
642,645.62
+50,891
440
IN
10
6,090,782
642,024.48
+37,057
441
MT
2
905,316
640,155.07
+8,168
442
IL
20
12,439,042
638,109.37
+152,465
443
MS
5
2,852,927
637,933.77
+35,763
444
CA
54
33,930,798
634,248.18
+624,984
445
WI
9
5,371,210
633,002.89
+109,696
446
OK
6
3,458,819
631,490.94
+79,090
447
PA
20
12,300,670
631,011.04
+290,837
448
FL
26
16,028,890
628,704.74
+439,176
449
OR
6
3,428,543
625,963.33
+109,365
450
MD
9
5,307,886
625,540.08
+173,020
Source: Computations of priority values and populations needed to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS Report
RL30711, The House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by Royce Crocker, for an explanation of
formula for allocating House seats.
a Each state’s claim to representation in the House is based on a “priority value” determined by the following formula:
PV = P / [n( n - 1 )]½; where PV = the state’s priority value, P = the state’s population, and n = the state’s nth
seat in the House. For example, the priority value of Wisconsin’s 9th seat is:
PV
=
5,371,210 / [ 9( 9 - 1 ) ]½
WI9
=
5,371,210 / [ 72 ]½
=
5,371,210 / 8.485281374238570
=
633,002.89
The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states’ priority values from highest to lowest until 435 seats
are allocated.
b These figures represent the population a state would either need to lose in order to drop below the 435th seat cutoff,
or to gain to rise above the cutoff. If, in the case of Wisconsin, 109,696 more persons had been counted in the
Census, the state’s priority value would have been increased to 645,930.77 which would have resulted in a new
sequence number of 435 because North Carolina’s 13th seat would have occupied the 436th position in the
priority list.
Options for States Losing Seats
The apportionment counts transmitted by the Census Bureau to the President (who
then sends them to Congress) are considered final. Thus, most states which will lose seats

---

CRS-5
in the 108th Congress, have only one possible option for retaining them: urge Congress to
increase the size of the House. Any other option such as changing the formula used in the
computations, or changing the components of the apportionment population (such as
omitting the foreign-based military and federal civilian employees) will only affect a
small number of states if the House stays at 435 seats.4
As noted above, the 435-seat limit was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-27.
Altering the size of the House would require new law setting a different limit. Article 1,
Section 2 of the Constitution establishes a minimum House size (one Representative for
each state), and a maximum House size (one for every 30,000, or 9,380 based on the 2000
Census). In 2003, a House size of 473 would result in no states losing seats they held
from the 103rd to the 107th Congresses, but, by retaining seats through an increase in the
House size, other states would also have their delegations become larger. At a House size
of 473, California’s delegation size, for example, would be 57 instead of 53 seats.5
The Redistricting Process
The apportionment figures released on December 28, 2000 are made up of three
components: total resident population figures for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, the foreign-based military and other federal employees allocated to each state
and DC, and sum of these numbers which become the apportionment population.
These numbers (minus DC) are all that is needed to reapportion the House, but the
states need figures for very small geographic areas in order to draw new legislative and
congressional districts. The Census Bureau must provide small-area population totals to
the legislature and governor of each state by one year after the census (e.g., April 1, 2001).
The Census Bureau data to be delivered by April 1, 2001, is often referred to as the
PL 94-171 program (89 Stat.1023). This program provides to each state information from
the questionnaires sent to 100% of the households in the nation. As such, the information
is very limited — including age, race and Hispanic origin. No other demographic
information that might be useful to redistrictors, such as income or employment status,
are available in the 94-171 data.
Census data are usually reported by political jurisdictions (states, cities, counties, and
towns), and within political jurisdictions by special census geography (such as census
designated places, tracts, block numbering areas, and blocks). The PL 94-171 program
allows states which participate in it (46 in 2000), to request census data by certain non-
traditional census geography such as voting districts (precincts), and state legislative
4 After the 1990 Census Montana and Massachusetts challenged the apportionment formula, and
the inclusion of the foreign-based military and civilians in the apportionment population. The
Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the equal proportions formula and the inclusion
of the foreign-based military and civilians in the counts in two separate cases: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce v. Montana 112 S.Ct. 1415 (1992) and Franklin v. Massachusetts 112 S.Ct. 2767
(1992).
5 For a fuller discussion of this topic see CRS Report 95-791 GOV, House of Representatives:
Setting the Size at 435, by David C. Huckabee.

---

CRS-6
districts.6 These special political jurisdiction counts enable redistrictors to assess past
voting behavior when redrawing congressional and state legislative districts.
In most states, redrawing congressional districts is the responsibility of the state
legislature with the concurrence of the governor. In six states: Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, New Jersey, and Washington, a non-partisan, or bi-partisan commission is
responsible for drawing the plans.7 Some states have explicit deadlines in law to
complete their congressional districting. Most do not, so the effective deadline for the
legislatures or commissions to complete their work will be whatever filing deadlines are
established in the states for primaries for the 2002 elections.
Although many states have standards mandating equal populations, compactness,
contiguousness, and other goals to not split counties, towns, and cities, federal law
controls the redistricting process. Other than a requirement that multi-member states
cannot elect Representatives at-large (2 U.S.C. 2c), no federal statutory law establishes
explicit standards for redistricting. The principle laws that apply are the Supreme Court
decisions mandating one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act.
The fundamental federal rule governing redistricting congressional districts, one
person, one vote, was promulgated by the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders (376
U.S. 7, 1964). The Court has refined that ruling in a series of cases culminating in
Karcher v. Daggett (462 U.S. 725, 1983) that one person, one vote means that any
population deviation among districts in a state must be justified, but the deviations from
absolute equality may be permitted if the states strive to make districts more compact,
respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, or avoid contests
between incumbents.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) applies nationwide. It prohibits states or
localities from imposing a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice or procedure ... in a manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right
to vote on account of race or color.” Section 5 of the act applies only to certain
jurisdictions which must have their redistricting plans pre-cleared by a court or the Justice
Department before they become effective.8 The Supreme Court interpreted the VRA’s
application to redistricting in a series of cases responding, in part, to the extraordinarily
complicated districts created by many states in the 1990s to maximize minority
representation (beginning with Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 1993). The court ended the
decade by establishing new principles concerning such practices: (1) race may be
considered in districting to remedy past discrimination; (2) but, states must have a
compelling state interest to ignore traditional redistricting principles and “gerrymander”
to establish majority-minority districts; (3) courts will apply “strict scrutiny” to such
assertions that racial “gerrymanders” are necessary to determine whether such plans are
narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest.
6 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Strength in Numbers: Your Guide to Census
2000 Redistricting Data, (Washington: July, 2000), p. 4.
7 National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2000, (Washington: February,
1999), pp. 143-145. Arizona adopted a redistricting commission initiative in 2000 by 56% of the
vote.
8 Section 2: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(a) (1996); Section 5: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(c).

---