Representation in the House of Representatives Is Based on

How 435 seats are distributed to 50 states

Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2022 elections, with the number of U.Southward. House seats each state will receive.

 Democratic control

 Republican control

 Separate or bipartisan command

 Independent redistricting commission

 No redistricting necessary

The 435 seats of the House grouped by land (mail service-2010 Census reapportionment)

Allocation of seats by state, as percentage of overall number of representatives in the House, 1789-2020 Census

U.s. congressional circulation is the process^[one] by which seats in the United states of america House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent decennial census mandated by the The states Constitution. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the fifty states.^[ii] Every country is constitutionally guaranteed at to the lowest degree one seat.

The number of voting seats in the House of Representatives has been 435 since 1913, capped at that number by the Reapportionment Act of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union.^[iii] The Huntington–Colina method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats amidst usa since the 1940 census reapportionment.^{[1] [4]} Federal law requires the Clerk of the United states of america House of Representatives to notify each land government of the number of seats apportioned to the state no subsequently than January 25 of the twelvemonth immediately post-obit each decennial demography.

The size of a state's total congressional delegation (which in improver to representative(s) includes 2 senators for each state) also determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Balloter College, which elects the U.Due south. president.

Constitutional context [edit]

Article I, Department 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution initially provided:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Wedlock, co-ordinate to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those leap to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every xxx Thousand, but each State shall have at to the lowest degree one Representative;…

"3-fifths of all other persons" refers to the inclusion of 3⁄5 of the slaves in the population base.

Post-obit the cease of the Ceremonious War, the get-go of those provisions was superseded by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Subpoena:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States co-ordinate to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.^[5] But when the correct to vote at whatever ballot for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the U.s., Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a Country, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to whatever of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-i years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any manner abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other criminal offense, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall conduct to the whole number of male person citizens twenty-i years of historic period in such State.

Reapportionment [edit]

Reapportionments normally occur following each decennial census, though the law that governs the total number of representatives and the method of circulation to exist carried into force at that time are enacted prior to the demography.

The decennial circulation as well determines the size of each state's representation in the U.Due south. Electoral College. Under Commodity II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of whatever country equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats).

Federal constabulary requires the Clerk of the Business firm of Representatives to notify each state government no afterward than January 25 of the year immediately following the census of the number of seats to which it is entitled. Whether or not the number of seats has changed, the country determines the boundaries of congressional districts—geographical areas within the land of approximately equal population—in a process called redistricting.^[half-dozen]

Because the deadline for the Firm Clerk to report the results does not occur until the following January, and u.s.a. need sufficient fourth dimension to perform the redistricting, the decennial demography does non affect the elections that are held during that same yr. For example, the electoral college apportionment during the 2022 presidential ballot was still based on the 2010 demography results.

Number of members [edit]

The U.Due south. population has increased more rapidly than the membership of the House of Representatives.

The size of the U.S. House of Representatives refers to the total number of congressional districts (or seats) into which the land surface area of the United States proper has been divided. The number of voting representatives is currently fix at 435. There are an boosted five delegates to the House of Representatives. They represent the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, which first elected a representative in 2008,^[7] and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico too elects a resident commissioner every four years.

Controversy and history [edit]

Since 1789, when the federal government began operating nether the Constitution, the number of citizens per congressional commune has risen from an average of 33,000 in 1790 to over 700,000 as of 2018^[update]. Prior to the 20th century, the number of representatives increased every decade every bit more states joined the union, and the population increased.

Representation in the House, historical

Starting yearY	Source	Avg. Constituents per member
1793	1790 Demography	34,436
1803	1800 Census	34,609
1813	1810 Demography	36,377
1823	1820 Census	42,124
1833	1830 Demography	49,712
1843	1840 Census	71,338
1853	1850 Demography	93,020
1863	1860 Census	122,614
1873	1870 Census	130,533
1883	1880 Census	151,912
1893	1890 Census	173,901
1903	1900 Census	193,167
1913	1910 Census	210,583
1923	1920 Census	243,728
1933	1930 Census	280,675
1943	1940 Census	301,164
1953	1950 Census	334,587
1963	1960 Census	410,481
1973	1970 Census	469,088
1983	1980 Demography	510,818
1993	1990 Census	571,477
2003	2000 Demography	646,946
2013	2010 Demography	709,760
2023	2020 Census	761,169
YElections are held the preceding year

The ideal number of members has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Constitutional Convention (one representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an alteration to reduce that number to 30,000.^[8] This was the simply time that Washington pronounced an opinion on any of the actual bug debated during the unabridged convention.^[nine] Five years later, Washington was and so insistent on having no more 30,000 constituents per representative that he exercised the showtime presidential veto in history on a neb which allowed half states to go over the quota.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to balance the ability of the body to legislate with the need for legislators to have a relationship shut enough to the people to understand their local circumstances, that such representatives' social class be low plenty to sympathize with the feelings of the mass of the people, and that their ability be diluted enough to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

... first, that so pocket-sized a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that form of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; ...^[x]

Madison also addressed Anti-Federalist claims that the representation would be inadequate, arguing that the major inadequacies are of minimal inconvenience since these will be cured rather speedily by virtue of decennial reapportionment. He noted, withal,

I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereinafter show, that the number of representatives volition be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a opposite supposition, I should admit the objection to have very great weight indeed.

Madison argued against the assumption that more is better:

Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given caste of power than six or vii. Only it does not follow that half-dozen or seven hundred would be proportionally a ameliorate depositary. And if we carry on the assumption to six or seven one thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever graphic symbol equanimous, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.^[ten]

Global comparing and disparities [edit]

When talking about the populations within California'south reapportioned House districts in 1951, a report from Duke Academy plant that "[there] is non an excessive disparity in commune populations, merely [the populations and disparities are] perhaps larger than necessary."^[11] If the Firm connected to expand as it did prior to the Reapportionment Human activity of 1929, it would currently have i,156 members (still simply the second largest lower house, afterward China).^[12] This would give the representatives, on average, about 287 thou constituents, on par with Nihon's National Diet.

The U.s. also has comparatively massive constituencies for OECD members, with almost three times more than constituents per legislator on average than Japan and Mexico.^[12] The U.South. has the third most populous average legislative districts in the world (second if the Eu's European Parliament is not included).

Membership cap [edit]

The Apportionment Act of 1911 (Public Law 62-5) raised the membership of the U.Southward. House to 433 and provided for an apportionment. It also provided for additional seats upon the admissions of Arizona and New United mexican states as states, increasing the number to 435 in 1912.

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership equally required past the Us Constitution. This failure to reapportion may accept been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the event such a reapportionment would have on their hereafter electoral prospects.^{[xiii] [14]} A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats^{[ citation needed ]}, but many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House bedchamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. Past 1929, no reapportionment had been fabricated since 1911, and there was vast representational inequity, measured by the average commune size. By 1929 some states had districts twice as large as others due to population growth and demographic shift.^[15]

In 1929 Congress (with Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number) and established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats. This cap has remained unchanged since then, except for a temporary increase to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.^[16]

Two states – Wyoming and Vermont, – have populations smaller than the average for a unmarried district, although none of those states take fewer people than the least populous congressional districts (every bit of the 2022 census, Montana's two districts).

Proposed expansion [edit]

The outset proposed amendment to the Constitution inside the Nib of Rights attempted to set a pattern for growth of the Business firm along with the population, simply has not been ratified.

Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the showtime commodity of the Constitution, there shall exist 1 Representative for every thirty k, until the number shall corporeality to one hundred, afterwards which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty one thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated past Congress, that there shall not be less than ii hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.^[17]

With the nation's population reaching approximately 308.7 million according to the 2010 census, the proposed amendment would have called for an up-to 6,000-member House.^{[eighteen] [19] [20]}

One proposal to fix the current constituency disparities and the loftier average number of constituents in many states' congressional districts is the "Wyoming rule." Operating similar to New Zealand's method of allocation for proportional representation, it would give the least populous state (which has been Wyoming since 1990) one representative and then create districts in other states with the aforementioned population.^[21]

Some other proposed expansion rule, the cube root rule,^[22] calls for the membership of the legislature to be based on the cube root (rounded up) of the U.Due south. population at the last census. For example, such a rule would call for 692 members of the House based on the 2022 U.s.a. Demography. An additional House member would be added each fourth dimension the national population exceeds the adjacent cube; in this case, the next Firm fellow member would exist added when the demography population reached 331,373,889, and the one after that at 332,812,558. A variation would divide the representation between the House and the Senate, e.g. 592 members in the House (692 − 100 Senators).^[23]

On May 21, 2001, Rep. Alcee Hastings sent a dear colleague letter pointing out that U.S. expansion of its legislature had not kept stride with other countries.^[24]

In 2007, during the 110th Congress, Representative Tom Davis introduced a bill in the Firm of Representatives that would add two seats to the Firm, 1 for Utah and one for the District of Columbia. It was passed by the Business firm, but was tripped up by procedural hurdles in the Senate and withdrawn from consideration. An identical pecker was reintroduced during the 111th Congress. In February 2009 the Senate adopted the measure 61–37. In April 2010, however, Firm leaders decided to shelve the proposal.^[25]

Apportionment methods [edit]

Circulation in the House of the US population, 2010-2019

State	Population Percent		Firm Per centum
	2019	2010	2019[notation 1]	2010
California	12.06%	12.09%	11.95%	12.18%
Texas	8.85%	viii.16%	viii.74%	8.28%
Florida	six.56%	half-dozen.ten%	6.44%	six.21%
New York	5.94%	6.29%	5.98%	6.21%
Pennsylvania	three.91%	4.12%	three.91%	4.14%
Illinois	three.87%	4.16%	3.91%	4.14%
Ohio	3.57%	three.74%	three.68%	three.68%
Georgia	3.24%	iii.xiv%	three.22%	iii.22%
North Carolina	iii.20%	3.09%	three.22%	2.99%
Michigan	3.05%	three.21%	2.99%	3.22%
New Jersey	2.71%	two.85%	two.76%	two.76%
Virginia	2.61%	2.60%	ii.53%	2.53%
Washington	2.32%	2.xviii%	2.30%	2.30%
Arizona	2.22%	2.07%	two.thirty%	2.07%
Massachusetts	ii.10%	ii.12%	2.07%	two.07%
Tennessee	2.09%	ii.06%	2.07%	2.07%
Indiana	two.06%	2.10%	two.07%	2.07%
Missouri	1.87%	1.94%	1.84%	1.84%
Maryland	one.85%	1.87%	1.84%	1.84%
Wisconsin	ane.78%	i.85%	1.84%	1.84%
Colorado	i.76%	1.63%	1.84%	1.61%
Minnesota	1.72%	1.72%	1.61%	1.84%
South Carolina	1.57%	1.50%	ane.61%	one.61%
Alabama	1.50%	1.55%	1.61%	1.61%
Louisiana	1.42%	1.47%	1.38%	i.38%
Kentucky	1.36%	1.41%	1.38%	1.38%
Oregon	one.29%	1.24%	one.38%	i.15%
Oklahoma	1.21%	1.22%	one.15%	i.15%
Connecticut	1.09%	1.16%	one.15%	1.xv%
Utah	0.98%	0.ninety%	0.92%	0.92%
Iowa	0.96%	0.99%	0.92%	0.92%
Nevada	0.94%	0.88%	0.92%	0.92%
Arkansas	0.92%	0.95%	0.92%	0.92%
Mississippi	0.91%	0.96%	0.92%	0.92%
Kansas	0.89%	0.93%	0.92%	0.92%
New Mexico	0.64%	0.67%	0.69%	0.69%
Nebraska	0.59%	0.59%	0.69%	0.69%
West Virginia	0.55%	0.lx%	0.46%	0.69%
Idaho	0.55%	0.51%	0.46%	0.46%
Hawaii	0.43%	0.44%	0.46%	0.46%
New Hampshire	0.42%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Maine	0.41%	0.43%	0.46%	0.46%
Montana	0.33%	0.32%	0.46%	0.23%
Rhode Island	0.32%	0.34%	0.23%	0.46%
Delaware	0.xxx%	0.29%	0.23%	0.23%
S Dakota	0.27%	0.26%	0.23%	0.23%
North Dakota	0.23%	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%
Alaska	0.22%	0.23%	0.23%	0.23%
Vermont	0.19%	0.xx%	0.23%	0.23%
Wyoming	0.eighteen%	0.18%	0.23%	0.23%
^ 2019 numbers are calculations from estimated population information

Apart from the requirement that each state is to be entitled to at least one representative in the House of Representatives, the number of representatives in each state is in principle to be proportional to its population. Since the adoption of the Constitution, v distinct apportionment methods have been used.

The first apportionment was contained in Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution. After the first Demography in 1790, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1792 and adopted the Jefferson method to apportion U.Due south. Representatives to the states based on population.^[26] The Jefferson method required fractional remainders to exist discarded when calculating each state's total number of U.S. Representatives and was used until the 1830 census.^{[27] [28] [29] [xxx]} The Webster method, proposed in 1832 by Daniel Webster and adopted for the 1840 Demography, allocated an additional Representative to states with a partial remainder greater than 0.5.^[31] The Hamilton/Vinton (largest residual) method was used from 1850^{[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]} until 1900. The Vinton or Hamilton method was shown to be susceptible to an apportionment paradox.^[38] The Circulation Act of 1911, in addition to setting the number of U.Southward. Representatives at 435, returned to the Webster method, which was used following the 1910 and 1930 censuses (no reapportionment was done after the 1920 demography). The current method, known as the Huntington–Hill method or method of equal proportions, was adopted in 1941 for reapportionment based on the 1940 demography and beyond.^{[1] [4] [39] [40]} The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Human action of 1929.

The method of equal proportions [edit]

The apportionment method currently used is the method of equal proportions, which minimizes the percentage differences in the number of people per representative among the different states.^[41] The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one state to another would result in larger percent differences.^[42]

In this method, every bit a first step, each of the 50 states is given its one guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated one at a time, to the state with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the about populous state (currently California). The priority number is determined past the ratio of the land population to the geometric mean of the number of seats information technology currently holds in the assignment process, n (initially 1), and the number of seats information technology would concur if the seat were assigned to it, n+i. Symbolically, the priority number A_northward is

${\displaystyle A_{northward}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {n(n+1)}}}}$

where P is the population of the country, and n is the number of seats it currently holds earlier the possible allotment of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is

${\displaystyle A_{m+1}={\sqrt {\frac {thou}{m+ii}}}\ A_{m}}$

${\displaystyle A_{n}={\sqrt {\frac {north-i}{n+1}}}\ A_{n-1}}$

where n is however the number of seats the state has before allocation of the next (in other words, for the mthursday allocation, northward = k-1, where m > 1), and for n = ane, the initial A _ane is explicitly defined by the non-recursive formula every bit

${\displaystyle A_{1}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {two}}}}$

Consider the reapportionment post-obit the 2010 U.S. Census: start with all states initially beingness allocated one seat, the largest value of A ₁ corresponds to the largest country, California, which is allocated seat 51. Afterwards beingness allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A _ii value, which is reordered to a position back in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest state, because its A _one priority value is larger than the A_n of whatsoever other land. However, the 53rd seat goes back to California considering its A _ii priority value is larger than the A_n of any other state. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A _i priority value is larger than the A_n of whatever other state at this point. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each time a country is assigned a seat, n is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to be reduced and reordered amid united states of america, whereupon some other state ordinarily rises to the meridian of the list.

The Demography 2010 Ranking of Priority Values^[43] shows the gild in which seats 51–435 were apportioned after the 2010 Census, with additional listings for the next five priorities. Minnesota was allocated the concluding (435th) seat. N Carolina missed its 14th seat by 15,754 residents every bit the 436th seat to be allocated; x years before information technology had gained its 13th seat as the 435th seat to be allocated based on the 2000 census.^[44]

The Census 2022 Ranking of Priority Values^[45] shows the order in which seats 51–435 were apportioned after the 2022 Census, with additional listings for the next ten priorities. For the second fourth dimension in a row, Minnesota was allocated the terminal (435th) seat. If either New York had registered 89 more residents or Minnesota had registered 26 fewer residents, New York would have been allocated the 435th seat instead.^{[46] [47]}

By apportionments [edit]

Notation: The starting time apportionment was established past the Constitution based on population estimates made past the Philadelphia Convention, and was not based on any census or enumeration.

Assuming indicates the largest number of representatives each state has had.

Statehood club	Census	Const.	1st	2d	3rd	4th	5th	6th	seventh	8th	9th	10th	11th	12th	13th	15th[a]	16th	17th	18th	19th	20th	21st	22nd	23rd	24th
	Twelvemonth	1789	1790	1800	1810	1820	1830	1840	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890	1900	1910	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
	Effected	1789	1793	1803	1813	1823	1833	1843	1853	1863	1873	1883	1893	1903	1913	1933	1943	1953	1963	1973	1983	1993	2003	2013	2023
	Size	65	105	142	182	213	240	223	234	241	292	325	356	386	435
	State
22	AL	–	–	–	–	3	5	7	seven	6	8	8	9	nine	10	nine	nine	9	8	7	vii	seven	7	7	7
49	AK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	one	1	1	i	1	1
48	AZ	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	ii	2	three	four	5	six	8	9	9
25	AR	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	2	3	4	v	6	7	7	7	7	6	four	4	4	4	4	4	4
31	CA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	iv	6	7	8	11	20	23	30	38	43	45	52	53	53	52
38	CO	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	3	4	4	4	4	4	5	6	vi	7	7	viii
5	CT	5	7	seven	7	6	6	4	4	four	4	iv	four	5	5	6	6	6	6	6	vi	6	five	5	5
ane	DE	ane	i	i	2	ane	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	one	one	ane	ane	1	1	1	ane	1	one	ane	1
27	FL	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	two	3	iv	5	6	eight	12	15	19	23	25	27	28
4	GA	3	2	4	6	7	9	8	eight	seven	9	10	11	11	12	10	10	ten	10	10	10	11	13	fourteen	fourteen
50	HI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
43	ID	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	two	ii	2
21	IL	–	–	–	–	1	3	vii	9	fourteen	xix	20	22	25	27	27	26	25	24	24	22	xx	19	18	17
19	IN	–	–	–	–	3	7	x	11	11	13	13	13	13	13	12	11	11	xi	11	ten	10	9	ix	nine
29	IA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	vi	9	xi	11	11	11	ix	8	eight	7	6	half dozen	5	5	iv	iv
34	KS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	three	7	8	viii	8	7	6	6	five	five	5	4	4	4	4
15	KY	–	2	half-dozen	ten	12	13	10	10	9	10	eleven	xi	11	11	ix	ix	8	seven	vii	seven	6	half dozen	6	vi
eighteen	LA	–	–	–	one	iii	3	4	4	5	six	6	half dozen	7	viii	8	8	8	8	8	eight	vii	7	vi	6
23	ME	–	–	–	–	7	eight	7	half-dozen	v	five	4	iv	iv	iv	three	3	3	two	two	two	2	two	two	2
vii	MD	6	viii	9	9	9	8	6	half-dozen	five	6	vi	6	6	6	6	6	seven	8	viii	8	eight	8	8	8
6	MA	8	14	17	twenty	thirteen	12	10	11	10	eleven	12	13	14	xvi	15	xiv	14	12	12	11	10	10	nine	9
26	MI	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	4	vi	ix	11	12	12	13	17	17	18	nineteen	19	eighteen	16	15	14	13
32	MN	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	iii	5	7	9	10	9	9	ix	8	eight	eight	8	eight	8	8
20	MS	–	–	–	–	one	2	iv	5	5	half dozen	seven	7	8	8	vii	7	6	v	5	5	5	iv	4	4
24	MO	–	–	–	–	1	2	5	seven	9	13	14	fifteen	xvi	16	thirteen	thirteen	eleven	10	10	9	9	nine	eight	eight
41	MT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	i	1	i	two
37	NE	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	3	6	half-dozen	6	5	4	iv	3	three	3	3	iii	3	three
36	NV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	one	one	1	1	1	ane	1	1	ii	two	iii	4	4
9	NH	iii	4	v	6	six	5	4	iii	three	3	two	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	two	2	2	2	ii	ii
three	NJ	4	v	6	half-dozen	half-dozen	vi	5	5	5	seven	7	8	10	12	14	14	14	15	15	14	13	13	12	12
47	NM	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	1	2	2	ii	2	3	iii	3	3	3
11	NY	6	10	17	27	34	twoscore	34	33	31	33	34	34	37	43	45	45	43	41	39	34	31	29	27	26
12	NC	five	10	12	13	xiii	13	ix	eight	7	8	9	ix	10	10	xi	12	12	11	11	eleven	12	13	thirteen	fourteen
39	ND	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	3	2	2	two	ii	one	1	1	1	i	1
17	OH	–	–	1	6	14	19	21	21	19	20	21	21	21	22	24	23	23	24	23	21	19	eighteen	16	xv
46	OK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	8	9	viii	half-dozen	vi	6	half-dozen	six	5	5	5
33	OR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	ane	ane	2	2	3	3	four	4	4	4	5	v	v	5	vi
ii	PA	8	thirteen	xviii	23	26	28	24	25	24	27	28	thirty	32	36	34	33	30	27	25	23	21	19	xviii	17
13	RI	1	ii	ii	2	two	2	2	2	2	ii	2	2	2	iii	two	two	2	ii	2	ii	2	2	2	2
eight	SC	v	half dozen	8	ix	9	nine	7	vi	4	v	7	seven	seven	7	6	6	6	6	6	half dozen	6	six	7	7
forty	SD	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	three	2	two	2	2	2	one	one	i	1	i
xvi	TN	–	–	3	6	nine	xiii	eleven	10	viii	10	10	x	10	10	9	10	9	nine	8	9	ix	nine	ix	9
28	TX	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	4	half-dozen	11	13	16	eighteen	21	21	22	23	24	27	30	32	36	38
45	UT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	ii	2	2	ii	ii	2	3	3	3	4	4
14	VT	–	2	four	six	5	5	4	3	3	3	2	2	ii	2	1	1	one	i	1	1	1	1	ane	i
10	VA	10	19	22	23	22	21	15	xiii	11	nine	10	x	10	10	nine	9	10	10	10	10	xi	11	eleven	eleven
42	WA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ii	3	5	half dozen	6	seven	7	seven	8	9	9	10	10
35	WV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	three	4	4	5	6	6	6	6	5	iv	4	3	3	3	two
30	WI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	6	8	9	10	11	eleven	10	10	10	10	nine	nine	9	8	8	8
44	WY	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	ane	1	1	1	i	one	ane	1	1	ane	ane	ane

Changes following the 2010 censuses [edit]

On Dec 21, 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau released its official apportionment results for congressional representation. The changes were in effect for the U.Southward. elections in 2012.^[48]

Gain four	Gain two	Gain one	No modify	Lose one	Lose two
1. Texas	1. Florida	one. Arizona 2. Georgia three. Nevada iv. South Carolina five. Utah 6. Washington	(32 states)	1. Illinois ii. Iowa 3. Louisiana 4. Massachusetts 5. Michigan vi. Missouri vii. New Jersey 8. Pennsylvania	i. New York ii. Ohio
+4	+two	+6		−8	−4
+12 seats gained total				−12 seats lost full

Changes following the 2022 censuses [edit]

Apportionment results were released on April 26, 2021:

Gain two	Gain one	No alter	Lose one
1. Texas	1. Colorado ii. Florida 3. Montana 4. North Carolina 5. Oregon	(37 states)	1. California 2. Illinois iii. Michigan 4. New York v. Ohio six. Pennsylvania 7. W Virginia
+2	+5		−7
+vii seats gained total			−vii seats lost total

Listing of apportionments [edit]

The size of the U.S. House of Representatives has increased and decreased every bit follows^[49]

Effective date	Size	Change	Legal provision	Reason and/or comments
March 4, 1789	59	due north/a	Const. Fine art. I, § ii, cl. 3	Seats apportioned by the Constitution
November 21, 1789	64	v		North Carolina ratified the Constitution with the seats apportioned past the Constitution
May 29, 1790	65	1		Rhode Isle ratified the Constitution with the seat apportioned past the Constitution
March 4, 1791	67	2	1 Stat. 191	Vermont admitted
June 1, 1792	69	two		Kentucky admitted
March 4, 1793	105	36	i Stat. 253 (Circulation Human action of 1792)	Apportionment post-obit the First Demography
June 1, 1796	106	1	1 Stat. 491	Tennessee admitted
March one, 1803	107	ane	2 Stat. 175	Ohio admitted.
March iv, 1803	142	35	2 Stat. 128	Circulation following the Second Census.
Apr 30, 1812	143	1	2 Stat. 703	Louisiana admitted.
March 4, 1813	182	39	2 Stat. 669	Circulation following the Third Census.
December eleven, 1816	183	1	iii Stat. 290	Indiana admitted.
December 10, 1817	184	one	three Stat. 349	Mississippi admitted.
December iii, 1818	185	1	3 Stat. 430	Illinois admitted.
Dec fourteen, 1819	186	1	3 Stat. 492	Alabama admitted.
March xv, 1820			3 Stat. 555	Maine admitted, 7 seats transferred from Massachusetts
August 10, 1821	187	i	3 Stat. 547	Missouri admitted
March iv, 1823	213	26	iii Stat. 651	Apportionment following the Quaternary Census
March iv, 1833	240	27	4 Stat. 516	Apportionment following the Fifth Census
June 15, 1836	241	1	five Stat. 51	Arkansas admitted
Jan 26, 1837	242	i	five Stat. 50	Michigan admitted
March 4, 1843	223	19	5 Stat. 491	Circulation following the Sixth Demography, the but fourth dimension the size of the Firm was reduced, except for the minor readjustments in 1863 and 1963.
March 3, 1845	224	1	five Stat. 743	Florida admitted.
December 29, 1845	226	ii	5 Stat. 798	Texas annexed and admitted.
Dec 28, 1846	228	2	5 Stat. 743 9 Stat. 52	Iowa admitted.
May 29, 1848	230	2	9 Stat. 58 9 Stat. 235	Wisconsin admitted.
March iv, 1849	231	1	ix Stat. 235	Boosted seat apportioned to Wisconsin.
September nine, 1850	233	ii	ix Stat. 452	California admitted.
March 4, 1853			9 Stat. 432	Apportionment following the 7th Census.
	234	1	ten Stat. 25	Additional seat apportioned to California[b]
May 11, 1858	236	2	11 Stat. 166	Minnesota admitted.
February 14, 1859	237	i	11 Stat. 383	Oregon admitted.
January 29, 1861	238	i	12 Stat. 126	Kansas admitted
June 2, 1862	239	1	12 Stat. 411	California apportioned an extra seat
March iv, 1863	233	6	ix Stat. 432	Apportionment post-obit the Eighth Demography, in accordance with the 1850 human action, which provided for an apportionment of 233 seats
	241	8	12 Stat. 353	Supplemental circulation of 8 seats (1 each for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Isle), for an overall increment of two seats in the 38th Congress
June 20, 1863			12 Stat. 633	Due west Virginia admitted, three seats transferred from Virginia
October 31, 1864	242	i	13 Stat. 32	Nevada admitted
March 1, 1867	243	1	14 Stat. 391	Nebraska admitted
March 4, 1873	283	forty	17 Stat. 28	Circulation following the Ninth Census, replacing the 1850 act
	292	9	17 Stat. 192	Supplemental apportionment added i seat each for nine states
August 1, 1876	293	i	13 Stat. 34	Colorado admitted
March 4, 1883	325	32	22 Stat. 5	Circulation following the Tenth Census.
November 2, 1889	328	3	25 Stat. 679	N and Southward Dakota admitted, with one and ii seats respectively.
Nov 8, 1889	329	1	25 Stat. 679	Montana admitted.
Nov xi, 1889	330	1	25 Stat. 679	Washington admitted.
July 3, 1890	331	1	26 Stat. 215	Idaho admitted.
July 10, 1890	332	i	26 Stat. 222	Wyoming admitted.
March 4, 1893	356	24	26 Stat. 735	Apportionment post-obit the Eleventh Census.
January iv, 1896	357	1	28 Stat. 109	Utah admitted.
March 4, 1903	386	29	31 Stat. 733	Apportionment following the Twelfth Census (1900)
November sixteen, 1907	391	five	34 Stat. 271	Oklahoma admitted
January 6, 1912	393	2	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	New Mexico admitted
Feb fourteen, 1912	394	ane	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	Arizona admitted
March 4, 1913	435	41	37 Stat. xiii (Circulation Act of 1911, §§1–2)	Apportionment following the Thirteenth Census (1910)
March 4, 1933			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Act of 1929)	Apportionment following the Fifteenth Census (1930)[c]
January three, 1943			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Act of 1929) 54 Stat. 162	Circulation following the Sixteenth Census (1940)
January 3, 1953			55 Stat. 761	Circulation following the Seventeenth Census[d]
January 3, 1959	436	1	72 Stat. 345	Alaska admitted
August 21, 1959	437	ane	73 Stat. 8, §8	Hawaii admitted
Jan 3, 1963	435	two	72 Stat. 345 73 Stat. viii 2 U.South.C. § 2a	Circulation post-obit the Eighteenth Census[e]
January 3, 1973			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Nineteenth Demography
January iii, 1983			2 U.s.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twentieth Census
January 3, 1993			2 The statesC. § 2a	Circulation following the Twenty-First Census
January three, 2003			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-Second Census
January iii, 2013			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-Third Census
Jan 3, 2023			two United states of americaC. § 2a	Apportionment post-obit the 20-Quaternary Census

See as well [edit]

• Apportionment paradox
• Congressional Apportionment Amendment
• Gerrymandering
• Listing of U.S. states by population
• List of U.South. states past historical population (tables of country populations since 1790)
• Redistricting
• Electoral vote changes between United States presidential elections
• United States Congress

Notes [edit]

• Delegate counts in italics represent temporary counts assigned by Congress until the next decennial census or by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 until the kickoff U.Southward. Census.
• Elections held in the yr of a census use the circulation determined by the previous census.

1. ^ Congress failed to pass whatever reapportionment to implement the 1920 The states Census so despite population shift, distribution of seats from 1913 remained in effect until 1933.
2. ^ The 1850 Apportionment pecker provided a method to exist used in future reapportionments, equally well equally establishing the then-current 233 as the number of seats to be apportioned after hereafter censuses. Due to census returns being incomplete in California, an additional human action provided that California retain the same representation it had when admitted, until a new census could exist taken. California would otherwise have lost ane seat, and so the total number of seats was increased by one to 234.
3. ^ Congress failed to reapportion in 1923, following the Fourteenth Census (1920).
4. ^ Pub.L. 77–291 amended section 22 of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 by wholly replacing its text.
5. ^ The Reapportionment Act of 1929 stated that the "then existing number of Representatives" would exist apportioned after each census, which would have dictated an apportionment of 437 seats, but the Alaska Statehood Act and Hawaii Access Act explicitly stated that the new seats were temporary increases. Both acts included the phrasing "That such temporary increase in the membership shall non operate to either increment or subtract the permanent membership of the House of Representatives equally prescribed in the Act of August 8, 1911 (37 Stat. thirteen) nor shall such temporary increment affect the basis of circulation established past the Human action of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 United statesC. § 2a), for the Fourscore-third Congress and each Congress thereafter."^[50]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Kristin D. Burnett (November i, 2011). "Congressional Apportionment (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-08)" (PDF). U.Southward. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
2. ^ The populations of Washington, D.C. and federal territories are non included in this figure.
3. ^ Public Police 62-5 of 1911.
4. ^ ^{a b} "The History of Circulation in America". American Mathematical Gild. Retrieved February fifteen, 2009.
5. ^ Rendered moot by the Revenue Act of 1924 and Indian Citizenship Human action of 1924.
6. ^ 2 U.s.C. § 2c
7. ^ Bush signs federalization neb Archived Feb 13, 2009, at the Wayback Auto, Agnes E. Donato, Saipan Tribune, May 10, 2008.
8. ^ Goldberg, Jonah (January 15, 2001). "George Will Called Me An Idiot". National Review. Archived from the original on February thirteen, 2009. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
9. ^ Madison'due south notes on the Constitutional Convention - Tuesday September 17, 1787
10. ^ ^{a b} "The Federalist #55". constitution.org . Retrieved June 23, 2020.
11. ^ Todd, James (1952). "Police force and Contemporary Problems: Legislative Apportionment (Chapter Title: The Apportionment Trouble Faced past us)". Law and Contemporary Bug. Durham, North Carolina: Knuckles University. 17 (2): 314–337. eISSN 1945-2322. ISSN 1945-2322.
12. ^ ^{a b} DeSilver, Drew (May 31, 2018). "U.Due south. population keeps growing, but House of Representatives is same size as in Taft era". Pew Research Centre.
13. ^ Balinski, Michel; Young, H. Peyton. Fair Representation, Meeting The Ideal of One Man One vote". p. 51.
14. ^ "Congressional Circulation". NationalAtlas.gov. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved February fifteen, 2009.
15. ^ "Apportionment of Representatives in Congress". CQ Researcher by CQ Press. ISSN 1942-5635.
16. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
17. ^ "Ramble Amendments Not Ratified". United states of america Firm of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
18. ^ Stone, Lyman (October 17, 2018). "Pack the House: How to Set the Legislative Co-operative". Mere Orthodoxy. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
19. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June 4, 2018). "The case for massively expanding the US House of Representatives, in one chart". Vox. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
20. ^ Hurlbut, Terry (April 16, 2015). "Packing the House?". Conservative News and Views. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
21. ^ Taylor, Steven (December fourteen, 2010). "Representation in the House: The Wyoming Rule". Exterior the Beltway.
22. ^ Kane, Caroline; Mascioli, Gianni; McGarry, Michael; Nagel, Meira (2020). Why the House of Representatives Must Be Expanded and How Today'due south Congress Can Get in Happen (PDF). Fordham Academy Schoolhouse of Constabulary.
23. ^ "The "Cube Root Rule": A Push to Make Congress More Representative?". IVN. Independent Voter Network. Retrieved May 31, 2019.
24. ^ "FairVote - Hastings Letter". June 2, 2006. Archived from the original on June 2, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
25. ^ Marimow, Ann E.; Pershing, Ben (April 21, 2010). "Congressional leaders shelve D.C. voting rights bill". The Washington Postal service.
26. ^ 3 Register of Cong. 539 (1792)
27. ^ Act of January. 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 128
28. ^ Deed of Dec. 21, 1811, 2 Stat. 669
29. ^ Act of Mar. seven, 1822, 3 Stat. 651
30. ^ Human action of May 22, 1832, 4 Stat. 516
31. ^ Act of 25 June 1842, ch 46, 5 Stat. 491
32. ^ Human activity of May 23, 1850, ix Stat. 432-433
33. ^ Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572
34. ^ Human action of 1872, 17 Stat. 28
35. ^ Act of 1882, 22 Stat. v
36. ^ Human action of 1891
37. ^ Act of 1901, 31 Stat. 733
38. ^ "Congressional Apportionment-Historical Perspective". U.Southward. Census Agency. Retrieved October 27, 2013. .
39. ^ "2 USC §2a". Cornell Academy Law School, Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May xiii, 2008.
40. ^ "Computing Apportionment". U.South. Census Agency. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
41. ^ "Congressional Apportionment". NationalAtlas.gov. U.South. Department of the Interior. Archived from the original on October 30, 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
42. ^ Edward V Huntington (1921). "The Mathematical Theory of the Apportionment of Representatives". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Usa of America. 7 (4): 123–7. Bibcode:1921PNAS....vii..123H. doi:10.1073/pnas.7.4.123. PMC1084767. PMID 16576591.
43. ^ "Priority Values for 2010 Census" (PDF). U.South. Agency of the Census. Retrieved August 29, 2020.
44. ^ "Census 2000 Ranking of Priority Values". U.S. Bureau of the Census. February 21, 2001. Retrieved May thirteen, 2008.
45. ^ "Priority Values for 2022 Census" (PDF). U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved Apr 27, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-condition (link)
46. ^ Goldmacher, Shane (Apr 26, 2021). "New York Loses House Seat Later on Coming Up 89 People Brusque on Demography". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
47. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo (May i, 2021). "How 26 People In The Census Count Helped Minnesota Beat New York For A House Seat". Retrieved May 17, 2021.
48. ^ "Circulation Population and Number of Representatives, by State: 2010 Census" (PDF). US Demography. December 21, 2010. Retrieved Feb 23, 2013.
49. ^ The Size of the U. S. Business firm of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations, thirty-thousand.org.
50. ^ See, e.m., section 8 of the Hawaii Admission Human action, 73 Stat. viii.

References [edit]

• Balinski, Michael L.; Young, H. Peyton (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Human being, One Vote. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN0-8157-0090-3.
• Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the U.s.: Historical and Judicial. Vol. one. Boston: The Boston Book Co. pp. 329–446.
• Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1831). The Federalist. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Co. ISBN0-8239-5735-vii.
• Edelman, Paul H. (2006). "Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats in the House of Representatives". Vanderbilt Police force Review. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. 102 (March): 297.
• Kromkowski, Charles A.; Kromkowski, John A. (1991). "Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetic" (PDF). Polity. 24 (Fall 1991): 129–145. doi:ten.2307/3234988. JSTOR 3234988. S2CID 155209561. Retrieved Oct 17, 2013.
• Agnew, Robert A. (2008). "Optimal Congressional Apportionment" (PDF). American Mathematical Monthly. Mathematical Association of America. 115 (Apr): 297–303. doi:10.1080/00029890.2008.11920530. JSTOR 27642473. S2CID 14596741.

Further reading [edit]

• Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Taren (2004). "Counting Matters: Prison house Inmates, Population Bases, and "One Person, I Vote"". Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. Chicago. xi (Winter): 229.

External links [edit]

• Congressional Apportionment by the U.S. Census Bureau

everettwhimed.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

Share this post