Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Página inicial / Number of Members in the House of Representatives Per State

Number of Members in the House of Representatives Per State

Postar um comentário

How 435 seats are distributed to fifty states

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

 Democratic command

 Republican control

 Split or bipartisan control

 Independent redistricting commission

 No redistricting necessary

The 435 seats of the Business firm grouped by land (mail service-2010 Demography reapportionment)

Allotment of seats by state, equally per centum of overall number of representatives in the House, 1789-2020 Census

United states congressional apportionment is the process[1] by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed amongst the 50 states co-ordinate to the almost contempo decennial demography mandated by the United States Constitution. Each land is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states.[two] Every land 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 Human activity of 1929—except for a temporary (1959–1962) increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union.[3] The Huntington–Hill method of equal proportions has been used to distribute the seats among the states since the 1940 census reapportionment.[ane] [iv] Federal law requires the Clerk of the United states of america Business firm of Representatives to notify each state authorities of the number of seats apportioned to the state no after than January 25 of the yr immediately following each decennial demography.

The size of a land's total congressional delegation (which in addition to representative(s) includes two senators for each land) also determines the size of its representation in the U.S. Electoral Higher, which elects the U.S. president.

Constitutional context [edit]

Article One, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution initially provided:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several States which may be included within this Union, co-ordinate to their corresponding Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall non exceed one for every thirty 1000, but each State shall have at least one Representative;…

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

Following the end of the Civil War, the get-go of those provisions was superseded by Section two 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 Country, excluding Indians not taxed.[5] Just when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the Us, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a Country, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male person inhabitants of such Country, being twenty-1 years of age, and citizens of the Usa, or in any mode 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 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 forcefulness at that time are enacted prior to the census.

The decennial apportionment also determines the size of each country's representation in the U.Southward. Electoral College. Under Commodity Two, Section 1, Clause ii of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors of whatsoever land 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 land government no after than January 25 of the twelvemonth immediately following the census of the number of seats to which it is entitled. Whether or non the number of seats has inverse, the land determines the boundaries of congressional districts—geographical areas within the land of approximately equal population—in a procedure called redistricting.[half dozen]

Because the deadline for the House Clerk to report the results does not occur until the following January, and us need sufficient time to perform the redistricting, the decennial census does non affect the elections that are held during that aforementioned year. For example, the electoral higher circulation during the 2022 presidential election was still based on the 2010 census results.

Number of members [edit]

The U.S. population has increased more than 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 country area of the Us proper has been divided. The number of voting representatives is currently set at 435. There are an additional five delegates to the Business firm 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.South. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico also elects a resident commissioner every four years.

Controversy and history [edit]

Since 1789, when the federal authorities began operating nether the Constitution, the number of citizens per congressional district has risen from an boilerplate 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 spousal relationship, and the population increased.

Representation in the House, historical
Starting
yrY 		Source Avg. Constituents
per fellow member
1793 1790 Census 34,436
1803 1800 Demography 34,609
1813 1810 Demography 36,377
1823 1820 Census 42,124
1833 1830 Demography 49,712
1843 1840 Census 71,338
1853 1850 Census 93,020
1863 1860 Census 122,614
1873 1870 Census 130,533
1883 1880 Demography 151,912
1893 1890 Census 173,901
1903 1900 Demography 193,167
1913 1910 Census 210,583
1923 1920 Demography 243,728
1933 1930 Census 280,675
1943 1940 Census 301,164
1953 1950 Census 334,587
1963 1960 Demography 410,481
1973 1970 Census 469,088
1983 1980 Demography 510,818
1993 1990 Census 571,477
2003 2000 Census 646,946
2013 2010 Census 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'southward founding. George Washington agreed that the original representation proposed during the Constitutional Convention (ane representative for every twoscore,000) was inadequate and supported an alteration to reduce that number to 30,000.[8] This was the just fourth dimension that Washington pronounced an stance on any of the actual issues debated during the entire convention.[9] 5 years afterward, Washington was so insistent on having no more than 30,000 constituents per representative that he exercised the kickoff presidential veto in history on a neb which immune half states to go over the quota.

In Federalist No. 55, James Madison argued that the size of the House of Representatives has to rest the power of the body to legislate with the need 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 ability be diluted enough to limit their abuse of the public trust and interests.

... start, that and then small 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 class of citizens which will empathize to the lowest degree with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be well-nigh likely to aim at a permanent superlative of the few on the low of the many; ...[ten]

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

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

Madison argued against the supposition that more is meliorate:

60 or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or 7. But it does not follow that 6 or seven hundred would be proportionally a meliorate depositary. And if we deport on the supposition to half dozen or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. ... In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.[10]

Global comparison and disparities [edit]

When talking well-nigh the populations within California's reapportioned House districts in 1951, a written report from Duke Academy establish that "[in that location] is non an excessive disparity in district populations, but [the populations and disparities are] perhaps larger than necessary."[11] If the Firm continued to expand as it did prior to the Reapportionment Act of 1929, information technology would currently have i,156 members (however just the 2nd largest lower firm, later Communist china).[12] This would give the representatives, on boilerplate, about 287 thousand constituents, on par with Japan's National Diet.

The U.s.a. too has comparatively massive constituencies for OECD members, with most iii times more than constituents per legislator on average than Japan and United mexican states.[12] The U.S. has the tertiary most populous boilerplate legislative districts in the world (second if the European union's European Parliament is not included).

Membership cap [edit]

The Apportionment Deed of 1911 (Public Constabulary 62-5) raised the membership of the U.South. House to 433 and provided for an circulation. Information technology 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 as required by the United States Constitution. This failure to reapportion may accept been politically motivated, every bit the newly elected Republican bulk may take feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their futurity balloter prospects.[13] [14] A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional style would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats[ citation needed ], just many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not take adequate seats for 483 members. By 1929, no reapportionment had been made since 1911, and at that place was vast representational inequity, measured by the average district size. By 1929 some states had districts twice every bit 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 Human activity of 1929 which capped the size of the Firm at 435 (the then current number) and established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats. This cap has remained unchanged since and then, except for a temporary increment to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.[xvi]

Two states – Wyoming and Vermont, – accept populations smaller than the average for a single district, although none of those states have fewer people than the to the lowest degree populous congressional districts (equally of the 2022 census, Montana's two districts).

Proposed expansion [edit]

The first proposed amendment to the Constitution inside the Nib of Rights attempted to set a blueprint for growth of the House along with the population, but has not been ratified.

Article the first ... After the start enumeration required by the first commodity of the Constitution, in that location shall be one Representative for every thirty g, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that in that location shall be not less than i hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every 40 thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; later on which the proportion shall exist so regulated by Congress, that at that place shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more ane Representative for every fifty thousand persons.[17]

With the nation's population reaching approximately 308.7 million according to the 2010 census, the proposed subpoena would have chosen for an up-to 6,000-member House.[18] [nineteen] [20]

One proposal to fix the electric current constituency disparities and the high boilerplate number of constituents in many states' congressional districts is the "Wyoming dominion." Operating similar to New Zealand'south method of allocation for proportional representation, it would give the least populous land (which has been Wyoming since 1990) one representative and and then create districts in other states with the same population.[21]

Another 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.S. population at the last census. For instance, such a rule would call for 692 members of the House based on the 2022 United states Census. An boosted House fellow member would exist added each time the national population exceeds the next cube; in this case, the next House member would be added when the census population reached 331,373,889, and the one afterward that at 332,812,558. A variation would carve up the representation between the Business firm and the Senate, due east.m. 592 members in the House (692 − 100 Senators).[23]

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

In 2007, during the 110th Congress, Representative Tom Davis introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would add together ii seats to the House, one for Utah and ane for the District of Columbia. Information technology was passed by the Business firm, but was tripped up by procedural hurdles in the Senate and withdrawn from consideration. An identical beak was reintroduced during the 111th Congress. In Feb 2009 the Senate adopted the measure 61–37. In Apr 2010, notwithstanding, House leaders decided to shelve the proposal.[25]

Apportionment methods [edit]

Apportionment in the House of the United states of america population, 2010-2019
State Population Percentage Business firm Percent
2019 2010 2019[note 1] 2010
California 12.06% 12.09% eleven.95% 12.eighteen%
Texas eight.85% 8.16% viii.74% 8.28%
Florida six.56% half dozen.10% 6.44% 6.21%
New York v.94% 6.29% 5.98% 6.21%
Pennsylvania iii.91% iv.12% three.91% 4.14%
Illinois iii.87% 4.sixteen% iii.91% 4.xiv%
Ohio 3.57% 3.74% 3.68% 3.68%
Georgia 3.24% 3.xiv% iii.22% 3.22%
North Carolina 3.20% three.09% 3.22% 2.99%
Michigan 3.05% iii.21% 2.99% 3.22%
New Bailiwick of jersey 2.71% 2.85% two.76% 2.76%
Virginia 2.61% 2.lx% ii.53% 2.53%
Washington 2.32% 2.xviii% ii.30% 2.30%
Arizona 2.22% two.07% 2.thirty% ii.07%
Massachusetts 2.ten% 2.12% ii.07% 2.07%
Tennessee two.09% two.06% 2.07% 2.07%
Indiana 2.06% 2.10% 2.07% 2.07%
Missouri 1.87% i.94% i.84% ane.84%
Maryland 1.85% ane.87% one.84% 1.84%
Wisconsin ane.78% 1.85% 1.84% one.84%
Colorado 1.76% one.63% 1.84% ane.61%
Minnesota i.72% one.72% ane.61% one.84%
Southward Carolina 1.57% one.50% ane.61% 1.61%
Alabama 1.50% ane.55% ane.61% ane.61%
Louisiana 1.42% 1.47% one.38% 1.38%
Kentucky i.36% 1.41% 1.38% 1.38%
Oregon 1.29% 1.24% 1.38% one.15%
Oklahoma 1.21% one.22% ane.fifteen% 1.15%
Connecticut 1.09% 1.16% one.15% i.15%
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%
Westward Virginia 0.55% 0.60% 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 0.30% 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.xix% 0.20% 0.23% 0.23%
Wyoming 0.18% 0.18% 0.23% 0.23%
  1. ^ 2019 numbers are calculations from estimated population data

Apart from the requirement that each land 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, 5 distinct circulation methods accept been used.

The showtime circulation was contained in Art. I, § two, cl. 3 of the Constitution. Later on the first Census in 1790, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1792 and adopted the Jefferson method to apportion U.S. Representatives to usa based on population.[26] The Jefferson method required fractional remainders to be discarded when computing each state'due south total number of U.Southward. Representatives and was used until the 1830 census.[27] [28] [29] [30] The Webster method, proposed in 1832 by Daniel Webster and adopted for the 1840 Demography, allocated an additional Representative to states with a fractional residue 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 be susceptible to an apportionment paradox.[38] The Apportionment Human action of 1911, in addition to setting the number of U.S. Representatives at 435, returned to the Webster method, which was used post-obit the 1910 and 1930 censuses (no reapportionment was done after the 1920 demography). The current method, known every bit the Huntington–Hill method or method of equal proportions, was adopted in 1941 for reapportionment based on the 1940 census and beyond.[one] [4] [39] [40] The revised method was necessary in the context of the cap on the number of Representatives ready 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 amid the different states.[41] The resulting apportionment is optimal in the sense that any additional transfer of a seat from one country to some other would issue in larger percentage differences.[42]

In this method, as a first step, each of the 50 states is given its i guaranteed seat in the Firm of Representatives, leaving 385 seats to assign. The remaining seats are allocated one at a time, to the land with the highest priority number. Thus, the 51st seat would become 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 assignment procedure, n (initially 1), and the number of seats it would hold if the seat were assigned to it, north+1. Symbolically, the priority number Adue north is

A n = P n ( n + 1 ) {\displaystyle A_{n}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {n(due north+one)}}}}

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

A m + 1 = m g + 2 A m {\displaystyle A_{m+1}={\sqrt {\frac {m}{m+2}}}\ A_{1000}}
A n = n − 1 north + i A n − 1 {\displaystyle A_{n}={\sqrt {\frac {northward-ane}{northward+one}}}\ A_{n-1}}

where n is nonetheless the number of seats the state has earlier allocation of the next (in other words, for the mth allocation, n = m-1, where k > one), and for n = 1, the initial A 1 is explicitly defined by the non-recursive formula as

A ane = P ii {\displaystyle A_{ane}={\frac {P}{\sqrt {ii}}}}

Consider the reapportionment following the 2010 U.S. Census: beginning with all states initially existence allocated ane seat, the largest value of A 1 corresponds to the largest land, California, which is allocated seat 51. Later being 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 second largest land, because its A i priority value is larger than the Anorthward of any other land. However, the 53rd seat goes back to California considering its A 2 priority value is larger than the An of whatsoever other state. The 54th seat goes to New York because its A 1 priority value is larger than the Adue north of any other land at this bespeak. This process continues until all remaining seats are assigned. Each time a state is assigned a seat, n is incremented by 1, causing its priority value to exist reduced and reordered among usa, whereupon another country normally rises to the top of the listing.

The Census 2010 Ranking of Priority Values[43] shows the lodge in which seats 51–435 were apportioned later the 2010 Census, with boosted listings for the next 5 priorities. Minnesota was allocated the terminal (435th) seat. N Carolina missed its 14th seat past 15,754 residents as 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 club in which seats 51–435 were apportioned after the 2022 Demography, with additional listings for the next 10 priorities. For the second time in a row, Minnesota was allocated the last (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 first apportionment was established by the Constitution based on population estimates made by the Philadelphia Convention, and was non based on whatever census or enumeration.

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

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

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 issue for the U.S. elections in 2012.[48]

Gain four Gain two Gain 1 No change Lose 1 Lose 2
1. Texas one. Florida one. Arizona
2. Georgia
3. Nevada
4. Southward Carolina
five. Utah
6. Washington 		(32 states) 1. Illinois
ii. Iowa
3. Louisiana
four. Massachusetts
5. Michigan
vi. Missouri
vii. New Jersey
8. Pennsylvania 		1. New York
two. Ohio
+4 +ii +6 −8 −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 Gain one No change Lose i
1. Texas 1. Colorado
2. Florida
3. Montana
4. North Carolina
5. Oregon 		(37 states) 1. California
2. Illinois
3. Michigan
iv. New York
5. Ohio
6. Pennsylvania
7. W Virginia
+two +5 −7
+7 seats gained total −7 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 Alter Legal provision Reason and/or comments
March four, 1789 59 n/a Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. iii Seats apportioned by the Constitution
November 21, 1789 64 Increase 5 N Carolina ratified the Constitution with the seats apportioned by the Constitution
May 29, 1790 65 Increase 1 Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with the seat apportioned by the Constitution
March 4, 1791 67 Increase 2 1 Stat. 191 Vermont admitted
June ane, 1792 69 Increase 2 Kentucky admitted
March iv, 1793 105 Increase 36 one Stat. 253 (Apportionment Act of 1792) Apportionment following the First Census
June 1, 1796 106 Increase one 1 Stat. 491 Tennessee admitted
March 1, 1803 107 Increase i 2 Stat. 175 Ohio admitted.
March iv, 1803 142 Increase 35 2 Stat. 128 Apportionment following the 2d Demography.
Apr 30, 1812 143 Increase 1 two Stat. 703 Louisiana admitted.
March 4, 1813 182 Increase 39 ii Stat. 669 Apportionment following the Third Census.
December eleven, 1816 183 Increase 1 3 Stat. 290 Indiana admitted.
December ten, 1817 184 Increase 1 iii Stat. 349 Mississippi admitted.
Dec iii, 1818 185 Increase ane 3 Stat. 430 Illinois admitted.
December fourteen, 1819 186 Increase 1 three Stat. 492 Alabama admitted.
March 15, 1820 Steady 3 Stat. 555 Maine admitted, 7 seats transferred from Massachusetts
August x, 1821 187 Increase 1 iii Stat. 547 Missouri admitted
March 4, 1823 213 Increase 26 3 Stat. 651 Circulation following the Fourth Demography
March 4, 1833 240 Increase 27 four Stat. 516 Apportionment following the Fifth Census
June 15, 1836 241 Increase i 5 Stat. 51 Arkansas admitted
January 26, 1837 242 Increase one 5 Stat. 50 Michigan admitted
March 4, 1843 223 Decrease 19 five Stat. 491 Circulation following the Sixth Census, the just time the size of the Firm was reduced, except for the minor readjustments in 1863 and 1963.
March 3, 1845 224 Increase 1 5 Stat. 743 Florida admitted.
December 29, 1845 226 Increase ii 5 Stat. 798 Texas annexed and admitted.
Dec 28, 1846 228 Increase ii 5 Stat. 743
9 Stat. 52 		Iowa admitted.
May 29, 1848 230 Increase 2 9 Stat. 58
9 Stat. 235 		Wisconsin admitted.
March 4, 1849 231 Increase ane 9 Stat. 235 Additional seat apportioned to Wisconsin.
September ix, 1850 233 Increase 2 ix Stat. 452 California admitted.
March 4, 1853 Steady nine Stat. 432 Apportionment following the 7th Census.
234 Increase i 10 Stat. 25 Additional seat apportioned to California[b]
May 11, 1858 236 Increase ii 11 Stat. 166 Minnesota admitted.
February 14, 1859 237 Increase 1 11 Stat. 383 Oregon admitted.
January 29, 1861 238 Increase 1 12 Stat. 126 Kansas admitted
June two, 1862 239 Increase 1 12 Stat. 411 California apportioned an extra seat
March 4, 1863 233 Decrease half dozen nine Stat. 432 Apportionment following the Eighth Demography, in accordance with the 1850 act, which provided for an circulation of 233 seats
241 Increase 8 12 Stat. 353 Supplemental apportionment of eight seats (i each for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island), for an overall increase of 2 seats in the 38th Congress
June xx, 1863 Steady 12 Stat. 633 West Virginia admitted, three seats transferred from Virginia
October 31, 1864 242 Increase ane 13 Stat. 32 Nevada admitted
March ane, 1867 243 Increase 1 14 Stat. 391 Nebraska admitted
March 4, 1873 283 Increase 40 17 Stat. 28 Apportionment following the Ninth Census, replacing the 1850 act
292 Increase 9 17 Stat. 192 Supplemental apportionment added ane seat each for nine states
August 1, 1876 293 Increase 1 13 Stat. 34 Colorado admitted
March iv, 1883 325 Increase 32 22 Stat. 5 Apportionment post-obit the Tenth Census.
November 2, 1889 328 Increase 3 25 Stat. 679 Due north and South Dakota admitted, with 1 and two seats respectively.
November eight, 1889 329 Increase one 25 Stat. 679 Montana admitted.
November eleven, 1889 330 Increase 1 25 Stat. 679 Washington admitted.
July three, 1890 331 Increase 1 26 Stat. 215 Idaho admitted.
July 10, 1890 332 Increase 1 26 Stat. 222 Wyoming admitted.
March iv, 1893 356 Increase 24 26 Stat. 735 Apportionment following the Eleventh Census.
January four, 1896 357 Increase one 28 Stat. 109 Utah admitted.
March 4, 1903 386 Increase 29 31 Stat. 733 Circulation post-obit the Twelfth Census (1900)
Nov xvi, 1907 391 Increase 5 34 Stat. 271 Oklahoma admitted
January 6, 1912 393 Increase 2 37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557 New Mexico admitted
February 14, 1912 394 Increase 1 37 Stat. 39, incorporating 36 Stat. 557 Arizona admitted
March 4, 1913 435 Increase 41 37 Stat. 13 (Apportionment Act of 1911, §§1–two) Apportionment following the Thirteenth Demography (1910)
March 4, 1933 Steady 46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Act of 1929) Apportionment following the Fifteenth Census (1930)[c]
Jan three, 1943 Steady 46 Stat. 26 (Reapportionment Deed of 1929)
54 Stat. 162 		Apportionment following the Sixteenth Census (1940)
January 3, 1953 Steady 55 Stat. 761 Circulation post-obit the Seventeenth Demography[d]
Jan 3, 1959 436 Increase 1 72 Stat. 345 Alaska admitted
August 21, 1959 437 Increase 1 73 Stat. 8, §viii Hawaii admitted
January 3, 1963 435 Decrease 2 72 Stat. 345
73 Stat. 8
2 U.s.C. § 2a 		Apportionment following the Eighteenth Census[eastward]
January 3, 1973 Steady ii U.S.C. § 2a Apportionment following the Nineteenth Demography
January iii, 1983 Steady 2 U.s.C. § 2a Apportionment following the Twentieth Census
Jan iii, 1993 Steady ii UsaC. § 2a Circulation following the Twenty-Beginning Demography
Jan 3, 2003 Steady two U.South.C. § 2a Apportionment post-obit the Xx-Second Census
Jan three, 2013 Steady 2 U.Due south.C. § 2a Apportionment following the 20-Third Demography
January iii, 2023 Steady 2 U.S.C. § 2a Apportionment post-obit the Twenty-Fourth Census

Encounter also [edit]

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

Notes [edit]

  • Consul counts in italics represent temporary counts assigned by Congress until the side by side decennial demography or by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 until the first U.Due south. Census.
  • Elections held in the twelvemonth of a demography use the apportionment determined past the previous demography.
  1. ^ Congress failed to pass any reapportionment to implement the 1920 United States Demography so despite population shift, distribution of seats from 1913 remained in result until 1933.
  2. ^ The 1850 Apportionment bill provided a method to be used in future reapportionments, too as establishing the then-current 233 as the number of seats to be apportioned after future censuses. Due to census returns being incomplete in California, an additional act provided that California retain the same representation it had when admitted, until a new census could be taken. California would otherwise accept lost one seat, and so the full number of seats was increased past 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 "and so existing number of Representatives" would exist apportioned later on each demography, which would have dictated an apportionment of 437 seats, but the Alaska Statehood Human action 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 not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the Business firm of Representatives as prescribed in the Deed of August viii, 1911 (37 Stat. 13) nor shall such temporary increment affect the footing of apportionment established by the Human activity of November xv, 1941 (55 Stat. 761; 2 U.s.C. § 2a), for the Eighty-third Congress and each Congress thereafter."[50]
  1. ^ a b c Kristin D. Burnett (November 1, 2011). "Congressional Circulation (2010 Census Briefs C2010BR-08)" (PDF). U.S. Section of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Assistants. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
  2. ^ The populations of Washington, D.C. and federal territories are non included in this effigy.
  3. ^ Public Law 62-5 of 1911.
  4. ^ a b "The History of Circulation in America". American Mathematical Club. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
  5. ^ Rendered moot by the Revenue Act of 1924 and Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
  6. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 2c
  7. ^ Bush-league signs federalization bill Archived February 13, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Agnes E. Donato, Saipan Tribune, May 10, 2008.
  8. ^ Goldberg, Jonah (Jan fifteen, 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 Ramble Convention - Tuesday September 17, 1787
  10. ^ a b "The Federalist #55". constitution.org . Retrieved June 23, 2020.
  11. ^ Todd, James (1952). "Law and Contemporary Problems: Legislative Circulation (Affiliate Championship: The Apportionment Problem Faced by united states)". Law and Contemporary Problems. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University. 17 (2): 314–337. eISSN 1945-2322. ISSN 1945-2322.
  12. ^ a b DeSilver, Drew (May 31, 2018). "U.South. population keeps growing, but House of Representatives is aforementioned size every bit in Taft era". Pew Research Center.
  13. ^ Balinski, Michel; Immature, H. Peyton. Off-white Representation, Coming together The Platonic of 1 Human being One vote". p. 51.
  14. ^ "Congressional Circulation". NationalAtlas.gov. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved February 15, 2009.
  15. ^ "Circulation of Representatives in Congress". CQ Researcher by CQ Printing. ISSN 1942-5635.
  16. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Function of the Historian, U.s. House of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
  17. ^ "Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified". Us House of Representatives. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2007.
  18. ^ Stone, Lyman (Oct 17, 2018). "Pack the House: How to Fix the Legislative Branch". Mere Orthodoxy. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  19. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June iv, 2018). "The instance for massively expanding the The states Business firm of Representatives, in one chart". Phonation. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  20. ^ Hurlbut, Terry (Apr 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 Dominion". Outside the Beltway.
  22. ^ Kane, Caroline; Mascioli, Gianni; McGarry, Michael; Nagel, Meira (2020). Why the House of Representatives Must Exist Expanded and How Today's Congress Can Make it Happen (PDF). Fordham University School of Law.
  23. ^ "The "Cube Root Rule": A Push 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 ii, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
  25. ^ Marimow, Ann E.; Pershing, Ben (Apr 21, 2010). "Congressional leaders shelve D.C. voting rights bill". The Washington Mail service.
  26. ^ 3 Annals of Cong. 539 (1792)
  27. ^ Act of Jan. xiv, 1802, 2 Stat. 128
  28. ^ Human action of Dec. 21, 1811, 2 Stat. 669
  29. ^ Act of Mar. 7, 1822, iii Stat. 651
  30. ^ Act of May 22, 1832, 4 Stat. 516
  31. ^ Act of 25 June 1842, ch 46, v Stat. 491
  32. ^ Act of May 23, 1850, 9 Stat. 432-433
  33. ^ Human activity of 1862, 12 Stat. 572
  34. ^ Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 28
  35. ^ Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 5
  36. ^ Act of 1891
  37. ^ Act of 1901, 31 Stat. 733
  38. ^ "Congressional Circulation-Historical Perspective". U.Due south. Demography Bureau. Retrieved Oct 27, 2013. .
  39. ^ "two USC §2a". Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Found. Retrieved May xiii, 2008.
  40. ^ "Calculating Circulation". U.S. Demography 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 Feb 14, 2009.
  42. ^ Edward V Huntington (1921). "The Mathematical Theory of the Apportionment of Representatives". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.. seven (4): 123–7. Bibcode:1921PNAS....7..123H. doi:10.1073/pnas.7.4.123. PMC1084767. PMID 16576591.
  43. ^ "Priority Values for 2010 Census" (PDF). U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved August 29, 2020.
  44. ^ "Census 2000 Ranking of Priority Values". U.South. Bureau of the Census. February 21, 2001. Retrieved May thirteen, 2008.
  45. ^ "Priority Values for 2022 Demography" (PDF). U.S. Bureau of the Demography. Retrieved April 27, 2021. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  46. ^ Goldmacher, Shane (April 26, 2021). "New York Loses Firm Seat After Coming Upwardly 89 People Brusk 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 House Seat". Retrieved May 17, 2021.
  48. ^ "Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by State: 2010 Census" (PDF). U.s.a. Demography. December 21, 2010. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
  49. ^ The Size of the U. Southward. House of Representatives and its Constituent Country Delegations, thirty-thousand.org.
  50. ^ Come across, eastward.1000., section viii of the Hawaii Admission Act, 73 Stat. 8.

References [edit]

  • Balinski, Michael L.; Immature, H. Peyton (1982). Fair Representation: Coming together the Ideal of One Homo, 1 Vote. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN0-8157-0090-iii.
  • Foster, Robert (1895). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: Historical and Judicial. Vol. ane. Boston: The Boston Book Co. pp. 329–446.
  • Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1831). The Federalist. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Co. ISBN0-8239-5735-seven.
  • Edelman, Paul H. (2006). "Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats in the House of Representatives". Vanderbilt Law Review. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. 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:10.2307/3234988. JSTOR 3234988. S2CID 155209561. Retrieved October 17, 2013.
  • Agnew, Robert A. (2008). "Optimal Congressional Apportionment" (PDF). American Mathematical Monthly. Mathematical Clan of America. 115 (April): 297–303. doi:10.1080/00029890.2008.11920530. JSTOR 27642473. S2CID 14596741.

Further reading [edit]

  • Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Taren (2004). "Counting Matters: Prison Inmates, Population Bases, and "I Person, One Vote"". Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. Chicago. 11 (Winter): 229.

External links [edit]

  • Congressional Apportionment by the U.S. Demography Bureau

edwardscafrocks1950.blogspot.com

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

Talvez você goste destas postagens

Postar um comentário for "Number of Members in the House of Representatives Per State"