Print
Your E-Mail


Recipient's E-mail


Rethinking Representation, Governance Roundtable


Jan. 12, 2007

When the House first established 435 seats, the population of the United States was 92 million. In October of this year we passed the 300 million mark and still have 435 seats. At what point does a Representative have too many constituents to satisfactorily serve the ideals of democracy? Participants considered how the United States has changed demographically and discussed the sufficiency of minority representation. The group also debated the adequacy of our voting infrastructure and the trade-offs of technology.

Washington DC
January 12, 2007
WELCOME: Congressman Rush Holt US House Representative PRC Board Member

ATTENDEES:
• Congressman Rush Holt US House Representative PRC Board Member
• Dr. Ken Prewitt Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs
• Jodi Allen Senior Editor Pew Research Center
• Margo Anderson University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, (by phone) Department of History
• Curtis Gans American University, Center for the Study of the American Electorate
• Dr. Jane Junn Rutgers University Department of Political Science
• Sec. Deborah Markowitz Secretary of the State of Vermont
• Faith Mitchell National Academies of Science Chairman of the Board of the Population Resource Center
• Leo Munoz Legislative Assistant Office of Representative Gene Green
• Dr. Norm Ornstein Resident Researcher American Enterprise Institute

PANEL DISCUSSION:

A packet of documents was distributed to participants in order to facilitate discussion. These documents included:

1) ARTICLE 1: Section 2 - The House
ARTICLE 1; Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective 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 previous sentence in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XIV, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

2) Rethinking Representation Timeline
Historic Highlights: The People’s House
• 1779 The United States Constitution was adopted and the manner of selecting and appointing the Members of theHouse of Representatives established. The House was given the responsibility for deciding the number of seats with a minimum of 30,000 residents as the population size per seat. The United States population was 3 million.
• 1790 The First Congress apportioned 105 seats to the US House of Representatives.
• 1868 Fourteenth Amendment gave African Americans all rights due them as legal citizens of the United States and increased the number of persons counted for reapportionment from three-fifths to one person. (House membership increased by 50 in 1870.)
• 1870 Fifteenth Amendment protected African Americans’ right to vote by prohibiting national and state governments from refusing these rights, theoretically extending the franchise although state law was used to impede its use. African- Americans, also, faced literacy tests and ‘good character’ tests before being able to actually vote.
• 1870 The United States House of Representatives grew to 292 seats.
• 1900 The United States House of Representatives grew to 386 seats.
• 1910 The United States House of Representatives grew to 435 seats and the number was capped. Until 1910, the size of House increases with every decade except one.
• 1912 Congress increased the size of the House to the current 435 seats (an increase of 49). The population of the
United States was 92 million. Each House member represented about 210,000 people.
• 1919 The Nineteenth amendment which gave women the right to vote was passed by the Senate on June 4th and later ratified on August 18, 1920, increasing by 50 percent the number of people eligible to vote although it did not increase the number of residents counted for reapportionment
• 1920 Congress refused to reapportion because of the transfer of power from rural mid-western and southern states to the urban North.
• 1929 Reapportionment Act of 1929 was a combined census and reapportionment bill passed by the United States
Congress which established a permanent method for apportioning the House of Representatives seats according to each census.
• 1941 Congress enacted the “equal proportions” method for apportionment. This method required Congress keep the number of Representatives constant as a way to manage the ongoing debates about how to reapportion districts. The measurement and allocation of districts and seats was place under the responsibility of the Census Bureau.
• 1959 The number of seats increased from 435 to 437 recognizing admission of two new states, Alaska and Hawaii.
• 1960 The House reapportioned and returned to 435 seats.
• 1962 Baker v. Carr led to the court’s establishment of the “one man, one vote” standard for legislative districting within the states which in subsequent cases resulted in the redistricting of nearly every state in the union by the end of the 1960s.
• 1964 Twenty-fourth Amendment “prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.”
• 1965 Voting Rights Act is passed prohibiting identified states from interfering with access to voting. Franchise extended to over 4 million African Americans living in the South.
• 1970 Twenty-sixth Amendment decreased voting age from 21 to 18 extending the franchise to an additional 12 million people.
• 2000 The number of constituents per Representative jumped to about 630,000 with a resident population of
281,421,906.
• 2040 The United States population is projected to reach 400 million and each Member will represent 920,000 residents.
3) Rethinking Representation Paper
Population Growth and the Challenges of Governance
In 1790, three years following the adoption of the United States Constitution, the American population was just under 3 million people. By 1915 the population had reached 100 million. Though fertility and immigration rates have fluctuated considerably since our founding, the population has continued to grow steadily reaching 200 million in 1967 and 300 million in 2006. The Census Bureau projects that by 2040 the population of the United States will reach 400 million. Population growth, however, is not consistent across the board. At the time of the founding of the United States, the northeast, particularly New York, was the population destination and center, most Americans lived in rural areas.

Today, the majority of population growth is occurring in the southeast and the west coast suburbs creating a shift in population distribution. Population growth and internal migration influences voter participation and state voting infrastructures. It also influences the ability of Congress to adequately represent the United States’ ever changing and moving populace. Though governing officials work to mitigate the impact of growth perhaps it is time to ask the question does Congress itself need to make adjustments or transform to meet increasing demands.PRC encourages policymakers to think about governance issues we may face as our country continues to grow.

What problems will be exacerbated by our growth if Congress does not act to accommodate growth? What will constituents be unsatisfied with if we don’t anticipate and plan to meet their needs?
How does the composition of our states today compare to the composition of the past and to what degree? Have these changes impacted the effectiveness of our democratic system. How will the viability of our democracy be challenged as the population continues to increase?
We identified two primary topics of our roundtable discussion are:
• Can states adequately accommodate our growing number of voters?
• How does population growth – and consequently the number of constituents per member and disparity in district size – affect the ability of Congress to provide sufficient representation?
The goal of this meeting is to identify five to seven topics related to these questions for further exploration. By identifying and conducting the research policymakers need in order to make good decisions and plan ahead, we can best accommodate future growth and maintains our democratic ideals.

Infrastructure
Can states adequately accommodate our growing number of voters? What problems might we expect as our population grows? While Congress decides to spend millions of dollars to study traffic on our interstates, hours wasted in congestion, demand for airlines or need for additional public transportation, the infrastructure of political participation receives little attention or study. Just like transportation infrastructure, improving the quality of the voting infrastructure is essential and could result in increased voter participation, decreased time spent and less cost to the nation. Alternatively, neglecting to plan for more voters will inevitably result in wasted time and frustration. Population growth affects both the number of cars on our roads and the number of voters on Election Day. Congress is unlikely to expand the franchise to vote any further, but states and non-profits work hard to increase voter participation. Accordingly, voting infrastructure must be able to accommodate additional voters.

Many of the decisions that affect voting experiences at the polling place: the number of voters per precinct, voting technology, early or mail voting options, and poll workers per polling place, are made at the state level. As a result, voting experience by state varies dramatically. In 2004, one nonpartisan voter assistance hotline collected nearly 1,400 reports of excessively long lines from 32 states, with significant numbers of reports coming from Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other states.A time might come when the federal government needs to make an effort to ensure that states do not deter voter participation and set basic voting standards. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist in the administration of Federal Elections, provide minimum standards for state elections, and to fund technology to enable states to replace punch card voting systems. It also developed and distributed three surveys to state election directors to obtain baseline election administration data for identifying and prioritizing issues that affect voter enfranchisement and participation in the electoral process.

The three surveys are the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), Election Day, and Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot surveys.Voting experience is affected by the number of other people also waiting to vote in your precinct. According the Election Data Services, 2004 Election Day Survey Report released in September of 2005, there are a total of 6,568 election jurisdictions. Jurisdictions reported a total voter registration of 177,265,030. For reporting jurisdictions, there were at least 174,252 precincts and 113,754 polling places, for an average ratio of 1.45:1 polling places to precincts. There are fewer polling places than precincts due to the administrative practice of consolidating multiple precincts into one polling place.How and when people vote will also impact the ease of the voting experience.

Of the jurisdictions that reported the type of voting, 73.5 percent of total ballots cast were reported to have been cast in polling places on Election Day, 13.3 percent were reported to have been cast as an absentee ballot, 23.5 percent were reported to have been cast as early vote, 1.2 were reported to have been cast as a provisional ballot and the remaining 23.1 percent were cast in an unknown manner. There was some duplication of counting, especially where absentee ballots were counted on Election Day. Furthermore, states use a variety of voting technologies. Currently, five different kinds of voting technologies are used: paper ballots, lever machines, punchcards, marksense forms, and electronic systems. Additionally, the number of poll workers could also influence a citizens voting experience.

On Election Day in 2004 there were at least 845,962 poll workers. There was an average of 7.9 per polling place. The Election Day Survey Report found only 5.8 percent of polling places were adequately staffed. The largest concentrations of inadequate staffing were reported in four states: Louisiana (64.7 percent of polling places inadequately staffed), Hawaii (44.3 percent), Delaware (28.3 percent), and Illinois (18.4 percent). The report also found that jurisdictions of people who were poorer and less educated often had inadequate staffing in precincts and polling places as well. As we plan to accommodate additional voters we must also consider the consequences. Do certain, more speedy technologies jeopardize our ability to verify election results? To what extent do plans strain state budgets for federal elections?

Adequacy of Representation
How does population growth – and consequently the number of constituents per member and disparity in district size – affect the ability of Congress to provide sufficient representation? What problems might we expect as our population grows? In 1910 when Congress first established the current 435 seats the population of the United States was 92 million. At the time, each House member represented about 210,000 people. By the 2000 census, the number of constituents per Representative jumped from 210,000 in 1910 to about 630,000. Now in 2006, the United States recently welcomed the 300 millionth American. By the time we reach 400 million in 2040, each Representative will have an average of 920,000 people living in their district, about the current population of the state of Montana.

It isn’t simply the number of constituents that is growing, so too is the disparity between district size. Actual sizes of districts range from just under 500,000 in Wyoming to 905,000 in Montana. As states continue to grow at different rates, this disparity is likely to increase, as well. In addition to more constituents, the number of eligible voters increased. Initially, only white men owning property or paying poll taxes enjoyed the right to vote. States could further limit the number of voters through various religious and property requirements limiting eligible voters to approximately 6 percent of adult males. It took 50 years to expand the right to vote to all white males. Beginning with suffrage for African-Americans in 1870, followed by women in 1919, banning literacy tests in 1965, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age in 1971, the US Constitution has expanded the right to vote to a broader spectrum of Americans. While increased participation is clearly desirable, the voting infrastructure must be prepared to accommodate additional voters.From 1790 to 1910 Congress increased the number of Representatives every decade to reflect population growth. But in 1941, after not increasing the number of Representatives for three decades, Congress set the number of Representatives at 435, even as the population continued to grow. People commonly assume that the Constitution dictates the size of the House, but this is far from true.

According to the Constitution, each state is required to have at least one Representative and there should be no more than one Representative for every 30,000 people. Beyond the 30,000 limit (which would limit the House to 10,000 members), the Constitution does not specify any limits to the number of Representatives in the House. Currently, there are seven states with only one Representative in the House, the largest of which is Montana where one Representative 905,316 constituents. In the future, it is estimated that up to one third of the states could have one or two Members. The Constitution also requires that states be represented in the House according to their population. We rely on the Census Bureau to provide this information and in 1941 Congress designated the Census Bureau to apportion the seats based on the Census.

In 1941, Congress decided to set the number of Representatives constant at 435. According to the office of the House Clerk, Congress did not pick 435 because it was the perfect number to govern. Rather, Congress did not want the House to grow endlessly and they happened to be at 435 when they decided to set the number of seats constant. Given the dramatic changes in the US population since 1910, it is not unusual to question the continued use of old voting infrastructures and stale modes of representation. With the US’ larger, more diverse and mobile population, the House’s ability to be truly representative is increasingly threatened. It is time that we ask the questions: how representative do our governing bodies need to be of our population and how do we adjust the current governing and voting infrastructure to accommodate for necessary change?
SOURCES:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/legbranc/housefrm.pdf
Anderson, Margo, Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives Population Today, April 2000
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PT_articles/Growth_in_U_S__Population_Calls_for_Larger_House_of_Re
presentatives.htm
”Disenfrancisement through Sufferage” http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_111.htm#D.
Yang, Elizabeth M., History of Voting in the United States: How constitutional amendments and federal laws
extended the right – and the ability – to vote to most Americans. Update on Law-Related Education, 20.3, 1996, pp.4-
7.(c) 1996 American Bar Association.
Election Data Services, 2004 Election Day Survey Report

4) Conversation Questions
Roundtable Questions
INFRASTRUCTURE
How do we best plan ahead and accommodate additional voters?
Will some states require additional physical facilities?
Should we consider national standards for time limits spent waiting to vote - at least for national elections?
Can technology be used to build a flexible and accommodating voter participation forum? Will states need new poll workers to manage new voting technology?
Does internet based voting jeopardize voting security? Can a paper trail be created?
What are the best practices across the nation?

REPRESENTATION
Are there limitations to the number of constituents one can represent adequately?
Are there ways to improve Members ability to represent growing constituencies?
With larger districts and more diverse composition, how are competing interests resolved, particularly when resources and access are unequal?
Are there ways to improve Members ability to represent increasingly diverse constituencies?
How many members would make the legislative process unmanageable?
If the size of the House were allowed to grow, what issues would arise, both pro and con, with respect to the quality of governance?
What are the implications of the disparity of an increasing number of single Member states compared to states with 50 Members?
Has technology increased the demands on members to be responsive to their constituents? Or, has technology facilitated communication increasing time devoted to constituents and not governing?
Has technology (email) reduced the likelihood that members will meet or speak with constituents?
Has population growth affected voter participation rates?

5) Bibliography of Articles
Bibliography
Anderson, Margo. Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives. (cover story) Population Today, Apr2000, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p1, 2p, 1 graph; (AN 3291079)
Baumle, Amanda K.; Poston, Dudley L.; Jr.. Apportioning the House of Representatives in 2000: The Effects of Alternative Policy Scenarios. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), Sep2004, Vol. 85 Issue 3, p578-603, 26p; DOI: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00234.x; (AN 13867491)
Cain, Bruce E. The Reapportionment Puzzle. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1984.
Eagles, Charles W. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and Urban-Rural Conflict in the 1920s. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990.
Frederick, Brian. Frozen at 435: The Size of the United States House of Representatives and the Impact upon Legislative Representation. Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association, 2005 Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, p1-56, 56p, 10 charts, 1 graph; (AN 18607156)
Herrnson, Paul S.; Gimpel, James G.. District Conditions and Primary Divisiveness in Congressional Elections. Political Research Quarterly, Mar95, Vol. 48 Issue 1, p117, 18p, 2 charts; (AN 9503282399)
Polsby, Nelson W.."The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives." American Political Science Review 62. American Political Science Review, Nov2006, Vol. 100 Issue 4, p684-685, 2p; (AN 23467779)
Poston Jr., Dudley L.. The U.S. Census and Congressional Apportionment. Society, Mar/Apr97, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p36-44, 9p, 2 charts; (AN 9703094696)
Reed, Bruce. Cleaning House. Blueprint, Jul2006, Vol. 2006 Issue 3, p21-21, 1p; (AN 21761642)
Schuster, Karsten; Pukelsheim, Friedrich; Drton, Mathias; Draper, Norman R.. Seat Biases of Apportionment Methods for Proportional Representation. Electoral Studies, Dec2003, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p651, 26p; DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00027-6; (AN 10924283)
Schwab, Larry M. The Impact of Congressional Reapportionment and Redistricting. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1988.
Sweeting, Orville J. and Tilson, John Q.. The Reapportionment Act of 1929. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jun., 1956), pp. 434-