From Jane Delung and Judith A. Himes of the Population Resource Center in Princeton, N.J.:
The Constitution created 65 seats in the House of Representatives, set a minimum size of 30,000 residents for a Congressional district, and mandated a reapportionment after each census. As new states entered the union and the nation’s population grew, the size of the House increased every decade until 1912, when it reached the current size of 435 and the average district had 210,000 residents.
Today the average district has a startling 650,000 people. The largest district – Nevada’s Third – has 960,000 residents, and the smallest – Wyoming’s single district – has 493,000.
These disparities will continue to grow. By 2040 the average district will have more than 900,000 residents. Districts could range from as few as 500,000 residents to more than 1.7 million. Almost one-third of the states in the “People’s House” could have only one or two representatives. How can one person adequately represent the diversity encompassed in such a large district?
In 1789, there was a Constitutional Amendment proposed as part of the original Bill of Rights that would have dealt with this issue:
After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Because it did not receive enough support, this proposed amendment was never ratified. Had it been passed, though, it would have required that the size of Congress be adjusted with every Decennial Census and the House of Representatives today would have as many as 6,000 members, one for every 50,000 Americans.
The one objection that could be raised is that a House of Representatives comprising 1,000 or more members would be administratively unwieldy, but one can assume that House procedures and Rules would have evolved to accommodate a larger membership.
Delung and Hines offer their own solution:
It won’t be an easy task to increase the size of the House. To avoid a fiasco, Congress could decide on a procedure for increasing the number of seats – and allocating them – that occurs automatically every decade, so they do not have to endure the debate each decade (a debacle each decade).
In the 19th century, increasing the size of the House and the way those seats were allocated caused major problems each decade. Congress might also consider a system that increases the size of the House by the growth of the population each decade (or, half of the growth to start slowly) and continue to leave the actual allocation among the states to the Census Bureau, as is now the case.
Given current population projections, there would be about 44 new seats in 2010 and 41 more in 2020. The House would increase gradually as our population grew. Another option is to determine the number of members based on the size of the smallest district – using this system we would have about 600 members today.
It’s certainly an idea worth exploring before we get to the point where Congressional Districts have as many people as some states do today.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The whole lot of ‘em could be replaced by 3 monkeys: 1 deaf, 1 mute, 1 blind.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Why not assign federal prisoners to Congress as a work release program? This way the bums would be on probation the day they start work.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I agree that it’s worth debating, though I — probably like most — find the idea of more Congress-critters conceptually repulsive.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’m all in favor of this idea, and have been a proponent of increasing the size of the House for some time. In addition, I want to see an anti-gerrymandering amendment added to the Constitution, which would go something like this:
No Congressional district shall be drawn where inside the bounding box drawn by east-west lines through the northernmost and southernmost points and north-south lines through the easternmost and westernmost points, there is more of its state’s land area outside the district boundaries than inside.
These two combined would make modern gerrymandering much more difficult and go a ways into making our Representatives more representative.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Rethinking the Montana case in terms of Chadha (legislative vetoes are unconstitutional).
Previously, the Sup. Ct. denied Montana’s request for additional representative based upon equal protection claim as well as on the presentment clause (automatic nature). However, that challenge to was focused on the automatic METHOD used to apportion the 435.
What was not argued nor considered was whether the scheme which results in an automatic default to the NUMBER (435) was constitutional.
Consider President Washington’s first veto; when Congress chose a NUMBER that Washington thought created too much variation in the amount of people representative by each district, for example in Connecticut vs in Virgina. The President at the time of the census and reapportionment had the right to veto the NUMBER chosen, which put the onus back on Congress to pick a different NUMBER or to override his veto.
So how does President Obama exercise that same executive authority that Washington had when Congress by failing to act automatically results in 435 as the NUMBER? He apparently can’t!
While Congress deciding the method of apportionment certainly can be viewed as more ministerial or procedural and hence passed muster in the Montana case, the choosing of a NUMBER based upon the new census results is really substantive. Indeed, now ancient dicta in SC cases has described the picking of a NUMBER following each census as a fundamental duty of Congress.
In fact, the Constitution actually provides a remedy in the event that Congress failed in performing its duty. The Size of the House is to remain as enumerated plus a single representative for each new State. A harsh result, yes; but that fear of that rather Draconian measure would most certainly cause Congress to pick a number , any number even 435 again, so that the President could exercise the executive authority that the Constitution intended in word and spirit. If Congress is forced to pick a NUMBER after every census there will be debate about what the size of the House should be and that debate will include the Executive.