Eleanor Finch
The number of seats in the House of Representatives has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, proposed in 1789, aimed to address this by establishing a formula for determining the appropriate size of the House and the apportionment of representatives among the states. However, it was never ratified. The Constitution mandates an enumeration or census every ten years to determine the number of representatives for each state, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. The ideal number of seats in the House remains a subject of debate, with Anti-Federalists expressing concerns about the representation of small constituencies as the population grows.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Constitutional basis for conducting the census | Reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives |
| Frequency of census | Every 10 years |
| Number of seats in the House of Representatives | 435 |
| Number of states | 50 |
| Amendment addressing the number of seats in the House of Representatives | Congressional Apportionment Amendment |
| Status of the Congressional Apportionment Amendment | Proposed, but not ratified |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Congressional Apportionment Amendment
The amendment proposed that there should be one representative for every thirty thousand people, according to the Enumeration or Census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of representatives reached two hundred. After that, the number could be continued or increased as directed by Congress, based on population growth. This formula aimed to ensure that the number of seats in the House would continue to represent small constituencies as the population of the states grew.
The size of the House of Representatives has been adjusted over time to account for population growth. In 1911, the number of voting House members was fixed at 435, with a temporary increase to 437 from 1959 to 1962 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. The apportionment of seats among the states is based on the decennial census mandated by the Constitution, with each state guaranteed at least one representative.
Lochner v. New York: Interpreting the Constitution
You may want to see also
Enumeration or Census
The Enumeration or Census mentioned in the US Constitution is the process of counting the country's population and determining the number of representatives each state should have in the House of Representatives. The Constitution mandates that an "actual Enumeration" be conducted within three years of the first meeting of Congress and then every ten years thereafter. This enumeration is commonly known as the decennial census.
The Census Clause in the Constitution provides for an enumeration of persons, and Congress has expanded the scope of the census to include not only free persons in the states but also those in the territories. Additionally, all persons over the age of eighteen are required to participate in the census and provide information on their personal and economic affairs.
The results of the census are used for apportioning congressional seats among the states. This process, known as apportionment, involves distributing the 435 memberships or seats in the House of Representatives among the 50 states. The number of representatives for each state is determined based on the state's population, with the goal of achieving "one person, one vote."
The size of the House of Representatives has been a contentious issue since the country's founding. Initially, the representation ratio was set at one representative for every 40,000 people. However, over time, the size of the House has been adjusted, and since 1929, the membership has been restricted to 435 members. The apportionment process ensures that each state has adequate representation in Congress and that congressional districts are geographically defined.
Lawyers' Oath: Defending the Constitution
You may want to see also
Anti-Federalist concerns
Anti-Federalists, who were suspicious of federal power under the new constitution and opposed its ratification, had several concerns about the reapportionment of seats in Congress.
Firstly, they argued that there was nothing in the document to guarantee that the number of seats in the House would continue to represent small constituencies as the general population of the states grew. They feared that over time, if the size of the House remained relatively small and the districts became more expansive, only well-known individuals with reputations spanning wide geographic areas could secure election. This, they believed, would result in members of Congress having an insufficient sense of sympathy with and connectedness to ordinary people in their districts. This concern was evident in the various state ratifying conventions, where several states specifically requested an amendment to secure a minimum size for the House of Representatives.
Secondly, Anti-Federalists claimed that the representation in the House would be inadequate. Madison, however, argued against this assumption, noting that the number of representatives would be augmented from time to time as per the Constitution. He also argued that a larger legislature is not necessarily better and that a smaller group of people may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power.
To address the concerns of Anti-Federalists, James Madison, in 1789, put together a package of constitutional amendments. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment was one of these amendments, which attempted to set a pattern for the growth of the House along with the population. However, it was never ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures and, as of 2025, remains one of six unratified amendments.
Reapportionment is the decennial process of allocating congressional seats to each state after the census. Reapportionment normally occurs following each decennial census, and the law that governs the total number of representatives and the method of apportionment is enacted prior to the census. Seats in the House are first apportioned to states according to the relative size of each state's population, and the districts are then designed by the individual states. The number of seats in the House has been a contentious issue, with various proposals being made to change the reapportionment formula, which is currently alleged to be biased in favour of less populated states.
Words Count: Missouri Constitution's Lengthy Text
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supreme Court rulings
The US Constitution requires Congress to reapportion seats following each census, which takes place once every 10 years. This process is called reapportionment and involves the reallocation of congressional seats among states based on the latest population data.
The Supreme Court has played a limited role in the reapportionment process, with the court generally deferring to the other two federal branches of government on this issue. However, there have been some significant Supreme Court rulings related to reapportionment and the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives.
In Utah v. Evans, the Supreme Court upheld the use of "hot deck imputation" to fill in missing data by imputing the number of people at one address to a nearby address or similar unit. The Court distinguished this method from statistical sampling and indicated that its holding was relatively narrow, allowing imputation only when several conditions were met.
In US Department of Commerce v. Montana (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the formula used for apportionment following the 1990 census, which resulted in one state losing a House seat. The Court exhibited considerable deference to Congress, acknowledging the difficulties in achieving interstate equalities.
In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant (1916), a requirement that a redistricting law be submitted to a popular referendum was challenged and sustained. After the 1930 census, there were deadlocks between the governor and legislature in several states, leading to a series of cases questioning the governor's right to veto a reapportionment bill. The Court decided that the function was legislative in character and subject to gubernatorial veto.
In Trump v. New York (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that challengers to a presidential memorandum directing the exclusion of aliens without lawful immigration status from the apportionment base lacked standing, and the case was not ripe for adjudication.
In addition to these cases, there have been other disputes and challenges related to the apportionment process, such as those mentioned in the sources provided. However, the Supreme Court has never intervened to undo any reapportionment.
Missouri's Constitution: Presumption of Innocence?
You may want to see also
Census Clause
The U.S. Constitution's Census Clause, also known as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, mandates a decennial census to count every resident in the country. This census forms the basis for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states. The clause states that an "actual Enumeration" should occur within three years of the first meeting of Congress and then every ten years thereafter.
The clause originally set a representation ratio of one representative for every 30,000 people, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. However, this ratio was contentious and led to the proposal of the Congressional Apportionment Amendment in 1789, which aimed to address the ideal number of seats in the House. This amendment, however, was never ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures and remains pending.
The Census Clause expressly provides for an enumeration of persons, but Congress has expanded the scope of the census. They have included not only free persons in the states but also those in the territories and require responses from all individuals over the age of eighteen. This expanded scope has received implied approval from the Supreme Court, which has upheld Congress's authority to collect statistics in the census on multiple occasions.
The inclusion of all residents in the census and its impact on apportionment is supported by policy reasons. Justice Rehnquist rejected the application of the Wesberry v. Sanders principle to Congress, noting that a district's representation is impacted by and affects everyone in the district. Additionally, the Supreme Court has upheld the formula used for apportionment, stating that the goal of absolute population equality among districts is realistic and appropriate within a single state.
Despite the mandate for reapportionment after each census, Congress has not always complied. For example, following the 1990 census, a state that lost a House seat sued, alleging a violation of the "one person, one vote" rule. The Supreme Court upheld the formula used, exhibiting deference to Congress and acknowledging the difficulties in achieving interstate equalities.
Plessy v Ferguson: Constitutional Impact and Legacy
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution requires Congress to reapportion seats after each census, which is conducted every 10 years.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 was passed to create an automatic apportionment system after Congress failed to reapportion congressional seats in 1920. The Act restricted the membership of the House of Representatives to 435 members.
The Congressional Apportionment Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that addresses the number of seats in the House of Representatives. It was proposed in 1789 but has never been ratified.
