House Apportionment: Could Census Corrections Shift a House Seat?

House Apportionment: Could Census Corrections Shift a House Seat?

Order Code RS21638
October 8, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
House Apportionment: Could Census
Corrections Shift a House Seat?1
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
On September 30, 2003, the Census Bureau briefed selected congressional staff on
changes that will be made to the 2000 census counts through the bureau’s “Count
Question Resolution Program,” (CQR). This report uses the incomplete figures released
to staff at the September briefings to assess the potential impact on states’ claims to
Representatives if these figures were to be used to apportion seats in the House instead
of the official apportionment figures released by the Census Bureau on December 28,
2000. Although no seats would shift among states based on these numbers, the already-
narrow margin between North Carolina and Utah for the last (435th) seat in the House
is narrowed by a factor of 10. This report will be updated when the Census Bureau
releases final numbers from the CQR program.
Background
One of the fundamental issues before the framers at the Constitutional Convention
in 1787 was how power was to be allocated in the Congress among the smaller and larger
states. The solution ultimately adopted, known as the Great (or Connecticut)
Compromise, resolved the controversy by creating a bicameral Congress with states
represented equally in the Senate, but in proportion to population in the House. The
Constitution provided the first apportionment of House seats: 65 Representatives were
allocated to the states based on the framers’ estimates of how seats might be apportioned
after a census. House apportionments thereafter were to be based on Article 1, section 2,
as modified by the Fourteenth Amendment:
Amendment XIV, section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
several States ... according to their respective numbers....
Article 1, section 2. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative....
1 This report originally was authored by David Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
The process of apportioning seats in the House is constrained both constitutionally
and statutorily. The Constitution defines both the maximum and the minimum size of the
House. There can be no fewer than one Representative per state, and no more than one
for every 30,000 persons.2
The current apportionment formula was adopted in 1941. In addition to specifying
the apportionment method, the 1941 Act sets the House size at 435 and mandates
administrative procedures for apportionment. The President is required to transmit to
Congress “a statement showing the whole number of persons in each state” and the
resulting seat allocation within one week after the opening of the first regular session of
Congress following the census.3
The Census Bureau has been assigned the responsibility of computing the
apportionment. As matter of practice, the director of the bureau reports the results of the
apportionment by December 31st of the census year. Once the results are received by
Congress, the Clerk of the House is charged with the duty of sending to the governor of
each state a “certificate of the number of Representatives to which such state is entitled”
within 15 days of receiving notice from the President.4
There are no provisions for altering the apportionment because of errors that may
later be found in census counts. The Census Bureau’s Federal Register program notice
pertaining to the “Count Question Resolution Program,” states that while “corrections
made to the population and housing unit counts by this program will result in the issuance
of new official Census 2000 counts ... and may be used by governmental entities for future
programs requiring official Census 2000 data,”5 the “Census Bureau will not change the
apportionment or redistricting counts to reflect corrections resulting from the CQR
process.”6
The CQR Program
The Count Question Resolution Program provides a mechanism for corrections to
the official census counts. Three types of challenges to the census counts are considered
by this program, which could result in: (1) correcting inaccurate boundaries of
jurisdictions; (2) reassigning inaccurately geocoded living quarters and their associated
2 The actual language in Article 1, section 2, pertaining to this minimum size reads as follows:
“The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State
shall have at least one Representative.” This clause is sometime misread to be a requirement that
districts can be no larger than 30,000 persons. It should be read as a minimum-size population
requirement, i.e. districts cannot have fewer than 30,000 persons.
3 55 Stat. 761 (1941) Sec. 22 (a). [Codified in 2 U.S.C. 2(a).] In other words, after the 2000
Census, this report was due in January 2001.
4 Ibid., Sec. 22 (b).
5 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “The Census 2000 Count Question Resolution
Program,” Federal Register, vol. 66, no. 77, July 6, 2001, p. 35589.
6 Ibid., p. 35593.

CRS-3
population to correct boundaries; and (3) adding or removing specific living quarters (and
the persons residing in them) that were erroneously included in the counts.
The CQR process began on June 30, 2001, and jurisdictions had until September 30,
2003, to file challenges under the program. The Census Bureau released tables to
Congress showing the current tally of changes to the official counts identified as of
September 30, 2003, but not all challenges to census counts had yet been processed. The
most significant changes affect North Carolina, whose 13th Representative was the last
(435th) seat assigned in the official reapportionment of House seats following the 2000
census.
As of September 30, 2003, North Carolina would have its official 2000 census count
reduced by 2,673 persons because, according to the Raleigh News & Observer, the Census
Bureau “counted 2,696 students living in UNC-CH [University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill] dormitories — twice.”7 Students in dormitories are supposed to be enumerated by
the “group quarters” procedure where forms are sent to the institution instead of
individuals in the group quarters. In the case of UNC-Chapel Hill, forms were sent to
some students as well as to the university. The discrepancy between the 2,673 and 2,696
figures is accounted for by other CQR activities in North Carolina. As of this writing, the
Census Bureau has not completed evaluating all challenges to the North Carolina figures,
so these figures may change; but the number of persons North Carolina would need to
lose for its 13th district to drop to the 436th position in the apportionment rankings would
be reduced from 3,084 to 309 persons if these new numbers were used to reapportion the
House (if Congress were to choose to do so).
On a nationwide basis, 7,183 persons are either added to, or subtracted from, state
populations, resulting in a net change of 1,427 persons from the September 30, 2003,
CQR program data. No seats would shift among states based on the revised
apportionment populations derived by these figures (see Table 1).
Table 1. Revisions of 2000 Census Apportionment Population
Based on Census Bureau’s September 30, 2003,
Count Question Resolution Program Numbers
2000 Census
Count question
Revised
State
apportionment
resolution
apportionment
Seats
populationa
changesb
populationc
AL
4,461,130
4,461,130
7
AK
628,933
-1
628,932
1
AZ
5,140,683
5,140,683
8
AR
2,679,733
2,679,733
4
CA
33,930,798
5
33,930,803
53
CO
4,311,882
736
4,312,618
7
CT
3,409,535
19
3,409,554
5
DE
785,068
785,068
1
FL
16,028,890
442
16,029,332
25
GA
8,206,975
61
8,207,036
13
HI
1,216,642
1,216,642
2
7 Rob Christensen, “Miller Vows to Stay in Seat Utah Covets,” Raleigh News & Observer, Oct.
2, 2003, [http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/miller/story/2915960p-2680128c.html], visited
Oct. 6, 2003.

CRS-4
2000 Census
Count question
Revised
State
apportionment
resolution
apportionment
Seats
populationa
changesb
populationc
ID
1,297,274
3
1,297,277
2
IL
12,439,042
274
12,439,316
19
IN
6,090,782
21
6,090,803
9
IA
2,931,923
58
2,931,981
5
KS
2,693,824
396
2,694,220
4
KY
4,049,431
440
4,049,871
6
LA
4,480,271
-18
4,480,253
7
ME
1,277,731
1,277,731
2
MD
5,307,886
5,307,886
8
MA
6,355,568
6,355,568
10
MI
9,955,829
36
9,955,865
15
MN
4,925,670
13
4,925,683
8
MS
2,852,927
-2
2,852,925
4
MO
5,606,260
1472
5,607,732
9
MT
905,316
905,316
1
NE
1,715,369
2
1,715,371
3
NV
2,002,032
2,002,032
3
NH
1,238,415
1,238,415
2
NJ
8,424,354
-3
8,424,351
13
NM
1,823,821
1,823,821
3
NY
19,004,973
207
19,005,180
29
NC
8,067,673
-2673
8,065,000
13
ND
643,756
643,756
1
OH
11,374,540
3
11,374,543
18
OK
3,458,819
-2
3,458,817
5
OR
3,428,543
33
3,428,576
5
PA
12,300,670
12,300,670
19
RI
1,049,662
1,049,662
2
SC
4,025,061
-112
4,024,949
6
SD
756,874
756,874
1
TN
5,700,037
-16
5,700,021
9
TX
20,903,994
-30
20,903,964
32
UT
2,236,714
29
2,236,743
3
VT
609,890
609,890
1
VA
7,100,702
-21
7,100,681
11
WA
5,908,684
20
5,908,704
9
WV
1,813,077
6
1,813,083
3
WI
5,371,210
29
5,371,239
8
WY
495,304
495,304
1
281,424,177
1,427
281,425,604
435
aU.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 the apportionment population includes the foreign-based military
and other federal employees living overseas.)
bU.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Populations of States Including Count Question
Resolution (CQR) Corrections Through September 30, 2003, table provided at a briefing to congressional
staff on Sept. 30, 2003.
cFigures calculated by CRS.
As noted above, the already narrow margin between the claims of North Carolina
and Utah for the 435th seat in the House would become even narrower if the CQR
program numbers were to be substituted for the official apportionment numbers. Utah’s
margin to gain a seat drops from 855 to 87 persons (see Table 2). The margin between

CRS-5
the 435th and 436th seat was similarly close in the reapportionment following the 1970
Census. If Oklahoma had had 283 fewer persons, or Oregon had had 229 more persons,
Oklahoma would have lost a seat to Oregon. Unlike the present case, the margin would
have increased if corrected totals had been used for these states to 1,314 persons for
Oklahoma and 1,071 more persons for Oregon.
Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using Census
Bureau September 30, 2003, Count Question Resolution Program
Numbers to Adjust the 2000 Census Apportionment Population
Pop. needed to gain or lose seat
Revised
Priority
Rank State

Seat
apportionmen
Using
Using official
valuea
t population
revised
apportionment
populationb
populationc
420
CA
51
33,930,803
671,930.02
-1,324,952
-1,325,368
421
TN
9
5,700,021
671,753.92
-221,143
-221,227
422
MA
10
6,355,568
669,935.69
-229,996
-230,072
423
NY
29
19,005,180
666,951.07
-605,789
-605,818
424
CO
7
4,312,618
665,451.40
-128,056
-127,372
425
PA
19
12,300,670
665,144.06
-359,731
-359,885
426
TX
32
20,903,964
663,701.52
-567,227
-567,519
427
MO
9
5,607,732
660,877.55
-128,854
-127,450
428
CA
52
33,930,803
658,881.60
-679,229
-679,651
429
MN
8
4,925,683
658,222.08
-93,767
-93,814
430
GA
13
8,207,036
657,088.76
-142,345
-142,386
431
IA
5
2,931,981
655,610.88
-44,359
-44,337
432
FL
25
16,029,332
654,394.74
-213,172
-212,933
433
OH
18
11,374,543
650,239.34
-79,546
-79,688
434
CA
53
33,930,803
646,330.32
-33,507
-33,940
435
NC
13
8,065,000
645,716.78
-309
-3,084
Last seat assigned by law
436
UT
4
2,236,743
645,692.09
87
855
437
NY
30
19,005,180
644,335.95
40,730
47,245
438
TX
33
20,903,964
643,275.02
79,349
86,268
439
MI
16
9,955,865
642,648.32
47,537
50,891
440
IN
10
6,090,803
642,027.01
35,005
37,057
441
MT
2
905,316
640,155.08
7,866
8,168
442
IL
20
12,439,316
638,123.45
148,022
152,465
443
MS
5
2,852,925
637,933.42
34,809
35,763
444
CA
54
33,930,803
634,248.32
613,537
624,984
445
WI
9
5,371,239
633,006.59
107,851
109,696
446
OK
6
3,458,817
631,490.70
77,920
79,090
447
PA
20
12,300,670
631,011.06
286,668
290,837
448
FL
26
16,029,332
628,722.13
433,281
439,176
449
OR
6
3,428,576
625,969.47
108,161
109,365
450
MD
9
5,307,886
625,540.36
171,204
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 North Carolina’s 13th seat is:
PV
=
8,065,000 / [13(13 - 1 ) ]½
NC13
=
8,065,000/ [ 156 ]½
= 8,065,000
/12.489959967968
=
645,716.780219014
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 need either to lose in order to drop below the 435th seat
cutoff, or to gain to rise above the cutoff. If, for example, North Carolina had 309 fewer persons in its population total,
the state’s priority value would decrease to 645,691.04, which would result in a new sequence number of 436 because

CRS-6
Utah’s 4th seat would occupy the 435th position in the priority list. Similarly, if Utah had 87 more persons in its
population total, it would displace North Carolina, because Utah’s priority value would become 645.716.91.
c These figures show how many more or fewer persons would have been necessary for states to gain or lose a
seat based on the official apportionment figures sent to the President and released on December 28, 2000.
Source: Computations of priority values and persons needed for states to gain or lose a seat by CRS. See CRS
Report RL30711, The House Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by David C. Huckabee, for an
explanation of formula for allocating House seats.
Could the CQR Changes Shift a House Seat?
As noted previously, the preliminary CQR corrections released on September 30,
2003, would not alter the apportionment of House seats when compared to the official
results, and the Census Bureau does not plan to alter the official apportionment figures.
If further corrections would change the apportionment, there are 19th-century precedents
for the Congress to change apportionments after the initial results have been released.
In 1852, Congress increased California’s delegation by one Representative because
it appear[ed] “that the returns of the population of California are incomplete.”8 Section
2 of the act provided that if “at any future decennial enumeration of the inhabitants of the
United States, the census of any district or subdivision in the United States shall have
been improperly taken, or if the returns of any district or subdivision shall be accidentally
lost or destroyed, the Secretary of the Interior shall have power to order a new
enumeration of such district or subdivision.”9
Additional Representatives were added to the totals initially provided by the
reapportionment acts following the 1860 and 1870 censuses. Eight states received one
additional seat by a supplemental apportionment act approved in March 1862.10 Another
supplemental apportionment act enacted in May 1872, assigned one additional
Representative each to nine states.11
When Congress accepted challenges to census results, the 19th-century precedent was
to increase the size of the House, not to take seats from states. There are no examples
similar to the 19th-century precedents noted above in the 20th century, but the last time
new states were admitted between censuses, the House size was temporarily increased to
437 until the next reapportionment, when it became 435 again.12
If further refinement of the 2000 Census data reveals that the apportionment would
be changed if the corrected numbers were to be used instead of those used in December
2000, Congress could alter the apportionment by legislation.
8 10 Stat. 25.
9 Ibid.
10 12 Stat. 353.
11 17 Stat. 192.
12 By authority of section 9 of P.L. 85-508 (72 Stat. 345) and section 8 of P.L. 86-3 (73 Stat. 8),
which admitted Alaska and Hawaii to statehood, the House size was temporarily increased to 437
until the reapportionment following the 1960 census, when it returned to 435.