Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional apportionment is the process of determining the number of Representatives to which each state is entitled in the U.S. House of Representatives based on the decennial census of population. Congressional redistricting, often confused with apportionment, is the process of revising the geographic boundaries of areas from which voters elect Representatives to the House. The apportionment process is a function of four factors: (1) population size, (2) the number of Representatives or seats to be apportioned, (3) the number of states, and (4) the method of apportionment.
Recently, some commentators and members of Congress have called for a change in the nature of the population used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, advocating a change from using all “persons” to using all “citizens.” Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “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.” Consequently, such a change would appear to necessitate a constitutional amendment.
This report examines the impact on the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives if such a change were to occur, using an estimate of the 2010 citizen population in place of the 2010 apportionment population to determine the potential distribution of seats in the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress.
If the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress were based on the citizen apportionment population rather than the total apportionment population, as required by the Constitution, it is estimated that nine seats would shift among 13 states. California would lose five seats relative to its actual distribution of seats as a result of the 2010 apportionment. Texas would lose two of the four seats it is scheduled to gain in 2012. Florida would lose one of the seats it is to gain under the 2010 apportionment, and New York would lose an additional seat to the two it is scheduled to lose.
On the other hand, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma would each pick up a single seat, if the citizen population were used to apportion seats in 2010 rather than the total population. Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, all scheduled to lose a single seat as a result of the 2010 apportionment, would retain that seat if the citizen population were used. Ohio, scheduled to lose two seats as a result of the 2010 apportionment, would lose only a single seat if the citizen population were used to apportion the House seats. Using citizenship status to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives tends to benefit states with smaller immigrant populations and cost states with larger immigrant populations.
For those seeking to change the current population standard for apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives, there appears to be at least three possible choices. First, and most obvious, amend the U.S. Constitution. Second, use the citizen population in the redistricting process to geographically define the congressional districts. Or third, change the apportionment law to adopt an apportionment formula that, when used with the total population, mimics the apportionment distribution that occurs when using the citizen population.
Date of Report: February 14, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41636
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional apportionment is the process of determining the number of Representatives to which each state is entitled in the U.S. House of Representatives based on the decennial census of population. Congressional redistricting, often confused with apportionment, is the process of revising the geographic boundaries of areas from which voters elect Representatives to the House. The apportionment process is a function of four factors: (1) population size, (2) the number of Representatives or seats to be apportioned, (3) the number of states, and (4) the method of apportionment.
Recently, some commentators and members of Congress have called for a change in the nature of the population used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, advocating a change from using all “persons” to using all “citizens.” Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “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.” Consequently, such a change would appear to necessitate a constitutional amendment.
This report examines the impact on the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives if such a change were to occur, using an estimate of the 2010 citizen population in place of the 2010 apportionment population to determine the potential distribution of seats in the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress.
If the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress were based on the citizen apportionment population rather than the total apportionment population, as required by the Constitution, it is estimated that nine seats would shift among 13 states. California would lose five seats relative to its actual distribution of seats as a result of the 2010 apportionment. Texas would lose two of the four seats it is scheduled to gain in 2012. Florida would lose one of the seats it is to gain under the 2010 apportionment, and New York would lose an additional seat to the two it is scheduled to lose.
On the other hand, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma would each pick up a single seat, if the citizen population were used to apportion seats in 2010 rather than the total population. Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, all scheduled to lose a single seat as a result of the 2010 apportionment, would retain that seat if the citizen population were used. Ohio, scheduled to lose two seats as a result of the 2010 apportionment, would lose only a single seat if the citizen population were used to apportion the House seats. Using citizenship status to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives tends to benefit states with smaller immigrant populations and cost states with larger immigrant populations.
For those seeking to change the current population standard for apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives, there appears to be at least three possible choices. First, and most obvious, amend the U.S. Constitution. Second, use the citizen population in the redistricting process to geographically define the congressional districts. Or third, change the apportionment law to adopt an apportionment formula that, when used with the total population, mimics the apportionment distribution that occurs when using the citizen population.
Date of Report: February 14, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41636
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
