Did You Know?!

A sampling of people evaluated the following statements about Congress to help Apportionment.US gauge public reaction. The results came back overwhelmingly as "interesting" or "highly interesting."
How would you rank them?

  1. Equal representation for all Americans does not currently exist in the House of Representatives. When comparing the least-represented and most-represented congressional districts, the disparity exceeds 80% (i.e., it takes 183 voters in one congressional district to equal 100 voters in another district).
  2. The Constitution does not limit the size of the House to 435 members.
  3. Whereas in 1790, each House member represented approximately 33,000 people, the average size of each House district today is over 700,000 people and growing.
  4. The size of House membership (435 seats) has not changed in the last 100 years, while the U.S. population has more than tripled in size.
  5. The authorized staff per representative has increased over the last 100 years, from 2 staff to its present level of 22 staff for each rep.
  6. Based on information in the Federalist Papers and the historical record of our early Republic, the Constitutional Framers desired small and substantially equal district sizes to ensure appropriate representation in the House.
  7. The only recorded issue that George Washington (as chairman of the 4 month-long Constitutional Convention of 1787) addressed was his strong support for an amendment to reduce the ratio of one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000 people.
  8. The incumbency rate for House Reps is over 90%, yet Congress’ approval rating is consistently in the 20-40% range.
  9. Most reps spend the majority of their time fundraising and minimal time on legislation.
  10. Reps receive the majority of campaign contributions from outside their own district (i.e., NOT from the constituents they represent).
  11. The average winning campaign in the 2006 House races spent over $1,200,000, and among the winning candidates, 95% spent the most money.
  12. Among modern democracies (including countries like U.K., Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia and others), America ranks second to last (India is last) with the least representation in the country’s government.

American Flag


#1 - Introduction to Apportionment.US
#2 - Summary of the Apportionment Lawsuit (Part 1)
#3 - Summary of the Apportionment Lawsuit (Part 2)
#4 - Constitutional Representation
#5 - Constitutional Equality
#6 - How Unequal is the U.S. House?
#7 - The Senate and Equality
#8 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 1)
#9 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 2)
#10 - The Government's Position in the Lawsuit (Part 3)
#11 - Constitutional Mandate of "Equal as is Practicable"
#12 - The Real Size of the U.S. House (hint: it's NOT 435)
#13 - The Original 1st Amendment
#14 - The Impact of Party Loyalty and Special Interests
#15 - Advantages of a Larger House (Part 1)
#16 - Advantages of a Larger House (Part 2)
#17 - Common Objections to Enlarging the House (Part 1)
#18 - Common Objections to Enlarging the House (Part 2)
#19 - How You Can Help!


If you've read the Complaint and the information on the Background page, you likely have questions. We have prepared a Frequently Asked Questions document.

To download a copy of the FAQ, click here.

State-by-State Analysis

How does YOUR state compare as it relates to House representation? Are you and your state being treated unfairly under the current system? How does your state fare under the Plans A and B as proposed in the lawsuit?

To download a PDF, click here.

Supreme Court Cases

Thesis statement to support this lawsuit:

Government—National, State, and local—must grant to each citizen the equal protection of its laws, which includes an equal opportunity to influence the election of lawmakers, no matter how large the majority wishing to deprive other citizens of equal treatment or how small the minority who object to their mistreatment.
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 481, n.6 (1968).

Important cases involving apportionment and representation:

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)

Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968)

Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969)

Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542 (1969) 

Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973)

White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)

White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973)

Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977)

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)

United States Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992)

Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992)

Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996)

Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)

Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)



Jonah Goldberg (2009) - We Need a Bigger House

Walter Williams (2008) - Political Monopoly Power

Billy House (2008) - Would a Bigger Congress be Better?

George Will (2001) - Why Not Have 1,000 Congressman?

Scholarly Papers

Jowei Chen and Neil Malhotra - The Law of k/n : The Effect of Chamber Size on Government
Spending in Bicameral Legislatures

Jeff Quidam - Freedom and Legislative District Sizes (article); State Freedom Indicies and Legislative District Population Sizes (paper)

Jeffrey Ladewig & Mathew Jasinski- On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U. S. House of Representatives

Christopher Straw - The Role of Electoral Accountability in the Madisonian Machine

Brian Frederick - Constituency Population and Representation in the U. S. House

Charles Kromkowski & John Kromkowski - Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetic




National Archives