What Is the Current Size of the House of Representatives

How 435 seats are distributed to l states

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

 Autonomous command

 Republican control

 Split or bipartisan control

 Independent redistricting committee

 No redistricting necessary

The 435 seats of the House grouped by country (postal service-2010 Demography reapportionment)

Allotment of seats by country, as pct of overall number of representatives in the Firm, 1789-2020 Census

The states congressional apportionment is the process^[1] by which seats in the U.s.a. Firm of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the nigh recent decennial census mandated past the U.s.a. Constitution. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.^[ii] Every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least ane seat.

The number of voting seats in the Business firm 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–Hill method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats amidst the states since the 1940 census reapportionment.^{[ane] [iv]} Federal constabulary requires the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives to notify each state government of the number of seats apportioned to the state no subsequently than Jan 25 of the twelvemonth immediately following each decennial census.

The size of a state'due south total congressional delegation (which in addition to representative(southward) includes ii senators for each land) also determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Balloter Higher, which elects the U.S. president.

Constitutional context [edit]

Article I, Section 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 inside this Wedlock, co-ordinate to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those jump to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, iii fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty G, just each State shall have at least one Representative;…

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

Post-obit the finish of the Civil State of war, the first of those provisions was superseded by Department 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according 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 any ballot for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the Usa, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such Country, being twenty-1 years of age, and citizens of the U.s.a., or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such Country.

Reapportionment [edit]

Reapportionments normally occur following each decennial census, though the law that governs the full number of representatives and the method of apportionment to be carried into forcefulness at that time are enacted prior to the census.

The decennial apportionment also determines the size of each state's representation in the U.Due south. Electoral Higher. Under Article Two, Section ane, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of whatever state equals the size of its total congressional delegation (House and Senate seats).

Federal law requires the Clerk of the House of Representatives to notify each state government no later than January 25 of the year immediately following the census of the number of seats to which information technology is entitled. Whether or not the number of seats has changed, the state determines the boundaries of congressional districts—geographical areas inside the state of approximately equal population—in a process called redistricting.^[6]

Because the borderline for the House Clerk to report the results does not occur until the post-obit January, and u.s. need sufficient fourth dimension to perform the redistricting, the decennial census does not bear on the elections that are held during that same year. For instance, the electoral higher circulation during the 2022 presidential election was still based on the 2010 census results.

Number of members [edit]

The U.Southward. population has increased more rapidly than the membership of the Business firm of Representatives.

The size of the U.South. House of Representatives refers to the total number of congressional districts (or seats) into which the land area of the U.s. proper has been divided. The number of voting representatives is currently set at 435. There are an additional 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.Due south. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico also elects a resident commissioner every four years.

Controversy and history [edit]

Since 1789, when the federal regime began operating under the Constitution, the number of citizens per congressional district 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 as more states joined the union, and the population increased.

Representation in the House, historical

Starting yearY	Source	Avg. Constituents per member
1793	1790 Census	34,436
1803	1800 Census	34,609
1813	1810 Census	36,377
1823	1820 Census	42,124
1833	1830 Census	49,712
1843	1840 Census	71,338
1853	1850 Census	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 Demography	210,583
1923	1920 Census	243,728
1933	1930 Census	280,675
1943	1940 Demography	301,164
1953	1950 Demography	334,587
1963	1960 Demography	410,481
1973	1970 Census	469,088
1983	1980 Census	510,818
1993	1990 Census	571,477
2003	2000 Census	646,946
2013	2010 Census	709,760
2023	2020 Demography	761,169
YElections are held the preceding year

The ideal number of members has been a contentious issue since the state'due south founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Ramble Convention (1 representative for every 40,000) was inadequate and supported an amending to reduce that number to 30,000.^[8] This was the only time that Washington pronounced an stance on whatsoever of the bodily issues debated during the unabridged convention.^[nine] 5 years later, Washington was and then insistent on having no more than 30,000 constituents per representative that he exercised the outset presidential veto in history on a bill which allowed half states to get over the quota.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to balance the power of the body to legislate with the demand for legislators to take a relationship close enough to the people to understand their local circumstances, that such representatives' social form be low enough to sympathise with the feelings of the mass of the people, and that their power be diluted plenty to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

... first, that then small a number of representatives will be an dangerous depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper cognition of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that course of citizens which will sympathize to the lowest degree with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be near likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; ...^[10]

Madison as well 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 apace by virtue of decennial reapportionment. He noted, however,

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

Madison argued confronting the supposition that more is better:

Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of ability than six or 7. But information technology does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a ameliorate depositary. And if we behave on the assumption to vi or vii g, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever graphic symbol composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.^[10]

Global comparison and disparities [edit]

When talking most the populations within California's reapportioned Business firm districts in 1951, a report from Duke University establish that "[there] is non an excessive disparity in commune populations, but [the populations and disparities are] perhaps larger than necessary."^[11] If the House continued to expand every bit information technology did prior to the Reapportionment Act of 1929, information technology would currently have 1,156 members (nonetheless just the second largest lower house, afterward People's republic of china).^[12] This would requite the representatives, on average, about 287 thousand constituents, on par with Japan'southward National Diet.

The United States also has comparatively massive constituencies for OECD members, with nearly 3 times more constituents per legislator on average than Japan and Mexico.^[12] The U.S. has the third most populous average legislative districts in the world (2d if the European union's European Parliament is not included).

Membership cap [edit]

The Apportionment Human activity of 1911 (Public Law 62-5) raised the membership of the U.Southward. House to 433 and provided for an circulation. It also provided for boosted seats upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states, increasing the number to 435 in 1912.

In 1921, Congress failed to reapportion the House membership every bit required by the The states Constitution. This failure to reapportion may accept been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their future balloter 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 accept lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the Firm sleeping accommodation did not have adequate seats for 483 members. By 1929, no reapportionment had been made since 1911, and there was vast representational inequity, measured by the average district 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 command 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 abiding 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]

Ii states – Wyoming and Vermont, – take populations smaller than the average for a single district, although none of those states have fewer people than the least populous congressional districts (equally of the 2022 census, Montana's 2 districts).

Proposed expansion [edit]

The first proposed amendment to the Constitution inside the Bill of Rights attempted to fix a pattern for growth of the Business firm along with the population, but has not been ratified.

Commodity the showtime ... After the showtime enumeration required by the starting time article of the Constitution, there shall exist one Representative for every xxx thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, afterwards which the proportion shall exist so regulated by Congress, that at that place shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thou persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall exist so regulated past Congress, that in that location shall non be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every l thousand persons.^[17]

With the nation'due south population reaching approximately 308.7 million according to the 2010 census, the proposed amendment would accept chosen for an up-to 6,000-member House.^{[eighteen] [19] [xx]}

I proposal to set the current constituency disparities and the high 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 requite the least populous state (which has been Wyoming since 1990) one representative and so create districts in other states with the aforementioned population.^[21]

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

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

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

Apportionment methods [edit]

Apportionment in the Business firm of the United states population, 2010-2019

Land	Population Percent		Business firm Percent
	2019	2010	2019[note 1]	2010
California	12.06%	12.09%	11.95%	12.18%
Texas	8.85%	8.xvi%	8.74%	viii.28%
Florida	6.56%	half-dozen.ten%	half dozen.44%	6.21%
New York	v.94%	half-dozen.29%	5.98%	6.21%
Pennsylvania	3.91%	4.12%	3.91%	4.xiv%
Illinois	3.87%	4.16%	3.91%	4.14%
Ohio	iii.57%	3.74%	three.68%	3.68%
Georgia	3.24%	3.fourteen%	3.22%	three.22%
N Carolina	3.xx%	iii.09%	3.22%	2.99%
Michigan	3.05%	3.21%	2.99%	3.22%
New Bailiwick of jersey	2.71%	2.85%	2.76%	2.76%
Virginia	2.61%	2.60%	ii.53%	2.53%
Washington	2.32%	2.xviii%	ii.30%	2.30%
Arizona	2.22%	two.07%	two.thirty%	2.07%
Massachusetts	2.ten%	2.12%	2.07%	2.07%
Tennessee	2.09%	2.06%	2.07%	two.07%
Indiana	ii.06%	2.10%	two.07%	2.07%
Missouri	1.87%	1.94%	1.84%	ane.84%
Maryland	i.85%	1.87%	one.84%	1.84%
Wisconsin	1.78%	1.85%	ane.84%	ane.84%
Colorado	1.76%	1.63%	1.84%	one.61%
Minnesota	ane.72%	ane.72%	ane.61%	1.84%
South Carolina	1.57%	1.50%	1.61%	1.61%
Alabama	i.l%	ane.55%	1.61%	one.61%
Louisiana	ane.42%	1.47%	1.38%	ane.38%
Kentucky	one.36%	i.41%	ane.38%	1.38%
Oregon	1.29%	1.24%	ane.38%	1.15%
Oklahoma	i.21%	ane.22%	1.xv%	1.15%
Connecticut	1.09%	i.16%	one.fifteen%	1.xv%
Utah	0.98%	0.90%	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.threescore%	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 Isle	0.32%	0.34%	0.23%	0.46%
Delaware	0.30%	0.29%	0.23%	0.23%
South 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.nineteen%	0.20%	0.23%	0.23%
Wyoming	0.xviii%	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 1 representative in the House of Representatives, the number of representatives in each state is in principle to exist proportional to its population. Since the adoption of the Constitution, five singled-out apportionment methods take been used.

The first apportionment was contained in Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution. After the first Census in 1790, Congress passed the Apportionment Deed of 1792 and adopted the Jefferson method to apportion U.Southward. Representatives to united states based on population.^[26] The Jefferson method required partial remainders to be discarded when computing each land'due south total number of U.S. Representatives and was used until the 1830 census.^{[27] [28] [29] [xxx]} The Webster method, proposed in 1832 past Daniel Webster and adopted for the 1840 Demography, allocated an additional Representative to states with a fractional remainder greater than 0.5.^[31] The Hamilton/Vinton (largest remainder) method was used from 1850^{[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]} until 1900. The Vinton or Hamilton method was shown to exist susceptible to an apportionment paradox.^[38] The Apportionment Human action of 1911, in improver to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at 435, returned to the Webster method, which was used following the 1910 and 1930 censuses (no reapportionment was done after the 1920 census). The current method, known as the Huntington–Colina method or method of equal proportions, was adopted in 1941 for reapportionment based on the 1940 demography and beyond.^{[ane] [4] [39] [40]} The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives set in the Reapportionment Act 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 dissimilar states.^[41] The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one land to another would event in larger percentage differences.^[42]

In this method, equally 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 ane at a time, to the country with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would go to the most populous state (currently California). The priority number is determined by the ratio of the state population to the geometric hateful of the number of seats it currently holds in the consignment process, n (initially 1), and the number of seats information technology would concur if the seat were assigned to it, north+one. Symbolically, the priority number A_n is

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

where P is the population of the state, and northward is the number of seats it currently holds earlier the possible allocation of the next seat. An equivalent, recursive definition is

${\displaystyle A_{thou+one}={\sqrt {\frac {m}{m+2}}}\ A_{g}}$

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

where n is all the same the number of seats the state has before allotment of the next (in other words, for the mthursday allocation, north = chiliad-1, where m > 1), and for due north = 1, the initial A _i is explicitly divers by the non-recursive formula as

${\displaystyle A_{1}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {2}}}}$

Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. Census: starting time with all states initially being allocated ane seat, the largest value of A ₁ corresponds to the largest state, California, which is allocated seat 51. Afterward beingness allocated its 2nd seat, its priority value decreases to its A ₂ value, which is reordered to a position back in line. The 52nd seat goes to Texas, the 2nd largest state, because its A ₁ priority value is larger than the A_north of whatever other state. Withal, the 53rd seat goes dorsum to California because its A ₂ priority value is larger than the A_northward of any other country. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A _one priority value is larger than the A_n of any other state at this signal. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each fourth dimension a land is assigned a seat, n is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to be reduced and reordered among the states, whereupon another land normally rises to the peak of the listing.

The Census 2010 Ranking of Priority Values^[43] shows the gild in which seats 51–435 were apportioned later on the 2010 Census, with additional listings for the next v priorities. Minnesota was allocated the final (435th) seat. North Carolina missed its 14th seat by fifteen,754 residents every bit the 436th seat to be allocated; ten years earlier it 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 subsequently the 2022 Census, with boosted listings for the adjacent ten priorities. For the 2nd time in a row, Minnesota was allocated the final (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]}

Past apportionments [edit]

Note: The get-go circulation was established past the Constitution based on population estimates made by the Philadelphia Convention, and was not based on any census or enumeration.

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

Statehood order	Census	Const.	1st	2nd	third	quaternary	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	11th	12th	13th	15th[a]	16th	17th	18th	19th	20th	21st	22nd	23rd	24th
	Year	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	vii	half-dozen	8	8	nine	ix	10	9	9	nine	8	7	7	7	7	vii	vii
49	AK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	1	1	1	ane	1
48	AZ	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	iii	iv	5	6	viii	ix	ix
25	AR	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	2	3	4	5	half-dozen	7	7	7	7	6	4	4	iv	4	iv	4	four
31	CA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	4	6	7	eight	11	20	23	30	38	43	45	52	53	53	52
38	CO	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	one	two	3	four	iv	four	4	4	v	half dozen	six	7	vii	viii
5	CT	5	7	7	7	6	vi	4	4	iv	4	four	4	5	v	6	6	six	6	6	six	6	5	5	5
1	DE	1	1	1	ii	1	ane	1	1	1	1	1	ane	1	ane	1	1	ane	1	1	i	1	ane	1	1
27	FL	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	i	1	2	2	two	3	iv	v	6	8	12	15	19	23	25	27	28
4	GA	3	two	4	half-dozen	7	9	8	8	seven	9	ten	11	11	12	10	10	10	x	x	ten	xi	13	xiv	14
l	HI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	ii	2	2	ii	2	2
43	ID	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	ii	two	2	2	2	two	2	2	2
21	IL	–	–	–	–	ane	3	7	nine	14	19	20	22	25	27	27	26	25	24	24	22	20	19	18	17
19	IN	–	–	–	–	3	7	10	xi	xi	13	13	13	xiii	thirteen	12	xi	11	eleven	11	10	10	9	9	9
29	IA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	6	9	xi	11	11	eleven	ix	8	8	7	6	vi	5	5	4	four
34	KS	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	iii	7	8	8	8	seven	6	6	v	5	5	iv	4	four	4
xv	KY	–	2	6	10	12	13	10	ten	ix	10	eleven	11	11	11	ix	9	8	seven	7	seven	six	6	vi	6
18	LA	–	–	–	1	3	iii	4	4	v	half-dozen	vi	six	seven	8	viii	8	8	8	8	8	vii	7	six	6
23	ME	–	–	–	–	seven	8	7	half-dozen	5	v	four	4	4	4	iii	iii	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	two
seven	MD	half dozen	8	9	9	ix	8	half dozen	6	5	vi	6	6	6	vi	vi	6	7	8	8	eight	eight	8	8	8
half-dozen	MA	eight	14	17	xx	13	12	10	11	10	11	12	13	xiv	16	fifteen	14	fourteen	12	12	xi	10	x	ix	9
26	MI	–	–	–	–	–	–	three	4	6	nine	xi	12	12	13	17	17	18	19	xix	eighteen	16	15	fourteen	13
32	MN	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	three	v	seven	nine	10	9	9	9	eight	8	8	eight	8	8	eight
20	MS	–	–	–	–	one	ii	four	5	5	half-dozen	vii	7	eight	8	vii	seven	six	5	5	5	5	four	4	4
24	MO	–	–	–	–	1	two	5	7	9	13	14	15	16	16	thirteen	13	11	ten	10	9	9	9	8	8
41	MT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	ane	i	2	ii	2	2	2	two	2	ane	1	1	2
37	NE	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	3	6	6	6	5	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	three	3
36	NV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	1	1	1	ane	i	i	1	1	2	two	iii	4	4
9	NH	three	4	5	six	six	5	4	three	3	3	2	ii	ii	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	two	2	2	two
3	NJ	4	v	6	6	six	6	5	5	5	vii	7	8	10	12	14	xiv	14	15	15	14	thirteen	13	12	12
47	NM	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	2	2	two	2	three	iii	3	3	3
11	NY	half dozen	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	5	10	12	xiii	13	xiii	9	8	7	8	nine	9	10	10	xi	12	12	11	11	eleven	12	xiii	xiii	fourteen
39	ND	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	two	three	2	two	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
17	OH	–	–	1	6	14	nineteen	21	21	19	20	21	21	21	22	24	23	23	24	23	21	nineteen	18	16	15
46	OK	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	eight	9	8	6	6	vi	6	6	5	5	5
33	OR	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	i	1	2	ii	3	3	4	4	4	4	5	5	5	5	6
2	PA	8	13	18	23	26	28	24	25	24	27	28	xxx	32	36	34	33	30	27	25	23	21	19	18	17
thirteen	RI	one	2	ii	2	2	ii	two	2	ii	ii	2	2	2	3	ii	2	ii	ii	2	ii	ii	2	ii	2
8	SC	5	vi	eight	9	nine	9	7	6	4	five	7	seven	7	7	half-dozen	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	seven	7
40	SD	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	2	3	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1
sixteen	TN	–	–	3	6	9	13	eleven	10	8	10	10	10	ten	ten	9	10	ix	9	viii	nine	nine	9	9	ix
28	TX	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	two	4	6	11	thirteen	16	18	21	21	22	23	24	27	thirty	32	36	38
45	UT	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	2	2	ii	two	2	ii	3	3	iii	four	four
14	VT	–	2	4	6	5	5	4	3	3	three	2	2	2	2	1	1	i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
10	VA	ten	19	22	23	22	21	15	13	11	9	10	10	10	10	9	nine	10	ten	x	10	xi	11	11	xi
42	WA	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	2	3	5	6	6	seven	7	7	8	9	nine	x	ten
35	WV	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	four	4	v	6	6	half dozen	6	five	4	iv	3	3	3	2
30	WI	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	6	eight	9	10	eleven	11	x	10	10	ten	9	9	9	8	viii	8
44	WY	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	1	i	1	one	1	1	one	i	one	1	1	one

Changes following the 2010 censuses [edit]

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

Proceeds four	Proceeds two	Gain one	No change	Lose one	Lose two
1. Texas	1. Florida	ane. Arizona ii. Georgia 3. Nevada iv. Due south Carolina five. Utah 6. Washington	(32 states)	1. Illinois ii. Iowa 3. Louisiana iv. Massachusetts 5. Michigan 6. Missouri 7. New Bailiwick of jersey 8. Pennsylvania	ane. New York two. Ohio
+4	+two	+vi		−eight	−4
+12 seats gained total				−12 seats lost total

Changes following the 2022 censuses [edit]

Apportionment results were released on April 26, 2021:

Gain two	Proceeds i	No change	Lose one
1. Texas	i. Colorado 2. Florida 3. Montana 4. North Carolina v. Oregon	(37 states)	i. California 2. Illinois 3. Michigan 4. New York 5. Ohio 6. Pennsylvania 7. Due west Virginia
+two	+5		−7
+7 seats gained total			−vii seats lost total

List of apportionments [edit]

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

Effective date	Size	Modify	Legal provision	Reason and/or comments
March 4, 1789	59	n/a	Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3	Seats apportioned by the Constitution
Nov 21, 1789	64	5		North Carolina ratified the Constitution with the seats apportioned by the Constitution
May 29, 1790	65	1		Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with the seat apportioned past the Constitution
March 4, 1791	67	2	1 Stat. 191	Vermont admitted
June ane, 1792	69	two		Kentucky admitted
March four, 1793	105	36	1 Stat. 253 (Apportionment Human activity of 1792)	Apportionment post-obit the Commencement Demography
June 1, 1796	106	1	1 Stat. 491	Tennessee admitted
March 1, 1803	107	one	ii Stat. 175	Ohio admitted.
March 4, 1803	142	35	2 Stat. 128	Apportionment post-obit the Second Census.
Apr 30, 1812	143	1	2 Stat. 703	Louisiana admitted.
March 4, 1813	182	39	2 Stat. 669	Apportionment following the Third Census.
December eleven, 1816	183	i	iii Stat. 290	Indiana admitted.
December 10, 1817	184	ane	3 Stat. 349	Mississippi admitted.
December 3, 1818	185	i	3 Stat. 430	Illinois admitted.
December 14, 1819	186	ane	3 Stat. 492	Alabama admitted.
March 15, 1820			iii Stat. 555	Maine admitted, vii seats transferred from Massachusetts
August 10, 1821	187	1	3 Stat. 547	Missouri admitted
March 4, 1823	213	26	3 Stat. 651	Circulation following the Fourth Demography
March 4, 1833	240	27	4 Stat. 516	Apportionment following the 5th Census
June 15, 1836	241	one	5 Stat. 51	Arkansas admitted
January 26, 1837	242	i	v Stat. fifty	Michigan admitted
March four, 1843	223	xix	5 Stat. 491	Circulation following the Sixth Census, the only time the size of the House was reduced, except for the minor readjustments in 1863 and 1963.
March 3, 1845	224	1	five Stat. 743	Florida admitted.
Dec 29, 1845	226	2	5 Stat. 798	Texas annexed and admitted.
December 28, 1846	228	two	5 Stat. 743 ix Stat. 52	Iowa admitted.
May 29, 1848	230	2	9 Stat. 58 ix Stat. 235	Wisconsin admitted.
March iv, 1849	231	one	9 Stat. 235	Additional seat apportioned to Wisconsin.
September 9, 1850	233	2	9 Stat. 452	California admitted.
March 4, 1853			nine Stat. 432	Apportionment following the Seventh Census.
	234	1	10 Stat. 25	Additional seat apportioned to California[b]
May 11, 1858	236	2	eleven Stat. 166	Minnesota admitted.
February 14, 1859	237	1	11 Stat. 383	Oregon admitted.
January 29, 1861	238	1	12 Stat. 126	Kansas admitted
June ii, 1862	239	i	12 Stat. 411	California apportioned an extra seat
March 4, 1863	233	6	ix Stat. 432	Apportionment post-obit the Eighth Demography, in accordance with the 1850 act, which provided for an circulation of 233 seats
	241	8	12 Stat. 353	Supplemental apportionment of eight seats (1 each for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island), for an overall increment of 2 seats in the 38th Congress
June 20, 1863			12 Stat. 633	West Virginia admitted, three seats transferred from Virginia
Oct 31, 1864	242	1	13 Stat. 32	Nevada admitted
March 1, 1867	243	i	fourteen Stat. 391	Nebraska admitted
March iv, 1873	283	twoscore	17 Stat. 28	Apportionment post-obit the Ninth Census, replacing the 1850 deed
	292	9	17 Stat. 192	Supplemental circulation added 1 seat each for ix states
August ane, 1876	293	ane	13 Stat. 34	Colorado admitted
March iv, 1883	325	32	22 Stat. five	Apportionment post-obit the Tenth Demography.
November ii, 1889	328	3	25 Stat. 679	North and S Dakota admitted, with one and two seats respectively.
Nov 8, 1889	329	1	25 Stat. 679	Montana admitted.
November eleven, 1889	330	1	25 Stat. 679	Washington admitted.
July 3, 1890	331	1	26 Stat. 215	Idaho admitted.
July 10, 1890	332	ane	26 Stat. 222	Wyoming admitted.
March iv, 1893	356	24	26 Stat. 735	Apportionment following the Eleventh Census.
January iv, 1896	357	1	28 Stat. 109	Utah admitted.
March 4, 1903	386	29	31 Stat. 733	Circulation following the 12th Demography (1900)
Nov 16, 1907	391	5	34 Stat. 271	Oklahoma admitted
January 6, 1912	393	2	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	New Mexico admitted
February xiv, 1912	394	1	37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557	Arizona admitted
March 4, 1913	435	41	37 Stat. 13 (Apportionment Act of 1911, §§1–2)	Apportionment following the Thirteenth Demography (1910)
March iv, 1933			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Deed of 1929)	Apportionment following the Fifteenth Census (1930)[c]
January 3, 1943			46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Human activity of 1929) 54 Stat. 162	Apportionment following the Sixteenth Census (1940)
Jan 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	1	73 Stat. viii, §8	Hawaii admitted
January 3, 1963	435	2	72 Stat. 345 73 Stat. viii 2 United states of americaC. § 2a	Circulation following the Eighteenth Census[e]
January 3, 1973			two U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Nineteenth Census
January 3, 1983			2 U.Southward.C. § 2a	Apportionment post-obit the Twentieth Census
Jan 3, 1993			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Circulation post-obit the Xx-First Census
January 3, 2003			2 U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-2d Census
January 3, 2013			ii U.S.C. § 2a	Apportionment following the Twenty-Tertiary Census
Jan 3, 2023			2 The statesC. § 2a	Circulation post-obit the Twenty-Fourth Demography

See as well [edit]

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

Notes [edit]

• Delegate counts in italics represent temporary counts assigned past Congress until the side by side decennial demography or by the U.Due south. Constitution in 1789 until the first U.S. Demography.
• Elections held in the yr of a census utilize the apportionment determined by the previous census.

1. ^ Congress failed to pass whatever reapportionment to implement the 1920 United States Demography and so despite population shift, distribution of seats from 1913 remained in effect until 1933.
2. ^ The 1850 Circulation nib provided a method to be used in future reapportionments, as well equally establishing the and so-current 233 as the number of seats to be apportioned after future censuses. Due to census returns existence incomplete in California, an additional act provided that California retain the same representation information technology had when admitted, until a new census could be taken. California would otherwise accept lost ane seat, and so the full number of seats was increased by 1 to 234.
3. ^ Congress failed to reapportion in 1923, following the Fourteenth Demography (1920).
4. ^ Pub.L. 77–291 amended section 22 of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 by wholly replacing its text.
5. ^ The Reapportionment Human action of 1929 stated that the "and then existing number of Representatives" would be apportioned after each census, which would have dictated an apportionment of 437 seats, but the Alaska Statehood Act and Hawaii Admission 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 increase or decrease the permanent membership of the Firm of Representatives as prescribed in the Human activity of Baronial eight, 1911 (37 Stat. xiii) nor shall such temporary increase bear on the footing of apportionment established by the Act of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 UsaC. § 2a), for the 80-third Congress and each Congress thereafter."^[50]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Kristin D. Burnett (November 1, 2011). "Congressional Apportionment (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-08)" (PDF). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Assistants. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
2. ^ The populations of Washington, D.C. and federal territories are not included in this figure.
3. ^ Public Law 62-5 of 1911.
4. ^ ^{a b} "The History of Apportionment in America". American Mathematical Society. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
5. ^ Rendered moot by the Acquirement Human action of 1924 and Indian Citizenship Human activity of 1924.
6. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 2c
7. ^ Bush signs federalization bill Archived February 13, 2009, at the Wayback Auto, Agnes East. 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 13, 2009. Retrieved April eleven, 2018.
9. ^ Madison's 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 and Gimmicky Problems: Legislative Apportionment (Chapter Championship: The Apportionment Problem Faced by the States)". Constabulary and Gimmicky Problems. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University. 17 (ii): 314–337. eISSN 1945-2322. ISSN 1945-2322.
12. ^ ^{a b} DeSilver, Drew (May 31, 2018). "U.Due south. population keeps growing, only Firm of Representatives is aforementioned size equally in Taft era". Pew Research Center.
13. ^ Balinski, Michel; Young, H. Peyton. Fair Representation, Meeting The Ideal of One Man One vote". p. 51.
14. ^ "Congressional Apportionment". NationalAtlas.gov. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
15. ^ "Apportionment of Representatives in Congress". CQ Researcher by CQ Printing. ISSN 1942-5635.
16. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Function of the Historian, Usa Business firm of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
17. ^ "Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified". United States 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 Fix the Legislative Branch". Mere Orthodoxy. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
19. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June 4, 2018). "The case for massively expanding the The states Firm of Representatives, in ane chart". Voice. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
20. ^ Hurlbut, Terry (April 16, 2015). "Packing the Business firm?". Bourgeois News and Views. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
21. ^ Taylor, Steven (December 14, 2010). "Representation in the House: The Wyoming Rule". Outside 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 Tin Make information technology Happen (PDF). Fordham University School of Law.
23. ^ "The "Cube Root Rule": A Button to Brand 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 Due east.; Pershing, Ben (April 21, 2010). "Congressional leaders shelve D.C. voting rights bill". The Washington Post.
26. ^ iii Annals of Cong. 539 (1792)
27. ^ Act of Jan. 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 128
28. ^ Deed of December. 21, 1811, 2 Stat. 669
29. ^ Human action of Mar. seven, 1822, iii Stat. 651
30. ^ Human action of May 22, 1832, 4 Stat. 516
31. ^ Act of 25 June 1842, ch 46, 5 Stat. 491
32. ^ Act of May 23, 1850, 9 Stat. 432-433
33. ^ Human action of 1862, 12 Stat. 572
34. ^ Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 28
35. ^ Act of 1882, 22 Stat. v
36. ^ Deed of 1891
37. ^ Deed of 1901, 31 Stat. 733
38. ^ "Congressional Circulation-Historical Perspective". U.South. Demography Bureau. Retrieved October 27, 2013. .
39. ^ "two USC §2a". Cornell University Police force School, Legal Data Institute. Retrieved May 13, 2008.
40. ^ "Calculating Apportionment". U.South. Census Agency. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
41. ^ "Congressional Apportionment". NationalAtlas.gov. U.S. 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 Circulation of Representatives". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of America. 7 (iv): 123–7. Bibcode:1921PNAS....vii..123H. doi:x.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. Agency of the Census. February 21, 2001. Retrieved May xiii, 2008.
45. ^ "Priority Values for 2022 Demography" (PDF). U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved April 27, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
46. ^ Goldmacher, Shane (April 26, 2021). "New York Loses House Seat After Coming Upward 89 People Curt on Census". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved Apr 28, 2021.
47. ^ Wang, Hansi Lo (May 1, 2021). "How 26 People In The Census Count Helped Minnesota Beat New York For A Business firm Seat". Retrieved May 17, 2021.
48. ^ "Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by State: 2010 Demography" (PDF). The states Demography. Dec 21, 2010. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
49. ^ The Size of the U. Due south. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations, thirty-yard.org.
50. ^ See, e.grand., section viii of the Hawaii Admission Act, 73 Stat. viii.

References [edit]

• Balinski, Michael L.; Immature, H. Peyton (1982). Fair Representation: Meeting the Platonic of Ane Man, I Vote. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN0-8157-0090-three.
• Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Historical and Judicial. Vol. 1. Boston: The Boston Volume Co. pp. 329–446.
• Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1831). The Federalist. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Co. ISBN0-8239-5735-7.
• Edelman, Paul H. (2006). "Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Also Many Seats in the Business firm of Representatives". Vanderbilt Law Review. Nashville: Vanderbilt Academy. 102 (March): 297.
• Kromkowski, Charles A.; Kromkowski, John A. (1991). "Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetics" (PDF). Polity. 24 (Fall 1991): 129–145. doi:x.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 (April): 297–303. doi:10.1080/00029890.2008.11920530. JSTOR 27642473. S2CID 14596741.

Farther reading [edit]

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

External links [edit]

• Congressional Apportionment by the U.Due south. Census Bureau

coyleprety2002.blogspot.com

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

Share this post