Potential House Apportionment Following the 2010 Census Based on Census Bureau Population Projections

CRS Report for Congress
Potential House Apportionment Following the
2010 Census Based on Census Bureau
1
Population Projections
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
The Census Bureau’s 2005 population projections for the year 2010 raise the
possibility of potentially significant changes in the allocation of Representatives among
the states. If the projections for the year 2010 presage the actual Census, 10 seats will
shift, affecting a total of 15 states. CRS experience with prior Census Bureau
population projections suggests, however, they are an imperfect predictor of actual
number of Representatives states will be granted after a census.
Although the Bureau of the Census estimates the population for each state annually,
state-level population projections are usually issued once each decade. On April 21,
2005, the Bureau released projected state populations for the year 2010. If the House of
Representatives were to be reapportioned based on these projected numbers, 10 seats
would shift among 15 states from the official apportionment following the 2000 Census.
Arizona, California, Georgia, Nevada and Utah would each gain one seat; Florida would
gain two seats; and Texas would gain three seats. The following states would lose one
seat: Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Pennsylvania; New York and
Ohio would lose two seats if these projections prove to be accurate.
Caveats
The official apportionment based on the 2010 Census will probably differ from the
trial apportionment based on the projections. This is because population projections are
of uncertain accuracy.
First, projections for large geographic units are more likely to be accurate than those
for smaller units. Thus, a projection of the total U.S. population is likely to be more
accurate than one for an individual state. Also, adding or subtracting a small number of

¹ This report originally was authored by David C. Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

people from a state’s population can make a difference in whether or not a seat is assigned
to that state.
Second, the assumptions that underlie the projections and that can have a significant
effect on the resulting apportionment estimates may prove to be erroneous. For example,
the 1983 population projection for California for 1990 was 27,525,600, compared to
29,839,250 in the actual 1990 census count — the 1983 projection suggested a four-seat
gain, but the 1990 numbers resulted in a seven-seat increase of Representatives for
California. Furthermore, the Census Bureau population projections for 2000 were
imperfect predictors of the actual reapportionment of the House of Representatives. Ten
states had different totals of Representatives after the census than had been expected
based on the population projections.²
Third, population projections are not directly comparable to Census figures. For
example, following the practice of the annual population estimates, projections are
computed for July 1 of the projection year, whereas the Census is taken on April 1 of each
year ending in zero. Thus, the date used for the projection is three months later than the

2000 Census.

Fourth, a further complicating factor in using projections to compute prospective
apportionments concerns the status of federal employees who are stationed abroad
(chiefly military personnel and their dependents, totaling 574,330 persons in 2000). In
2000, the Census Bureau included these people in the populations used to reapportion the
House.³ The projections used to calculate the prospective apportionment in this report are
not adjusted to account for federal employees stationed abroad.
Nevertheless, as imperfect as population projections are, they provide a rough basis
for estimating what representation in the House may be after the next reapportionment.
Tables
Table 1 sets out the state populations used to reapportion the House of
Representatives after the 2000 Census (the April 1, 2000, census apportionment
population), and the Census Bureau’s July 1, 2010 population projection. It also
illustrates the change from 2000 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat
allocation, and what it would be if the House were to be reapportioned based on these
population projections.

² U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1993 to 2020, Current Population Reports, P25-1111, (Washington: 1994). The
projections suggested that Arizona would have received seven seats instead of eight it actually
received. Other states would have changed as follows if the projections had been used to
apportion seats rather than the actual census results: California would have received 55 seats,
rather than 53; Colorado 6, rather than 7; Florida 24, rather than 25; Georgia 12, rather than 13;
Indiana 10, rather than 9; Massachusetts 9, rather than 10; Montana 2, rather than 1; North
Carolina 12, rather than 13; and Washington 10, rather than 9 seats.
³ See CRS Report RS20768, House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining, Losing, and on the
Margin. by David C. Huckabee, p. 3. This report describes how the equal proportions formula
allocates Representatives among the states.

Table 1. Possible Apportionment of Seats in the House of
Representatives Based on the 2000 Census and 2010 Census
Bureau Population Projections
2000 Census2010 population projection
Expected change
Seat changeApportionment No. ofProjectedfrom 2000No. of
Statefrom 2000^bpopulation^aSeats population seatsTotalPercent %
^A^L^4,461,130⁷⁴^,596,330^135,200^3.03⁶^-¹
^A^K^628,933¹^694,109^65,176^10.36¹
^A^Z^5,140,683⁸⁶^,637,381^1,496,698^29.11⁹⁺¹
^A^R^2,679,733⁴²^,875,039^195,306^7.29⁴
^C^A^33,930,798⁵³^38,067,134^4,136,336^12.19⁵⁴⁺¹
^C^O^4,311,882⁷⁴^,831,554^519,672^12.05⁷
^C^T^3,409,535⁵³^,577,490^167,955^4.93⁵
^D^E^785,068¹^884,342^99,274^12.65¹
^F^L^16,028,890²⁵^19,251,691^3,222,801^20.11²⁷⁺²
^G^A^8,206,975¹³^9,589,080^1,382,105^16.84¹⁴⁺¹
^H^I^1,216,642²¹^,340,674^124,032^10.19²
^ID^1,297,274²¹^,517,291^220,017^16.96²
^IL^12,439,042¹⁹^12,916,894^477,852^3.84¹⁸^-¹
^IN^6,090,782⁹⁶^,392,139^301,357^4.95⁹
^IA^2,931,923⁵³^,009,907^77,984^2.66⁴^-¹
^K^S^2,693,824⁴²^,805,470^111,646^4.14⁴
^K^Y^4,049,431⁶⁴^,265,117^215,686^5.33⁶
^L^A^4,480,271⁷⁴^,612,679^132,408^2.96⁷
^ME^1,277,731²¹^,357,134^79,403^6.21²
^MD^5,307,886⁸⁵^,904,970^597,084^11.25⁸
^MA^6,355,568¹⁰^6,649,441^293,873^4.62⁹^-¹
^MI^9,955,829¹⁵^10,428,683^472,854^4.75¹⁵
^MN^4,925,670⁸⁵^,420,636^494,966^10.05⁸
^MS^2,852,927⁴²^,971,078^118,151^4.14⁴
^MO^5,606,260⁹⁵^,922,078^315,818^5.63⁸^-¹
^MT^905,316¹^968,598^63,282^6.99¹
^N^E^1,715,369³¹^,768,997^53,628^3.13³
^N^V^2,002,032³²^,690,531^688,499^34.39⁴⁺¹
^N^H^1,238,415²¹^,385,560^147,145^11.88²
^N^J^8,424,354¹³^9,018,231^593,877^7.05¹³
^N^M^1,823,821³¹^,980,225^156,404^8.58³
^N^Y^19,004,973²⁹^19,443,672^438,699^2.31²⁷^-²
^N^C^8,067,673¹³^9,345,823^1,278,150^15.84¹³
^N^D^643,756¹^636,623^-⁷^,133^-¹^.11¹
^O^H^11,374,540¹⁸^11,576,181^201,641^1.77¹⁶^-²
^O^K^3,458,819⁵³^,591,516^132,697^3.84⁵
^O^R^3,428,543⁵³^,790,996^362,453^10.57⁵
^PA^12,300,670¹⁹^12,584,487^283,817^2.31¹⁸^-¹
^R^I^1,049,662²¹^,116,652^66,990^6.38²
^S^C^4,025,061⁶⁴^,446,704^421,643^10.48⁶
^S^D^756,874¹^786,399^29,525^3.90¹
^T^N^5,700,037⁹⁶^,230,852^530,815^9.31⁹
^T^X^20,903,994³²^24,648,888^3,744,894^17.91³⁵⁺³
^U^T^2,236,714³²^,595,013^358,299^16.02⁴⁺¹
^V^T^609,890¹^652,512^42,622^6.99¹

2000 Census2010 population projection
Expected change
Seat change^bApportionment ^aNo. ofProjectedfrom 2000No. of
Statefrom 2000populationSeats population seatsTotalPercent %
^V^A^7,100,702¹¹^8,010,245^909,543^12.81¹¹
^WA^5,908,684⁹⁶^,541,963^633,279^10.72⁹
^WV^1,813,077³¹^,829,141^16,064^0.89³
^WI^5,371,210⁸⁵^,727,426^356,216^6.63⁸
^WY^495,304¹^519,866^24,562^4.96¹
^281,424,177⁴³⁵^308,405,442^26,981,265^9.59⁴³⁵
^No^tes:^a.^U.S.^B^u^r^eau^o^f^th^{e Cen}^s^u^s^{, P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^P^r^o^j^ectioⁿ^s^B^r^an^ch^{, P}^o^p^u^latioⁿ^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^,^Flo^r^id^a^,^Ca^lifo^rn^ia
^{and T}^exas^t^o^D^o^mⁱ^nat^{e Fut}^u^r^e^Popul^atⁱ^{on G}^r^ow^t^h^{, C}^e^ns^u^s^B^u^r^e^{au Repor}^t^s^,^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^B^u^reau^P^r^es^s^R^e^leas^e
^C^B^05-^{52, A}^p^ri^l^{21, 2005. (S}^eat^al^l^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^com^p^u^t^{ed by}^C^R^S^.)
^{b. N}^u^m^b^ers^f^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^{+ an}^{d -}^sⁱ^gⁿ^s^repres^en^tⁿ^e^t^g^aⁱⁿ^{or l}^o^s^sⁱⁿ^proj^ect^{ed s}^eat^s^ov^{er 2000 l}^e^v^e^l^s^.
Priority Lists and Seat Assignments
The reapportionment process for the House relies on rounding principles, but the
actual procedure involves computing a “priority list” of seat assignments for the states.
The Constitution allocates the first 50 seats because each state must have at least one
Representative. A priority list assigns the remaining 385 seats for a total of 435. Table
2 displays the end of the “priority list” that would be used to allocate Representatives
based on 2010 projections. The law only provides for 435 seats in the House, but the
table illustrates not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment formula (ending at

435), but the states that would just miss getting additional representation.⁴

Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using Census
Bureau Population Projections for 2010
2000
Priorityapportionment^aPopulation needed to^b
rankStateSeatpopulationPriority valuegain or lose seat
⁴²⁰^C^A⁵²^38,067,134^739,202.40^-¹^,543,551
⁴²¹^IL¹⁸^12,916,894^738,409.65^-^510,451
⁴²²^T^X³⁴^24,648,888^735,869.63^-^892,358
⁴²³^T^N⁹⁶^,230,852^734,312.62^-^212,841
⁴²⁴^N^Y²⁷^19,443,672^733,854.07^-^652,445
⁴²⁵^F^L²⁷^19,251,691^726,608.22^-^460,464
⁴²⁶^C^A⁵³^38,067,134^725,121.12^-^834,292
⁴²⁷^MN⁸⁵^,420,636^724,362.69^-^113,249
⁴²⁸^N^E³¹^,768,997^722,189.92^-^31,747
⁴²⁹^N^J¹³^9,018,231^722,036.17^-^159,960
⁴³⁰^MI¹⁵^10,428,683^719,646.94^-^150,969
⁴³¹^PA¹⁸^12,584,487^719,407.20^-^178,044
⁴³²^T^X³⁵^24,648,888^714,535.55^-^183,053

⁴ Please note that the figures in table 2 for the “population needed to gain or lose a seat” are
misleading because it is unlikely that one state’s population total would be adjusted without
others changing as well. Since the method of equal proportions used to allocate seats in the
House uses all state populations simultaneously, changes in several state populations may also
result in changes to the “population needed to gain or lose a seat.”

2000
PriorityapportionmentPopulation needed to
rankStateSeatpopulationPriority value^again or lose seat^b
⁴³³^L^A⁷⁴^,612,679^711,751.64^-^16,348
⁴³⁴^C^A⁵⁴^38,067,134^711,566.24^-^125,030
⁴³⁵^G^A¹⁴^9,589,080^710,789.33^-^21,048
^L^a^s^t^s^e^at^as^sⁱ^{gned by l}^a^w
⁴³⁶^A^L⁷⁴^,596,330^709,229.12^+10,112
⁴³⁷^N^Y²⁸^19,443,672^707,159.50^+99,804
⁴³⁸^O^H¹⁷^11,576,181^701,909.06^+146,457
⁴³⁹^MA¹⁰^6,649,441^700,912.28^+93,702
⁴⁴⁰^F^L²⁸^19,251,691^700,177.22^+291,785
⁴⁴¹^A^Z¹⁰^6,637,381^699,641.05^+105,762
⁴⁴²^C^A⁵⁵^38,067,134^698,508.84^+669,259
⁴⁴³^IL¹⁹^12,916,894^698,465.63^+227,905
⁴⁴⁴^MO⁹⁵^,922,078^697,923.27^+109,172
⁴⁴⁵^V^A¹²^8,010,245^697,202.23^+156,104
⁴⁴⁶^MD⁹⁵^,904,970^695,907.08^+126,280
⁴⁴⁷^T^X³⁶^24,648,888^694,403.72^+581,631
⁴⁴⁸^N^C¹⁴^9,345,823^692,757.94^+243,257
⁴⁴⁹^O^R⁶³^,790,996^692,137.88^+102,158
⁴⁵⁰^WA¹⁰^6,541,963^689,583.11^+201,180
^No^tes:^{a. Each}^s^t^ate’^s^claim^{to repres}^en^tationⁱⁿ^th^{e H}^o^u^s^{e i}^s^bas^e^d^on^{a “}^p^ri^ori^t^y^v^a^l^u^{e” det}^e^rmⁱⁿ^{ed by}^½
^t^h^e^fo^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^f^o^rm^u^l^a:^P^V^{= P}^/^[n^{( n}^-^{1 )]}^{; w}^h^{ere P}^V^{= th}^{e s}^t^ate’^s^priority^v^a^lu^{e, P}^{= th}^e^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^th^th
^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^an^{d n}^{= t}^h^{e s}^t^at^e’^sⁿ^s^{eat in}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e. For ex}^am^ple,^th^{e priority}^v^a^lu^{e of}^A^l^abam^a’^s⁷^s^eat
^is:^½
^PV^AL⁷⁼⁴^{,596,330 /}^{[ 7(7 -}^{1 ) ]}^½
⁼^{4,596,330 /}^{[ 42 ]}
⁼^{4,596,330 /}^6.480741
⁼^709,229.12
^T^h^{e actu}^a^{l s}^{eat as}^sⁱ^gⁿ^m^en^ts^{are m}^a^{de by}^ran^kⁱⁿ^g^{all of}^th^{e states’}^p^r^io^r^ity^v^a^lu^{es f}^r^o^m^hⁱ^g^h^e^{st to}^lo^w^e^{st u}ⁿ^til
^{435 s}^eat^s^{are al}^l^o^cat^ed.
^{b. T}^h^es^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^repres^en^t^t^h^{e popu}^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^{a s}^t^at^{e w}^o^u^l^{d ei}^t^h^{er n}^{eed t}^o^l^o^s^eⁱⁿ^{order t}^o^{drop bel}^o^w^t^h^{e 435}^th
^s^eat^cu^t^o^f^f^,^{or t}^o^g^aⁱⁿ^t^o^rⁱ^{se abov}^{e t}^h^{e cu}^t^o^f^f^.^If^{, i}ⁿ^t^h^{e cas}^{e of}^A^l^abam^{a, t}^h^{e popu}^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^proj^ectⁱ^oⁿ^h^a^d
^yⁱ^el^{ded 10,111 m}^o^{re pers}^on^s^,^t^h^{e s}^t^at^e’^s^pri^o^ri^t^y^v^a^l^u^{e w}^o^u^l^{d i}ⁿ^creas^{e t}^o^{710,789.43 w}^hⁱ^c^h^w^o^u^l^{d res}^u^l^t^th^th
ⁱⁿ^{a n}^e^w^s^e^qu^en^{ce n}^u^m^{ber of}^{435 becau}^s^e^Georgⁱ^a’^s¹⁴^s^{eat w}^o^u^l^{d n}^o^w^occu^py^th^e⁴³⁶^p^o^s^itioⁿⁱⁿ^th^e
^p^r^io^r^ity^list.
^Source:^C^o^m^p^u^t^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^by^C^R^S^u^sⁱⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^Bu^reau^{2010 popu}^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^es^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^s^{. S}^{ee C}^R^S^R^e^port
^R^L^30711,^T^h^{e H}^ous^{e Appor}^tⁱ^onm^ent^For^m^ul^{a i}ⁿ^T^h^eor^y^{and Pr}^actⁱ^c^e^,^b^y^D^a^vⁱ^d^C^.^H^u^c^k^abee,^f^o^r^aⁿ
^ex^plan^ation^of^th^{e f}^o^rm^u^l^{a f}^o^{r allocatin}^g^Hou^s^{e s}^eats^.
Options for States Losing Seats
Apportionment counts transmitted by the Census Bureau to the President after a
decennial census (who then sends them to Congress) are considered final. Thus, most
states that will lose seats after the 2010 Census will have only one possible option for
retaining them: urge Congress to increase the size of the House. Any other option, such
as changing the formula used in the computations or changing the components of the

apportionment population (such as omitting the foreign-based military and federal civilian
employees) will only affect a small number of states if the House stays at 435 seats.⁵
The 435 seat limit was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-27. Altering the size
of the House would require a new law setting a different limit. Article 1, Section 2 of the
Constitution establishes a minimum House size (one Representative for each state), and
a maximum House size (one for every 30,000, or 9,380 based on the 2000 Census). An
increase of the size of the House to 473 would have resulted in no states losing seats they
held from the 103^rd to the 107^th Congresses. Those states retaining seats through an
increase in the House size would not have been able to retain their pre-2000 Census
proportional share of House seats, because other states would also have their delegations
become larger. At a House size of 473, California’s delegation size, for example, would
have been 57 instead of 53 seats.⁶

⁵ After the 1990 Census, Montana and Massachusetts challenged the apportionment formula and
the inclusion of the foreign-based military and civilians in the apportionment population. The
Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the equal proportions formula and the inclusion
of the foreign-based military and civilians in the counts in two separate cases: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce v. Montana 112 S.Ct. 1415 (1992) and Franklin v. Massachusetts 112 S.Ct. 2767
(1992).
⁶ ^{For a f}^u^{ller dis}^c^u^s^sⁱ^on^of^th^is^{topic s}^ee^U.S.^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^ice,^Th^e
^H^o^u^s^e^Appor^tⁱ^onm^ent^For^m^ul^{a i}ⁿ^T^h^eor^y^{and Pr}^actⁱ^c^e^,^b^y^D^a^vⁱ^d^C^.^H^u^c^k^a^b^e^e^,^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³⁰⁷¹¹
^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^:^Ju^l^y^{11, 1995).}