Two proposals (H.R. 157/S. 160, District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009) were introduced in the 111th Congress to provide for voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the residents of the District of Columbia (DC). H.R. 157/S. 160, for purposes of voting representation, treated 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 increased the size of the House to 437 members from 435, and gave the additional seat to the state that would have received the 436th seat under the 2000 apportionment, Utah.
This report shows the distribution of House seats based on the 2010 Census for 435 seats and for 437 seats as specified in the proposal. North Carolina, which would receive the 436th seat in the 2010 apportionment is substituted for Utah, assuming that any new, similar legislation would adopt the same language as H.R. 157.
H.R. 157/S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 introduced in the 111th Congress, provided for a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. House of Representatives, from 435 seats to 437 seats.1 The bills specified that one of the additional seats was to be allocated to the District of Columbia while the other seat was to be assigned either by using the normal apportionment formula allocation procedure (H.R. 157) or specifying that the seat would be allocated to Utah, the state which would have received the 436th seat under the 2000 apportionment process. Thus, this would add a fourth seat to Utah's three (S. 160). While both versions treated the District of Columbia as if it were a state for the purposes of the allocation of House seats, each bill restricted the District of Columbia to a single congressional seat under any future apportionments.
Similar bills had been introduced in the 110th Congress. 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. 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. No further action occurred on the legislation.
The 435 seat limit for the size of the House was imposed in 1929 by statute (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 10,306 representatives based on the 2010 Census). For the 2010 apportionment, a House size of 468 would have resulted in no state losing seats held from the 112th to the 116th Congresses. However, by retaining seats through such an increase in the House size, other state delegations would become larger. At a House size of 468, California's delegation size, for example, would be 56 instead of 53 seats, Texas's delegation size would be 38 instead of 36 seats, and Florida's delegation size would be 29 instead of 27 seats.
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.
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).
Table 1, below displays the apportionment of the seats in the House of Representatives based on the 2000 Census apportionment population (the current House apportionment) and the apportionment of seats in the House based on the 2010 Census apportionment population (the distribution of seats among the states for the 113th Congress). In addition, Table 1 also shows the impact on the distribution of seats in the House if the District of Columbia were to be treated as if it were a state for apportionment purposes for both a House size of 435 seats and a House size of 437 seats.
First, due to population changes between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, Table 1 shows a shift of 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. These are the actual seats to be allocated based on the results of the 2010 Census.2
Second, if the District of Columbia were to be given a vote in the House of Representatives and treated as if it were a state in the reapportionment of congressional seats following the 2010 census, and the House size remained at 435, Minnesota would lose a seat relative to what it is scheduled to get as a result of the 2010 Census. Thus, Minnesota's delegation would fall to seven Representatives if the District of Columbia were to given a vote and the House size remained at 435 Representatives.
Third, if, on the other hand, the District of Columbia were to be given a vote in the House of Representatives and treated as if it were a state and the House size were to be increased to 437, the District of Columbia would receive one Representative and North Carolina would be entitled to fourteen Representatives, one more than the state is scheduled to receive in the apportionment following the 2010 census. Also, Minnesota would retain its eighth seat and no other state would be affected by the change.3
Table 1. Apportionment Impact of Alternative Plans for D.C. Voting Representation in the House of Representatives
2010 Census Apportionment Population
State |
2000 Apportionment Population (Current House)a |
2003-2012 House Seats |
2010 Apportionment Population (2013 Congress)b |
2013 House Seats |
Seat Gains & Losses: 2002 vs. 2012 |
2010 Apportionment Population Including D.C.b |
House Seats |
Seat Gains & Losses: DC vs. No DC |
2010 Apportionment Population Including D.C.b |
House Seats |
Seat Gains & Losses: 435 vs. 437 |
AL |
4,461,130 |
7 |
4,802,982 |
7 |
0 |
4,802,982 |
7 |
0 |
4,802,982 |
7 |
0 |
AK |
628,933 |
1 |
721,523 |
1 |
0 |
721,523 |
1 |
0 |
721,523 |
1 |
0 |
AZ |
5,140,683 |
8 |
6,412,700 |
9 |
1 |
6,412,700 |
9 |
0 |
6,412,700 |
9 |
0 |
AR |
2,679,733 |
4 |
2,926,229 |
4 |
0 |
2,926,229 |
4 |
0 |
2,926,229 |
4 |
0 |
CA |
33,930,798 |
53 |
37,341,989 |
53 |
0 |
37,341,989 |
53 |
0 |
37,341,989 |
53 |
0 |
CO |
4,311,882 |
7 |
5,044,930 |
7 |
0 |
5,044,930 |
7 |
0 |
5,044,930 |
7 |
0 |
CN |
3,409,535 |
5 |
3,581,628 |
5 |
0 |
3,581,628 |
5 |
0 |
3,581,628 |
5 |
0 |
DE |
785,068 |
1 |
900,877 |
1 |
0 |
900,877 |
1 |
0 |
900,877 |
1 |
0 |
DC |
604,598 |
1 |
1 |
604,598 |
1 |
0 |
|||||
FL |
16,028,890 |
25 |
18,900,773 |
27 |
2 |
18,900,773 |
27 |
0 |
18,900,773 |
27 |
0 |
GA |
8,206,975 |
13 |
9,727,566 |
14 |
1 |
9,727,566 |
14 |
0 |
9,727,566 |
14 |
0 |
HI |
1,216,642 |
2 |
1,366,862 |
2 |
0 |
1,366,862 |
2 |
0 |
1,366,862 |
2 |
0 |
ID |
1,297,274 |
2 |
1,573,499 |
2 |
0 |
1,573,499 |
2 |
0 |
1,573,499 |
2 |
0 |
IL |
12,439,042 |
19 |
12,864,380 |
18 |
-1 |
12,864,380 |
18 |
0 |
12,864,380 |
18 |
0 |
IN |
6,090,782 |
9 |
6,501,582 |
9 |
0 |
6,501,582 |
9 |
0 |
6,501,582 |
9 |
0 |
IA |
2,931,923 |
5 |
3,053,787 |
4 |
-1 |
3,053,787 |
4 |
0 |
3,053,787 |
4 |
0 |
KS |
2,693,824 |
4 |
2,863,813 |
4 |
0 |
2,863,813 |
4 |
0 |
2,863,813 |
4 |
0 |
KY |
4,049,431 |
6 |
4,350,606 |
6 |
0 |
4,350,606 |
6 |
0 |
4,350,606 |
6 |
0 |
LA |
4,480,271 |
7 |
4,553,962 |
6 |
-1 |
4,553,962 |
6 |
0 |
4,553,962 |
6 |
0 |
ME |
1,277,731 |
2 |
1,333,074 |
2 |
0 |
1,333,074 |
2 |
0 |
1,333,074 |
2 |
0 |
MD |
5,307,886 |
8 |
5,789,929 |
8 |
0 |
5,789,929 |
8 |
0 |
5,789,929 |
8 |
0 |
MA |
6,355,568 |
10 |
6,559,644 |
9 |
-1 |
6,559,644 |
9 |
0 |
6,559,644 |
9 |
0 |
MI |
9,955,829 |
15 |
9,911,626 |
14 |
-1 |
9,911,626 |
14 |
0 |
9,911,626 |
14 |
0 |
MN |
4,925,670 |
8 |
5,314,879 |
8 |
0 |
5,314,879 |
7 |
-1 |
5,314,879 |
8 |
1 |
MS |
2,852,927 |
4 |
2,978,240 |
4 |
0 |
2,978,240 |
4 |
0 |
2,978,240 |
4 |
0 |
MO |
5,606,260 |
9 |
6,011,478 |
8 |
-1 |
6,011,478 |
8 |
0 |
6,011,478 |
8 |
0 |
MT |
905,316 |
1 |
994,416 |
1 |
0 |
994,416 |
1 |
0 |
994,416 |
1 |
0 |
NB |
1,715,369 |
3 |
1,831,825 |
3 |
0 |
1,831,825 |
3 |
0 |
1,831,825 |
3 |
0 |
NV |
2,002,032 |
3 |
2,709,432 |
4 |
1 |
2,709,432 |
4 |
0 |
2,709,432 |
4 |
0 |
NH |
1,238,415 |
2 |
1,321,445 |
2 |
0 |
1,321,445 |
2 |
0 |
1,321,445 |
2 |
0 |
NJ |
8,424,354 |
13 |
8,807,501 |
12 |
-1 |
8,807,501 |
12 |
0 |
8,807,501 |
12 |
0 |
NM |
1,823,821 |
3 |
2,067,273 |
3 |
0 |
2,067,273 |
3 |
0 |
2,067,273 |
3 |
0 |
NY |
19,004,973 |
29 |
19,421,055 |
27 |
-2 |
19,421,055 |
27 |
0 |
19,421,055 |
27 |
0 |
NC |
8,067,673 |
13 |
9,565,781 |
13 |
0 |
9,565,781 |
13 |
0 |
9,565,781 |
14 |
1 |
ND |
643,756 |
1 |
675,905 |
1 |
0 |
675,905 |
1 |
0 |
675,905 |
1 |
0 |
OH |
11,374,540 |
18 |
11,568,495 |
16 |
-2 |
11,568,495 |
16 |
0 |
11,568,495 |
16 |
0 |
OK |
3,458,819 |
5 |
3,764,882 |
5 |
0 |
3,764,882 |
5 |
0 |
3,764,882 |
5 |
0 |
OR |
3,428,543 |
5 |
3,848,606 |
5 |
0 |
3,848,606 |
5 |
0 |
3,848,606 |
5 |
0 |
PA |
12,300,670 |
19 |
12,734,905 |
18 |
-1 |
12,734,905 |
18 |
0 |
12,734,905 |
18 |
0 |
RI |
1,049,662 |
2 |
1,055,247 |
2 |
0 |
1,055,247 |
2 |
0 |
1,055,247 |
2 |
0 |
SC |
4,025,061 |
6 |
4,645,975 |
7 |
1 |
4,645,975 |
7 |
0 |
4,645,975 |
7 |
0 |
SD |
756,874 |
1 |
819,761 |
1 |
0 |
819,761 |
1 |
0 |
819,761 |
1 |
0 |
TN |
5,700,037 |
9 |
6,375,431 |
9 |
0 |
6,375,431 |
9 |
0 |
6,375,431 |
9 |
0 |
TX |
20,903,994 |
32 |
25,268,418 |
36 |
4 |
25,268,418 |
36 |
0 |
25,268,418 |
36 |
0 |
UT |
2,236,714 |
3 |
2,770,765 |
4 |
1 |
2,770,765 |
4 |
0 |
2,770,765 |
4 |
0 |
VT |
609,890 |
1 |
630,337 |
1 |
0 |
630,337 |
1 |
0 |
630,337 |
1 |
0 |
VA |
7,100,702 |
11 |
8,037,736 |
11 |
0 |
8,037,736 |
11 |
0 |
8,037,736 |
11 |
0 |
WA |
5,908,684 |
9 |
6,753,369 |
10 |
1 |
6,753,369 |
10 |
0 |
6,753,369 |
10 |
0 |
WV |
1,813,077 |
3 |
1,859,815 |
3 |
0 |
1,859,815 |
3 |
0 |
1,859,815 |
3 |
0 |
WI |
5,371,210 |
8 |
5,698,230 |
8 |
0 |
5,698,230 |
8 |
0 |
5,698,230 |
8 |
0 |
WY |
495,304 |
1 |
568,300 |
1 |
0 |
568,300 |
1 |
0 |
568,300 |
1 |
0 |
TOTALS |
281,424,177 |
435 |
309,183,463 |
435 |
309,788,061 |
435 |
309,788,061 |
437 |
|||
Average Pop. Per Seat |
646,952 |
710,767 |
712,156 |
708,897 |
Source: All apportionment calculations by CRS using the "method of equal proportions" formula mandated by 2 U.S.C. §2a.(a).
Notes: 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. Source for apportionment populations:
a. http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2000_apportionment_results.html.
b. The apportionment figures for all the states are provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Apportionment population for the District of Columbia were constructed by adding the District of Columbia'For apportionment figures and overseas population, see http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data//2010_apportionment_results.html. For the 2010 District of Columbia resident population, see http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php.
Another way to see the impact is to examine the allocation of the last seats assigned to the states when the District of Columbia is allocated a seat (presumably the 51st seat). The actual apportionment is done through a "priority list" calculated using the equal proportions formula provided in 2 U.S.C. §2a.(a).4 Table 2, below, displays the end of the priority list that was used to allocate Representatives based on the 2010 Census, including the District of Columbia. The law only provides for 435 seats in the House, but the table illustrates not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment formula (ending at 435), but the states that would just miss getting additional representation.5
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 2010 Census Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia
435 House Seats
Seat |
Last Seat Allocated |
State |
2010 Population |
Priority Valuea |
Pop. Needed to Gain or Lose Seatb |
2 |
420 |
Rhode Island |
1,055,247 |
746,172.310 |
-50,829 |
26 |
421 |
Florida |
18,900,773 |
741,349.310 |
-793,375 |
7 |
422 |
Alabama |
4,802,982 |
741,116.212 |
-200,162 |
51 |
423 |
California |
37,341,989 |
739,481.573 |
-1,477,103 |
18 |
424 |
Illinois |
12,864,380 |
735,407.656 |
-440,419 |
14 |
425 |
Michigan |
9,911,626 |
734,698.600 |
-330,092 |
27 |
426 |
New York |
19,421,055 |
733,000.485 |
-603,295 |
35 |
427 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
732,494.844 |
-768,036 |
18 |
428 |
Pennsylvania |
12,734,905 |
728,006.063 |
-310,944 |
52 |
429 |
California |
37,341,989 |
725,121.341 |
-766,838 |
14 |
430 |
Georgia |
9,727,566 |
721,055.165 |
-146,032 |
7 |
431 |
South Carolina |
4,645,975 |
716,889.506 |
-43,155 |
27 |
432 |
Florida |
18,900,773 |
713,363.707 |
-83,013 |
10 |
433 |
Washington |
6,753,369 |
711,867.597 |
-15,530 |
36 |
434 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
711,857.033 |
-57,733 |
53 |
435 |
California |
37,341,989 |
711,308.241 |
-56,575 |
Last seat assigned if the House size were set to 435 |
|||||
8 |
436 |
Minnesota |
5,314,879 |
710,230.581 |
8,064 |
14 |
437 |
North Carolina |
9,565,781 |
709,062.863 |
30,292 |
9 |
438 |
Missouri |
6,011,478 |
708,459.476 |
24,173 |
28 |
439 |
New York |
19,421,055 |
706,336.941 |
136,688 |
13 |
440 |
New Jersey |
8,807,501 |
705,164.437 |
76,736 |
2 |
441 |
Montana |
994,416 |
703,158.297 |
11,526 |
7 |
442 |
Louisiana |
4,553,962 |
702,691.592 |
55,842 |
6 |
443 |
Oregon |
3,848,606 |
702,656.107 |
47,390 |
17 |
444 |
Ohio |
11,568,495 |
701,443.041 |
162,701 |
12 |
445 |
Virginia |
8,037,736 |
699,595.121 |
134,573 |
54 |
446 |
California |
37,341,989 |
698,011.587 |
711,340 |
19 |
447 |
Illinois |
12,864,380 |
695,626.002 |
290,015 |
37 |
448 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
692,350.388 |
691,897 |
10 |
449 |
Massachusetts |
6,559,644 |
691,447.189 |
188,418 |
19 |
450 |
Pennsylvania |
12,734,905 |
688,624.796 |
419,490 |
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 [author name scrubbed].
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 Minnesota's 8th seat is:
PVMO9= 5,314,879 / [ 8( 8 - 1 ) ]1/2
= 5,314,879 / [ 56 ]½1/2
= 5,314,879 / 7.483314774
= 710,230.581
The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states' priority values from highest to lowest until 435 seats/437 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 Minnesota, 8,064 more persons had been counted in the state in 2010 (all other states being the same), the state's priority value would have been increased to 711,308.178, which would have resulted in a new sequence number of 435 because California's 53rd seat would have occupied the 436th position in the priority list.
Table 3. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2010 Census Apportionment Population with the District of Columbia
437 House Seats
Seat |
Last Seat Allocated |
State |
2010 Population |
Priority Valuea |
Pop. Needed to Gain or Lose Seatb |
2 |
420 |
Rhode Island |
1,055,247 |
746,172.310 |
-53,334 |
26 |
421 |
Florida |
18,900,773 |
741,349.310 |
-838,530 |
7 |
422 |
Alabama |
4,802,982 |
741,116.212 |
-211,640 |
51 |
423 |
California |
37,341,989 |
739,481.573 |
-1,566,539 |
18 |
424 |
Illinois |
12,864,380 |
735,407.656 |
-471,401 |
14 |
425 |
Michigan |
9,911,626 |
734,698.600 |
-353,985 |
27 |
426 |
New York |
19,421,055 |
733,000.485 |
-650,221 |
35 |
427 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
732,494.844 |
-829,133 |
18 |
428 |
Pennsylvania |
12,734,905 |
728,006.063 |
-341,926 |
52 |
429 |
California |
37,341,989 |
725,121.341 |
-858,046 |
14 |
430 |
Georgia |
9,727,566 |
721,055.165 |
-169,925 |
7 |
431 |
South Carolina |
4,645,975 |
716,889.506 |
-54,633 |
27 |
432 |
Florida |
18,900,773 |
713,363.707 |
-129,939 |
10 |
433 |
Washington |
6,753,369 |
711,867.597 |
-32,332 |
36 |
434 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
711,857.033 |
-120,601 |
53 |
435 |
California |
37,341,989 |
711,308.241 |
-149,553 |
8 |
436 |
Minnesota |
5,314,879 |
710,230.581 |
-13,254 |
14 |
437 |
North Carolina |
9,565,781 |
709,062.863 |
-8,140 |
Last seat assigned if the House size were set to 437 |
|||||
9 |
438 |
Missouri |
6,011,478 |
708,459.476 |
5,120 |
28 |
439 |
New York |
19,421,055 |
706,336.941 |
74,950 |
13 |
440 |
New Jersey |
8,807,501 |
705,164.437 |
48,691 |
2 |
441 |
Montana |
994,416 |
703,158.297 |
8,350 |
7 |
442 |
Louisiana |
4,553,962 |
702,691.592 |
41,291 |
6 |
443 |
Oregon |
3,848,606 |
702,656.107 |
35,091 |
17 |
444 |
Ohio |
11,568,495 |
701,443.041 |
125,669 |
12 |
445 |
Virginia |
8,037,736 |
699,595.121 |
108,776 |
54 |
446 |
California |
37,341,989 |
698,011.587 |
591,217 |
19 |
447 |
Illinois |
12,864,380 |
695,626.002 |
248,491 |
37 |
448 |
Texas |
25,268,418 |
692,350.388 |
609,948 |
10 |
449 |
Massachusetts |
6,559,644 |
691,447.189 |
167,117 |
19 |
450 |
Pennsylvania |
12,734,905 |
688,624.796 |
377,966 |
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 [author name scrubbed].
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 Missouri's 9th seat is:
PVMO9= 6,011,478 / [ 9( 9 - 1 ) ]1/2
= 6,011,478 / [ 72 ]½1/2
= 6,011,478 / 8.485281374238570
= 708459.476
The actual seat assignments are made by ranking all of the states' priority values from highest to lowest until 435 seats/437 seats are allocated.
b. These figures represent the population a state would either need to lose in order to drop below the 437th seat cutoff, or to gain to rise above the cutoff. If, in the case of Missouri, 5,120 more persons had been counted in the state in 2010 (all other states being the same), the state's priority value would have been increased to 709,062.874 which would have resulted in a new sequence number of 437 because North Carolina's 13th seat would have occupied the 438th position in the priority list.
1. |
See CRS Report RL33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals, by [author name scrubbed] for a complete discussion. |
2. |
CRS Report R41584, House Apportionment 2010: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin, by [author name scrubbed]. |
3. |
This assumes that the House version of the bill proposed in the 111th Congress is passed rather than the Senate version, as it would not specify the name of the state that would benefit from such an increase in seats. |
4. |
For a relatively thorough review of the apportionment formula, see CRS Report R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by [author name scrubbed] |
5. |
The values in Table 2 and Table 3 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." |