Order Code RS22579
January 24, 2007
District of Columbia Representation: Effect on
House Apportionment
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government (Elections, Survey
Research and Statistical Methodology)
Government and Finance
Summary
Two proposals (H.R. 328 and H.R. 492) have been introduced in the 110th
Congress. Both provide for voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives
for the residents of the District of Columbia, but in, fundamentally, different ways. H.R.
328, for purposes of voting representation, treats the District of Columbia as if it were
a state; H.R. 492 adds the District’s resident population to the state of Maryland for
purposes of representation. Both proposals increase the size of the House to 437
members from 435. Both provide for a representative for D.C. residents (one via
representation in a new Maryland seat). And both proposals would, essentially, provide
an additional seat to the state of Utah over what it received in the 2002 apportionment.
This report will be updated as conditions warrant.
Background
H.R. 328, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007,
provides for a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. House of Representatives, from
435 seats to 437 seats. It specifies that one of the seats is to be allocated to the District
of Columbia while the other seat is to be assigned using the normal apportionment
formula allocation procedure, which presently would result in Utah adding a fourth seat.
In essence, H.R. 328 treats the District of Columbia as if it were a state for the purposes
of the allocation of House seats.
H.R. 492, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2007, also
would permanently increase the size of the House to 437 seats. However, rather than
treating the District of Columbia as a separate entity, H.R. 492 provides that, for the
purposes of apportioning seats among the states, the District’s population would be
allocated to the state of Maryland and one of the Maryland seats would contain the
District of Columbia. Under this proposal, District residents would receive representation
in the U.S. House of Representatives via a new Maryland representative. The other seat
would also go to Utah.

---

CRS-2
Reapportionment Impact
Table 1 lists the actual apportionment allocations of Representatives for 2000, with
footnotes for the changes that would have occurred if DC had been treated as a state, plus
two 437-seat alternatives described in options one and two below.
If DC had been treated as a state in the reapportionment of congressional seats
following the 2000 census, and the House size had remained at 435, North Carolina
would have not gained an additional seat in comparison with the 1990s. The state’s
delegation would have remained at 12 Representatives.
Option 1: 437-seat House including DC. If DC were to receive representation
as if it were a state, and the House size were to be increased to 437, DC would be entitled
to one Representative, and Utah would be entitled to four Representatives, one more than
the state received in the reapportionment following the 2000 census.
Option 2: 437-seat House, DC’s population added to Maryland. If DC’s
population were to be added to Maryland and the size of the House increased to 437,
Maryland would be entitled to nine Representatives, one more than the state received in
the reapportionment following the 2000 census. As in option 1, Utah would be entitled
to four Representatives, one more than the state received in the reapportionment following
the 2000 census.
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for DC Voting
Representation in the House
437 Representatives
Actual 2000 allocation:
DC treated as a state
DC’s population added to MD
435 Representatives
Seat
Seat
Apportion-
change
Apportion- Seats
change
Apportion-
ST
ment pop.b
Seats from 2000 ST
ment pop.b
from 2000
ST
ment pop. Seats
AL
4,461,130
7 AL
4,461,130
7
AL
4,461,130
7
AK
628,933
1 AK
628,933
1
AK
628,933
1
AZ
5,140,683
8 AZ
5,140,683
8
AZ
5,140,683
8
AR
2,679,733
4 AR
2,679,733
4
AR
2,679,733
4
CA
33,930,798
53 CA
33,930,798
53
CA
33,930,798
53
CO
4,311,882
7 CO
4,311,882
7
CO
4,311,882
7
CT
3,409,535
5 CT
3,409,535
5
CT
3,409,535
5
DCa
574,096
0 DC
574,096
1
+1 DC
0
0
DE
785,068
1 DE
785,068
1
DE
785,068
1
FL
16,028,890
25 FL
16,028,890
25
FL
16,028,890
25
GA
8,206,975
13 GA
8,206,975
13
GA
8,206,975
13
HI
1,216,642
2 HI
1,216,642
2
HI
1,216,642
2
ID
1,297,274
2 ID
1,297,274
2
ID
1,297,274
2
IL
12,439,042
19 IL
12,439,042
19
IL
12,439,042
19
IN
6,090,782
9 IN
6,090,782
9
IN
6,090,782
9
IA
2,931,923
5 IA
2,931,923
5
IA
2,931,923
5
KS
2,693,824
4 KS
2,693,824
4
KS
2,693,824
4
KY
4,049,431
6 KY
4,049,431
6
KY
4,049,431
6
LA
4,480,271
7 LA
4,480,271
7
LA
4,480,271
7
ME
1,277,731
2 ME
1,277,731
2
ME
1,277,731
2
MD
5,307,886
8 MD
5,307,886
8
MD
5,879,945
9
+1
MA
6,355,568
10 MA
6,355,568
10
MA
6,355,568
10

---

CRS-3
437 Representatives
Actual 2000 allocation:
DC treated as a state
DC’s population added to MD
435 Representatives
Seat
Seat
Apportion-
change
Apportion- Seats
change
Apportion-
ST
ment pop.b
Seats from 2000 ST
ment pop.b
from 2000
ST
ment pop. Seats
MI
9,955,829
15 MI
9,955,829
15
MI
9,955,829
15
MN
4,925,670
8 MN
4,925,670
8
MN
4,925,670
8
MS
2,852,927
4 MS
2,852,927
4
MS
2,852,927
4
MO
5,606,260
9 MO
5,606,260
9
MO
5,606,260
9
MT
905,316
1 MT
905,316
1
MT
905,316
1
NE
1,715,369
3 NE
1,715,369
3
NE
1,715,369
3
NV
2,002,032
3 NV
2,002,032
3
NV
2,002,032
3
NH
1,238,415
2 NH
1,238,415
2
NH
1,238,415
2
NJ
8,424,354
13 NJ
8,424,354
13
NJ
8,424,354
13
NM
1,823,821
3 NM
1,823,821
3
NM
1,823,821
3
NY
19,004,973
29 NY
19,004,973
29
NY
19,004,973
29
NCa
8,067,673
13 NC
8,067,673
13
NC
8,067,673
13
ND
643,756
1 ND
643,756
1
ND
643,756
1
OH
11,374,540
18 OH
11,374,540
18
OH
11,374,540
18
OK
3,458,819
5 OK
3,458,819
5
OK
3,458,819
5
OR
3,428,543
5 OR
3,428,543
5
OR
3,428,543
5
PA
12,300,670
19 PA
12,300,670
19
PA
12,300,670
19
RI
1,049,662
2 RI
1,049,662
2
RI
1,049,662
2
SC
4,025,061
6 SC
4,025,061
6
SC
4,025,061
6
SD
756,874
1 SD
756,874
1
SD
756,874
1
TN
5,700,037
9 TN
5,700,037
9
TN
5,700,037
9
TX
20,903,994
32 TX
20,903,994
32
TX
20,903,994
32
UT
2,236,714
3 UT
2,236,714
4
+1 UT
2,236,714
4
+1
VT
609,890
1 VT
609,890
1
VT
609,890
1
VA 7,100,702
11 VA
7,100,702
11
VA
7,100,702
11
WA 5,908,684
9 WA
5,908,684
9
WA
5,908,684
9
WV
1,813,077
3 WV
1,813,077
3
WV
1,813,077
3
WI
5,371,210
8 WI
5,371,210
8
WI
5,371,210
8
WY
495,304
1 WY
495,304
1
WY
495,304
1
435
437
437
All apportionment calculations by CRS using the “method of equal proportions” formula mandated by 2.
U.S.C. 2a.(a).
aIf DC had been allocated Representatives as if it were a state after the 2000 Census it would have been
entitled to one Representative, and North Carolina would have received 12 instead of 13.
bThe 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.
The actual apportionment is done through a “priority list” calculated based on the
equal proportions formula provided in 2. U.S.C. 2a.(a). Table 2 displays the end of the
priority list that was used to allocate Representatives based on the 2000 Census. 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.1
1 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,
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000
Census Apportionment Population and a 435 Seat House
2000
Pop. needed to
Priority
State
Seat
apportionment
Priority value
gain or lose seat
population
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
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.
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.
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 need to gain or lose a
seat do not change if DC is treated like state, or if DC’s population is added to that of
1 (...continued)
changes in several state populations may also result in changes to the “populations needed to gain or lose
a seat.”

---

CRS-5
Maryland, because in either case, either DC is entitled the constitutional minimum of one
Representative, or Maryland’s 9th seat moves up from priority value 450 (see table 2) to
priority value 408.
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000
Census Apportionment Population and a 437 Seat House
2000
Pop. needed to
Priority
State
Seat
apportionment
Priority value
gain or lose seat
population
425
CO
7
4,311,882
665,337.67
-136,152
426
PA
19
12,300,670
665,144.05
-384,940
427
TX
32
20,903,994
663,702.45
-610,190
428
MO
9
5,606,260
660,703.78
-138,946
429
CA
52
33,930,798
658,881.42
-749,420
430
MN
8
4,925,670
658,220.10
-103,952
431
GA
13
8,206,975
657,083.72
-159,308
432
IA
5
2,931,923
655,597.81
-50,396
433
FL
25
16,028,890
654,376.65
-246,119
434
OH
18
11,374,540
650,239.14
-103,387
435
CA
53
33,930,798
646,330.20
-105,063
436
NC
13
8,067,673
645,930.64
-20,006
437
UT
4
2,236,714
645,683.70
-4,693
Last seat assigned
438
NY
30
19,004,973
644,328.90
+39,961
439
TX
33
20,903,994
643,275.93
+78,243
440
MI
16
9,955,829
642,645.62
+47,066
441
IN
10
6,090,782
642,024.48
+34,714
442
MT
2
905,316
640,155.07
+7,819
443
IL
20
12,439,042
638,109.37
+147,651
444
MS
5
2,852,927
637,933.77
+34,659
445
CA
54
33,930,798
634,248.18
+611,774
446
WI
9
5,371,210
633,002.89
+107,600
447
OK
6
3,458,819
631,490.94
+77,737
448
PA
20
12,300,670
631,011.04
+286,023
449
FL
26
16,028,890
628,704.74
+432,880
450
OR
6
3,428,543
625,963.33
+108,013
See notes end of table 2.
Adding New States and Seats to the House
The 435 seat limit for the size of the House was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-
27. Altering the size of the House would require a new law setting a different limit.
Article 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, or 9,380 based on the
2000 Census). In 2003, a House size of 473 would in 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.2
2 For a fuller discussion of this topic see: CRS Report 95-791, House of Representatives: Setting the Size
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
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.3
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 states’ representation 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 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).
2 (...continued)
at 435, by David C. Huckabee.
3 For a general discussion of the history of admitting states to the union, please see:CRS Report
98-702GOV, Statehood Process of the Fifty States, by Garrine P. Laney.

---