Apportionment and Redistricting

Steve Dials
Professor Browning
POL 491
14 August 2010

Apportionment and Redistricting

The United States House of Representatives contains 435 members from each of the 50 states. This number has grown from the past as new states were added to the union, the country became more populous, and new laws went into effect that dealt with apportionment. Apportionment has occurred in Congress following each decennial census from 1790 to 2000, except following the 1920 census. Representation from each state varies based on the number of people living in each state. One may expect that states such as Montana and Wyoming where few people live would have less representation in Congress than states such as California and New York. The goal of apportionment is to produce the most equal distribution of seats in Congress among every state. The Constitution sets guidelines according to how seats should be apportioned (Congressional Apportionment, 2009).

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,…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 Constitution, 1789). Even though this section of the Constitution of the United States does not explain the manner in which Congress can apportion seats to each state, it allows the states to determine what method to be used to apportion seats among their own citizens. There have been five methods used in the past for apportionment. The current method, The Method of Equal Proportions, was adopted by Congress in 1941 following the release of the 1940 census. This method attains the aforementioned goal of apportionment by minimizing the percentage differences in the size of the congressional districts (Congressional Apportionment, 2009).

The Method of Equal Proportions assigns seats in the House according to a priority value. “The priority value is determined by multiplying the population of a state by a ‘multiplier’…(t)he multiplier equals (1 divided by (the square root of n(n-1))” (Computing Apportionment, 2008). Another term for the multiplier is the reciprocal of the geometric mean. The term “n” in the equation represents the number of seats a state would have if it had gained a seat. Once the multipliers have been calculated, the figure is multiplied by the state population. The results of these calculations supply the priority values. Lastly, the formula ranks and numbers the resulting priority values starting with seat 51 until all 435 seats have been assigned. When that is complete, the number of seats for each state is tallied to determine the total number of seats in the House of Representatives that is assigned to each state (Computing Apportionment, 2008).

While states have used this method for determining how seats should be assigned, some state legislatures were long infamous for malapportionment. Malapportionment is “unequal numbers of people in legislative districts resulting in inequality of voter representation” (Congress: Politics). At times, malapportionment would diminish the impact of a vote. In 1962, Georgia’s congressional districts varied in population between rural and urban areas of 272,154 and 823,860 respectively. “In a district twice the size of the average district, the value of an individual’s vote was heavily diluted. In a district half the size of the average, the value of an individual’s vote was greatly magnified” (Congress: Politics, 2001).

Not only did states ineffectively distribute size of districts, but many state legislatures manipulated electoral districts through gerrymandering. The process of gerrymandering is a way of modifying congressional districts to benefit the party in power. States have used multiple processes to gerrymander their own states. There are three ways in which gerrymandering is used in Congressional districts. The first method is called the “excess vote” method. It is an attempt by political leaders to concentrate the voting power of the opposition into as few districts as possible. Therefore, an overwhelming majority of districts would vote for the majority party. A second method is known as the “wasted vote” method. It prevents the opposition form having a majority vote in as many districts as possible. The voting power of the opposition is diluted among many districts to accomplish this. The other way to gerrymander is by using the “stacked” method. One would concentrate the power of the majority party by drawing boundary lines in any shape necessary to link distant areas into specific, party-in-power districts (Rosenberg). Consequently, the opposition to the party in power has no control how their state is apportioned and how boundary lines are drawn.

The opposition in each case felt this method of manipulation was unfair and challenged the constitutionality of such practice. The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that districts must follow the principle of “one man, one vote” and have fair borders and an appropriate population mixture. Moreover, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that “manipulating district borders to give an advantage to one political party was unconstitutional” (Rosenberg). However, racial gerrymandering led to the creation of majority-minority districts in states such as Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina (Smith, 2009). An example of racial gerrymandering is explained in the video clip below.


Reverend Al Sharpton Speaks





Because state legislatures are usually controlled by a single party, it would be in the party’s best interest to redistrict their state so their party will have more seats in the House than the opposition. Redistricting is the redrawing of congressional districts, usually following a new population census, to maintain an equal population in each district (Glossary, 2002). However, states face two constraints when drawing district lines. Federal law under the Voting Rights Act requires certain states to submit their plans to the U.S. Department of Justice of a federal district court for approval before implementing them. The Voting Rights Act has barred districting plans that have the effect of diluting the voting power of racial minorities by splitting their vote among districts, even if there is no evidence of discrimination. The second constraint is the standard that the Supreme Court has set in limiting certain kinds of gerrymandering. Cases such as Baker v. Carr (1962) and Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) empower the Supreme Court’s influence on redistricting (Smith 63).

Redistricting affects people from not only voting for representatives in a state or national election, but local politics are also affected. A person wishing to be a member of the council or have a school board position may or may not have a chance to run in an election based on the way Representatives in the House redraw district lines. In an attempt to increase equality and accuracy, Congress enacted P.L. 94-171. Under this public law, the Census Bureau is required to “work closely” with state officials before each decennial census. They will utilize the “small-area population” data from the census and redraw district lines for each Congressional District as fair as possible (Longley). The data needed for redistricting are delivered to the leaders of both the majority and minority parties of each state legislature, as well as to each governor.

Redistricting can be a long and arduous process. Most states allow the legislature to vote on plans for redrawing districts, but others leave the decision to selected members of a committee. Therefore, some states have specific redistricting commissions in which members of the commission will make a plan for redistricting that will be sent to the federal government. In Arkansas, for example, the governor, secretary of state, and the attorney general are the only representatives that have power in determining the size and shape of the districts in the state (Redistricting Commissions, 2010).

In California, however, there are 14 members of the legislature that have control in how districts are drawn. These members include five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members from neither party. There are 60 registered voters who are put in an applicant pool to be decided by government auditors. When the pool is reduced, auditors pick eight commission members by lottery. Those eight commissioners select the last six commissioners for a total of 14. For approval of changes to districts, three votes are needed from each of the Democrats, Republicans, and other party members (Redistricting Commissions, 2010). An example of how states make commissions and develop plans can be seen on the following video clip. Using the link below, Tom Hofeller explains some of the strides the National Conference of State Legislatures has made for redistricting.

Redistricting Director

Additionally, there are 10 members on the commission in New Jersey. The chairs of the two major parties each select five members. If the 10 members selected cannot develop a plan to send to the federal government, the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court will appoint an 11th member (Redistricting Commissions, 2010).
Many states differ in the way they attempt to redraw Congressional Districts. However, no state has control over how many seats are awarded. Due to immigration of foreigners from all around the world and migration of Americans throughout different states, the United States Congress must account for everyone in order to maintain equality in terms of number of constituents per district. Members of the military whom are overseas are also taken into account through apportionment and determining the number of seats that a state will control. The process of apportionment throughout the country will continue to be a struggle for incumbents in office at the turn of a new decade.

In 2002, redistricting gave 36 incumbents the choice of retiring or facing another incumbent in the primary or general election. Some of these incumbents retired, but others had hopes to maintain their current seat in the legislature. Of the remaining Congressmen who took their chances in the elections, eight of these Congressmen lost the successive contest to other incumbents (Jacobson 7). The following link explains some possible gains for the 2010 midterm election.

New voters for 2010

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, along with experts with knowledge of redistricting, has created an estimate of the numbers of seats that will be changing due to the new census data of 2010. The following states will be losing one seat: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The only state that will lose two sets is Ohio. Several states will be gaining a seat in the upcoming census. These include: Washington, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. The biggest winner in the upcoming census is Texas. Texas will gain four congressional seats which will now equal 36 in 2010 (States, 2009). Since the RNC has estimated the gains and losses of Congressional Seats, many challengers are able to use data to contribute to their future campaigns.

Apportionment is a necessary and imperative process that Congress goes through following each decennial census. Every 10 years, legislators must use wit and power to control the way certain districts are drawn for the successive 10 years. A long and laborious process will be conducted so equality is taken into account for all citizens in the country. Equality for not only number of constituents, but equality must be conserved for each race as well. Along the same lines as assuring equality, majority-minority districts are unconstitutional and therefore may not be drawn to accommodate them. To ensure that inequality does not occur with respect to redistricting, The Method of Equal Proportions is used to justify apportionment throughout the country. The procedure of redistricting can be gruesome; however, many Congressmen use it for their advantage in seeking reelection.


Works Cited

“Computing Apportionment.” census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau, 15 July 2008. Web. 12 Apr. 2010.

Congress: Politics on Capitol Hill. Prenhall, 2001. Print.

“Congressional Apportionment.” nationalatlas.gov. n.p., 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2010.

C-Span Video Library. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2010.

“Glossary of Terms”. New Jersey Legislature. n.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.

Jacobson, Gary. The Politics of Congressional Elections. United States: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.

The Constitution of the United States. 1789. Print.

Longley, Robert. “Redistricting.” About.com. About.com Guide, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.

“Redistricting Commissions: Legislative Plans.” ncsl.org. n.p., 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2010.

Rosenberg, Matt. “Gerrymandering.” About.com. About.com Guide, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.

Smith, Steven, et al. The American Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.

“States Gaining or Losing Seats in the 2010 Apportionment.” gop.com n.p., 23 Dec. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2010.