House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining,
Losing, and on the Margin
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
January 13, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41584
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
Summary
On December 21, 2010, the Commerce Department released 2010 Census population figures and
the resulting reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. The apportionment
population of the 50 states in 2010 is 309,183,463, a figure 9.9% greater than in 2000. Just as in
the 108th Congress, 12 seats will shift among 18 states in the 113th Congress as a result of the
reapportionment. The next census data release will begin February 2011, when the Census Bureau
will provide states the small-area data necessary to re-draw congressional and state legislative
districts in time for the 2012 elections.
Congressional Research Service
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Priority Lists and Seat Assignments............................................................................................. 5
Options for States Losing Seats ................................................................................................... 6
The Redistricting Process ............................................................................................................ 7
Tables
Table 1. Apportionment of Seats in the House of Representatives Based on the 2010
Census ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population .......................................................................................................5
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 9
Congressional Research Service
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
Background
The Census Bureau’s release of the first figures from the 2010 Census on December 21, 2010,
will shift 12 seats among 18 states for the 113th Congress (beginning in January 2013). Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will each
lose one seat; New York and Ohio will each lose two seats. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South
Carolina, Utah, and Washington will each gain one seat; Florida will gain two seats, and Texas
will gain four seats.1
The reapportionment of House seats in 2010 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, overseas military and federal employees and their dependents, who are from the
state but not residing therein at the time of the census. In 2010, these additional persons increased
the census count for the 50 states by 1,042,523, a little less than twice the number as in 2000. If
the foreign-based military and federal employees had not been included in the counts, there
would be no change in the apportionment of seats, although the order of seat assignment would
change.
Tables
Table 1 sets out the apportionment population as of April 1, 2000, and April 1, 2010; it also
provides the resulting seat assignments of each of the 50 states. The table also illustrates the
population change from 2000 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat allocation, and
what it will be at the beginning of the 113th Congress, and the average sized congressional district
for each state in the 113th Congress. For the 113th Congress, the national average size
congressional district will be 710,767, and districts will range in size from 527,624 (for Rhode
Island’s two congressional districts) to a maximum of 994,416 (for Montana’s single district).
1 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
1
Table 1. Apportionment of Seats in the House of Representatives
Based on the 2010 Census
2000
Seats in
2010
2010
Percentage
Seats in
Seat
Apportionment
108th
Apportionment Overseas/
Change from
Change from
113th
Change
2010 Average
State
Populationa
Congress
Populationb
Federalc
2000 Total
2000
Congress
from 2000
CD Populationd
AL 4,461,130
7
4,802,982 23,246 341,852 7.66%
7
682,819
AK 628,933
1
721,523 11,292 92,590 14.72%
1
710,231
AZ
5,140,683 8 6,412,700
20,683
1,272,017
24.74% 9 1 710,224
AR 2,679,733
4
2,926,229 10,311 246,496 9.20%
4
728,980
CA
33,930,798 53 37,341,989
88,033
3,411,191 10.05% 53
702,905
CO 4,311,882
7
5,044,930 15,734 733,048 17.00%
7
718,457
CT 3,409,535
5
3,581,628 7,531 172,093 5.05%
5
714,819
DE 785,068
1
900,877 2,943 115,809 14.75%
1
897,934
FL
16,028,890 25 18,900,773
99,463
2,871,883 17.92% 27 2 696,345
GA
8,206,975 13 9,727,566
39,913
1,520,591
18.53% 14 1 691,975
HI 1,216,642
2
1,366,862 6,561 150,220 12.35%
2
680,151
ID 1,297,274
2
1,573,499 5,917 276,225 21.29%
2
783,791
IL
12,439,042 19 12,864,380
33,748
425,338 3.42% 18 -1 712,813
IN 6,090,782
9
6,501,582 17,780 410,800 6.74%
9
720,422
IA
2,931,923 5 3,053,787
7,432
121,864 4.16% 4 -1 761,589
KS 2,693,824
4
2,863,813 10,695 169,989 6.31%
4
713,280
KY 4,049,431
6
4,350,606 11,239 301,175 7.44%
6
723,228
LA
4,480,271 7 4,553,962 20,590 73,691 1.64%
6
-1
755,562
ME 1,277,731
2
1,333,074 4,713 55,343
4.33%
2
664,181
MD 5,307,886
8
5,789,929 16,377 482,043
9.08%
8
721,694
MA
6,355,568 10 6,559,644
12,015
204,076 3.21% 9 -1 727,514
MI
9,955,829 15 9,911,626
27,986
-44,203 -0.44% 14 -1 705,974
MN 4,925,670
8
5,314,879 10,954 389,209
7.90%
8
662,991
CRS-2
2000
Seats in
2010
2010
Percentage
Seats in
Seat
Apportionment
108th
Apportionment Overseas/
Change from
Change from
113th
Change
2010 Average
State
Populationa
Congress
Populationb
Federalc
2000 Total
2000
Congress
from 2000
CD Populationd
MS 2,852,927
4
2,978,240 10,943 125,313 4.39%
4
741,824
MO
5,606,260 9 6,011,478
22,551
405,218 7.23% 8 -1 748,616
MT 905,316
1
994,416 5,001 89,100 9.84%
1
989,415
NB 1,715,369
3
1,831,825 5,484 116,456 6.79%
3
608,780
NV
2,002,032 3 2,709,432
8,881
707,400
35.33% 4 1 675,138
NH 1,238,415
2
1,321,445 4,975 83,030
6.70%
2
658,235
NJ
8,424,354 13 8,807,501
15,607
383,147 4.55% 12 -1 732,658
NM 1,823,821
3
2,067,273 8,094 243,452 13.35%
3
686,393
NY
19,004,973 29 19,421,055
42,953
416,082 2.19% 27 -2 717,707
NC
8,067,673 13 9,565,781
30,298
1,498,108
18.57% 13 733,499
ND 643,756
1
675,905 3,314 32,149 4.99%
1
672,591
OH
11,374,540 18 11,568,495
31,991
193,955 1.71% 16 -2 721,032
OK 3,458,819
5
3,764,882 13,531 306,063 8.85%
5
750,270
OR 3,428,543
5
3,848,606 17,532 420,063 12.25%
5
766,215
PA
12,300,670 19 12,734,905
32,526
434,235 3.53% 18 -1 705,688
RI 1,049,662
2
1,055,247 2,680 5,585
0.53%
2
526,284
SC
4,025,061 6 4,645,975
20,611
620,914
15.43% 7 1 660,766
SD 756,874
1
819,761 5,581 62,887 8.31%
1
814,180
TN 5,700,037
9
6,375,431 29,326 675,394 11.85%
9
705,123
TX
20,903,994 32 25,268,418
122,857
4,364,424 20.88% 36 4 698,488
UT
2,236,714 3 2,770,765
6,880
534,051
23.88% 4 1 690,971
VT 609,890
1
630,337 4,596 20,447 3.35%
1
625,741
VA
7,100,702 11 8,037,736
36,712
937,034 13.20% 11 727,366
WA
5,908,684 9 6,753,369
28,829
844,685
14.30% 10 1 672,454
WV 1,813,077
3
1,859,815 6,821 46,738
2.58%
3
617,665
CRS-3
2000
Seats in
2010
2010
Percentage
Seats in
Seat
Apportionment
108th
Apportionment Overseas/
Change from
Change from
113th
Change
2010 Average
State
Populationa
Congress
Populationb
Federalc
2000 Total
2000
Congress
from 2000
CD Populationd
WI 5,371,210
8
5,698,230 11,244 327,020 6.09%
8
710,873
WY 495,304
1
568,300 4,674 72,996 14.74%
1
563,626
Tota1 281,424,177 435 309,183,463 1,039,648 27,759,286 9.86%
435 Nat.
mean: 708,377
Minimum: 526,284
House size: Const, Minimum e: 50
Median:
710,552
House size: Const, Maximum e: 10,306
Maximum:
989,415
Notes:
a. See, “2000 Apportionment Results,” table 1 at http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2000_apportionment_results.html.
b. See, “A New Portrait of America, First 2010 Census Results,” table 1 at http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html.
c. See, “A New Portrait of America, First 2010 Census Results,” table 3 at http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html.
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).
CRS-4
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
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 2010 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.2
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census
Apportionment Population
2010
Last Seat
Apportionment
Priority
Pop. Needed to Gain
Seat
Allocated State Population
Value a
or Lose Seat b
420 26 FL 18,900,773
741,349.31 -823,146
421 7 AL 4,802,982
741,116.21 -207,729
422 51 CA
37,341,989
739,481.57 -1,536,070
423 18 IL 12,864,380
735,407.66 -460,846
424 14 MI 9,911,626
734,698.60 -345,845
425 27 NY
19,421,055
733,000.49 -634,234
426 35 TX
25,268,418
732,494.84 -808,318
427 18 PA 12,734,905
728,006.06 -331,371
428 52 CA
37,341,989
725,121.34 -826,973
429 14 GA 9,727,566
721,055.17 -161,785
430 7 SC 4,645,975
716,889.51 -50,722
431 27 FL 18,900,773
713,363.71 -113,952
432 10 WA
6,753,369
711,867.60 -26,608
433 36 TX
25,268,418
711,857.03 -99,183
434 53 CA
37,341,989
711,308.24 -117,877
435 8 MN
5,314,879
710,230.58 -8,738
Last seat assignment by law
436 14 NC 9,565,781
709,062.86 15,753
437 9 MO
6,011,478
708,459.48 15,028
2 The figures in Table 2 for the “population needed to gain or lose a seat” are somewhat misleading because it is
unlikely that one state’s population total would be adjusted without others changing as well. Since the method of equal
proportions used to allocate seats in the House uses all state populations simultaneously, changes in several state
populations may also result in changes to the “populations needed to gain or lose a seat.”
Congressional Research Service
5
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
2010
Last Seat
Apportionment
Priority
Pop. Needed to Gain
Seat
Allocated State Population
Value a
or Lose Seat b
438 28 NY 19,421,055
706,336.94 107,057
439 13 NJ
8,807,501
705,164.44 63,276
440 2 MT 994,416
703,158.30 10,002
441 7 LA 4,553,962
702,691.59 48,858
442 6 OR
3,848,606
702,656.11 41,487
443 17 OH
11,568,495
701,443.04 144,928
444 12 VA 8,037,736
699,595.12 122,192
445 54 CA
37,341,989
698,011.59 653,688
446 19 IL 12,864,380
695,626.00 270,086
447 37 TX
25,268,418
692,350.39 652,566
448 10 MA 6,559,644
691,447.19 178,195
449 19 PA 12,734,905
688,624.80 399,561
450 28 FL 18,900,773
687,414.47 627,339
Source: Computations of priority values and populations needed to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS Report
R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by Royce Crocker, for an
explanation of formula for al ocating House seats.
Notes:
a. Each state’s claim to representation in the House is based on a “priority value” determined by the following
formula:
PV = P / [n( n - 1 )]½; where PV = the state’s priority value, P = the state’s population, and n = the state’s nth
seat in the House. For example, the priority value of Oregon’s 6th seat is:
PVOR6
= 3,848,606 / [ 6( 6 - 1 ) ]½
= 3,848,606 / [ 30 ]½
= 3,848,606 / 5.477225575
= 702,656.11
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 Oregon, 41,487 more persons had been
counted in the Census, the state’s priority value would have been increased to 710,230.56 which would
have resulted in a new sequence number of 435 because Minnesota’s 8th 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 that will lose seats in the 113th 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
Congressional Research Service
6
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
federal civilian employees) might only affect a small number of states if the House stays at 435
seats.3
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 a 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 Representative for every 30,000, or 10,306 based on the 2010
Census). In 2013, a House size of 468 would be necessary to prevent states from losing seats they
held from the 108th to the 112th 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 468,
California’s delegation size, for example, would be 56 instead of 53 seats.
The Redistricting Process
The apportionment figures, released on December 21, 2010, 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 the sum of these
numbers, which become the apportionment population.
These numbers (minus DC) are all that is needed to reapportion the House, but most states need
figures for very small geographic areas in order to draw new legislative and congressional
districts.4 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, 2011).
The Census Bureau data to be delivered by April 1, 2011 (some states will start receiving the
information in February 2011), are often referred to as the P.L. 94-171 program data (89 Stat.
1023). This program provides to each state information from the 2010 Census. As such, the
information is very limited—including age, race, and Hispanic origin. No other demographic
information that might be useful to the persons constructing political jurisdictions, such as income
or employment status, are available in the P.L. 94-171 data. Such data, however, are available
from the results of the American Community Survey for geographic areas with populations as
small as 20,000 persons.5
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 P.L. 94-171 program allows states, which
participate in it (49 in 2010), to request Census data by certain nontraditional Census geography
3 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).
4 With respect to single-member states, this information would be used to draw state legislative and local political
jurisdictions.
5 For information about the 2005-2009 American Community Survey data, see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
data_documentation/2009_release/. For information about the American Community Survey, see CRS Report R41532,
The American Community Survey: Development, Implementation, and Issues for Congress, by Jennifer D. Williams.
Congressional Research Service
7
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
such as voting districts (precincts) and state legislative districts.6 These special political
jurisdiction counts enable the persons drawing the district lines 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 seven states, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
New Jersey, and Washington, a non-partisan or bi-partisan commission is responsible for drawing
and approving 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 deadlines are established in the states for
filing for primaries for the 2012 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) however, no federal statutory law establishes explicit standards for redistricting.
The principal 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.8
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.9
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
6 For a fuller discussion of this topic see the U.S. Census Bureau publication, Strength in Numbers : Your Guide to
Census 2010 Redistricting Data From the U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/rdo/.
7 National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2010, pp. 143-145. California adopted a redistricting
commission initiative in 2008 for state legislative districts, and extended it to U.S. congressional districts in a 2010
initiative vote.
8 For a more thorough discussion of the legal issues, see CRS Report RS22479, Congressional Redistricting: A Legal
Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry, by L. Paige
Whitaker; CRS Report RS22628, Congressional Redistricting: The Constitutionality of Creating an At-Large District,
by L. Paige Whitaker; CRS Report RL30870, Census 2000: Legal Issues re: Data for Reapportionment and
Redistricting, by Margaret Mikyung Lee and; CRS Report RS21593, Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal
Analysis of Georgia v. Ashcroft, by L. Paige Whitaker.
9 Section 2: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(a) (1996); Section 5: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(c).
Congressional Research Service
8
House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin
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.
Author Contact Information
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
rcrocker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7871
Congressional Research Service
9