District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment

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.

District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment

March 31, 2011 (RS22579)

Summary

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.


District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment

Background

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.

Adding New States and Seats to the House

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.

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.

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).

Apportionment Impact

Apportionment of the House of Representatives

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.

Winners and Losers

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.

Footnotes

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."