ȱ
’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ
˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
˜¢ŒŽȱ›˜Œ”Ž›ȱ
™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—ȱŠ’˜—Š•ȱ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—ȱ
˜ŸŽ–‹Ž›ȱŗŚǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ
ŘŘśŝşȱ
ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
A proposal (H.R. 1905/S. 1257) has been introduced in the 110th Congress to provide for voting
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the residents of the District of Columbia
(DC). H.R. 1905/S. 1257, for purposes of voting representation, treats 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 would increase the size of the House to 437 members from
435, and give the additional seat to the state of Utah. This report shows the distribution of House
seats based on the 2000 census for 435 seats and for 437 seats as specified in the proposal. The
report also examines the impact of using the 2006 estimated population to allocate the 437 seats,
including the single seat provided to the District. This report will be updated as conditions
warrant.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
˜—Ž—œȱ
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Adding New States and Seats to the House..................................................................................... 1
Congressional precedent ........................................................................................................... 1
Reapportionment Impact ................................................................................................................. 2

Š‹•Žœȱ
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for DC Voting Representation in the
House............................................................................................................................................ 2
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000 Census
Apportionment Population and a 435 Seat House........................................................................ 5
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000 Census
Apportionment Population and a 437 Seat House........................................................................ 6

˜—ŠŒœȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 7

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
ŠŒ”›˜ž—ȱ
H.R. 1905/S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would provide for
a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. House of Representatives, from 435 seats to 437
seats. The bills specify that one of the seats is to be allocated to the District of Columbia while the
other seat is to be assigned either by using the normal apportionment formula allocation
procedure (H.R. 1905) or specifying that the seat would be allocated to Utah, thus adding a fourth
seat (S. 1257). While both versions treat the District of Columbia as if it were a state for the
purposes of the allocation of House seats, each restricts the District of Columbia to a single
congressional seat under any future apportionments.
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.1 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.
’—ȱŽ ȱŠŽœȱŠ—ȱŽŠœȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ ˜žœŽȱ
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 persons, or 9,380 representatives based on the 2000
Census). In 2003, a House size of 473 would have resulted in no state losing seats held from the
103rd to the 107th Congresses. However, by retaining seats through an increase in the House size,
other state delegations would become larger. At a House size of 473, California’s delegation size,
for example, would be 57 instead of 53 seats.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱ™›ŽŒŽŽ—ȱ
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.
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.

1 See CRS Report RL33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative
Proposals
, by Eugene Boyd, esp. pp. 19-20., for a complete discussion.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
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).
ŽŠ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ –™ŠŒȱ
Table 1 lists the actual apportionment allocations of Representatives based on the 2000 census for
435 seats and the apportionment that would occur as a result of the provisions of the proposed
legislation (i.e., 437 seats, DC allocated a seat and Utah allocated a seat). In addition, the
apportionment of 437 seats of the House of Representatives is shown based on the 2006 state
population estimates and providing for a seat for the District of Columbia.
If the District of Columbia 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.
If the District of Columbia 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. No other state would be effected by the change. This is the impact that
the proponents of the proposed legislation hope to achieve.
If either of the pending bills are enacted and the most recent estimates of population of the states
are used as a projection for what might happen in the 2012 apportionment, the District would get
its seat and Utah would retain its fourth seat. However, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Nevada
would each pick up a seat, and Texas would be allocated an additional two seats. Iowa, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would each lose a single seat. This is
primarily due to a change in state populations since the 2000 census.
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for DC Voting Representation in
the House
Actual 2000 allocation:
437 Representatives
435 Representatives
DC given own seat
DC given own seat
ST Apportion- Seats ST
2000 Seats
ST
Seats
ment pop.
Apportion-

Seat
change

2006
Estimated

Seat
change
ment pop.b
from
pop.c
from
2000


2000
AL 4,461,130 7
AL 4,461,130 7

AL 4,596,330
7

AK 628,933 1
AK 628,933 1
AK 694,109
1

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
Actual 2000 allocation:
437 Representatives
435 Representatives
DC given own seat
DC given own seat
ST Apportion- Seats ST
2000 Seats
ST
Seats
ment pop.
Apportion-

Seat
change

2006
Estimated

Seat
change
ment pop.b
from
pop.c
from
2000


2000
AZ 5,140,683 8
AZ 5,140,683 8

AZ 6,637,381
9
+1
AR 2,679,733 4
AR 2,679,733 4

AR 2,875,039
4

CA 33,930,798 53
CA 33,930,798 53

CA
38,067,134 53

CO 4,311,882 7
CO 4,311,882 7

CO
4,831,554 7

CT 3,409,535 5
CT 3,409,535 5

CT 3,577,490 5

DCa 574,096 0
DC 574,096 1 +1
DC 884,342 1

DE 785,068 1
DE 785,068 1

DE 529,785 1

FL 16,028,890 25
FL 16,028,890 25

FL 19,251,691 26 +1
GA 8,206,975 13
GA 8,206,975 13

GA 9,589,080 14 +1
HI 1,216,642 2
HI 1,216,642 2

HI 1,340,674 2

ID 1,297,274 2
ID 1,297,274 2

ID 1,517,291 2

IL 12,439,042 19
IL 12,439,042 19

IL 12,916,894 19

IN 6,090,782 9
IN 6,090,782 9

IN 6,392,139 9

IA 2,931,923 5
IA 2,931,923 5

IA 3,009,907 4 -1
KS 2,693,824 4
KS 2,693,824 4

KS 2,805,470 4

KY 4,049,431 6
KY 4,049,431 6

KY 4,265,117 6

LA 4,480,271 7
LA 4,480,271 7

LA 4,612,679 6 -1
ME 1,277,731 2
ME 1,277,731 2

ME 1,357,134 2

MD 5,307,886 8
MD 5,307,886 8

MD
5,904,970 8

MA 6,355,568 10
MA 6,355,568 10

MA 6,649,441 9 -1
MI 9,955,829 15
MI 9,955,829 15

MI 10,428,683 15

MN 4,925,670 8
MN 4,925,670 8

MN
5,420,636 8

MS 2,852,927 4
MS 2,852,927 4

MS 2,971,412 4

MO 5,606,260 9
MO 5,606,260 9

MO
5,922,078 9

MT 905,316 1
MT 905,316 1

MT 968,598 1

NE 1,715,369 3
NE 1,715,369 3

NE 1,768,997 3

NV 2,002,032 3
NV 2,002,032 3

NV
2,690,531 4 +1
NH 1,238,415 2
NH 1,238,415 2

NH
1,385,560 2

NJ 8,424,354 13
NJ 8,424,354 13

NJ 9,018,231 13

NM 1,823,821 3
NM 1,823,821 3

NM
1,980,225 3

NY 19,004,973 29
NY 19,004,973 29

NY
19,443,672 28 -1
NCa 8,067,673 13
NC 8,067,673 13

NC 9,345,823 13

ND 643,756 1
ND 643,756 1

ND 636,623 1

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
Actual 2000 allocation:
437 Representatives
435 Representatives
DC given own seat
DC given own seat
ST Apportion- Seats ST
2000 Seats
ST
Seats
ment pop.
Apportion-

Seat
change

2006
Estimated

Seat
change
ment pop.b
from
pop.c
from
2000


2000
OH 11,374,540 18
OH 11,374,540 18

OH
11,576,181 17 -1
OK 3,458,819 5
OK 3,458,819 5

OK
3,591,516 5

OR 3,428,543 5
OR 3,428,543 5

OR
3,790,996 5

PA 12,300,670 19
PA 12,300,670 19

PA 12,584,487 18 -1
RI 1,049,662 2
RI 1,049,662 2

RI 1,116,652 2

SC 4,025,061 6
SC 4,025,061 6

SC 4,446,704 6

SD 756,874 1
SD 756,874 1

SD 786,399 1

TN 5,700,037 9
TN 5,700,037 9

TN
6,230,852 9

TX 20,903,994 32
TX 20,903,994 32

TX 24,648,888 34 +2
UT 2,236,714 3
UT 2,236,714 4 +1
UT 2,595,013 4

VT 609,890 1
VT 609,890 1

VT 652,512 1

VA 7,100,702 11
VA 7,100,702 11

VA 8,010,245 11

WA
5,908,684 9
WA 5,908,684 9

WA
6,541,963 9

WV 1,813,077 3
WV 1,813,077 3

WV
1,829,141 3

WI 5,371,210 8
WI 5,371,210 8

WI 5,727,426 8

WY 495,304 1
WY 495,304 1

WY 519,886 1


435

437


437

Note: All apportionment calculations by CRS using the “method of equal proportions” formula mandated by 2
U.S.C. §2a.(a).
a. If 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.
b. 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.
c. Source: http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html, Population Change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (NST-
EST2006). Site last visited, September 14, 2007.
The actual apportionment is done through a “priority list” calculated using 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.2

2 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.”
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
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 2000 Census
Apportionment Population and a 435 Seat House
Priority State Seat
2000
Priority valuea
Pop. needed to
apportionment
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
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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
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:
PVWI9 = 5,371,210 / [ 9( 9 - 1 ) ]½
= 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.
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000 Census
Apportionment Population and a 437 Seat House
Priority State Seat
2000
Priority value
Pop. needed to
apportionment
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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

’œ›’Œȱ˜ȱ˜•ž–‹’ŠȱŽ™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜—DZȱŽŒȱ˜—ȱ ˜žœŽȱ™™˜›’˜—–Ž—ȱ
ȱ
Priority State Seat
2000
Priority value
Pop. needed to
apportionment
gain or lose seat
population
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.

ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

Royce Crocker

Specialist in American National Government
rcrocker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7871




˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ