June, 2025
What is apportionment, how has it changed over time, and why is it important?
By Ruth McLatchie
“Apportionment is the process of dividing up a fixed quantity or resource among different individuals or groups in a fair and equitable way” according to the U.S. House of Representatives constitution.laws.com webpage. Apportionment applies to several areas of government, including representation, taxation, and budget. However, when most people talk about apportionment at the federal level, they refer to congressional apportionment in the House of Representatives, intended to ensure that the populations of each state are fairly represented.
The U.S. Constitution initially set the number of seats in Congress at 65 in 1787 until a census could be conducted. Based on the 1790 U.S. census results, the first U.S. apportionment act was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George Washington in 1792. At the time, the union was comprised of 15 states, each of which received one elected seat for every 33,000 persons, for a total of 105 seats. Washington had vetoed an earlier version of the bill which assigned a higher ratio of seats to some states than to others. The method of apportionment used from 1790 to 1920 was called “Count and Increase,” in which the size of the House was pegged to the ratio of seats to population.
As time went on, states were added to the union, the population exploded, and the size of the House grew accordingly until 1822, when the ratio was increased by law to one elected seat for every 40,000 persons, and the size of the House thus increased from 187 to 212 seats. A year later, in 1823, that was increased to 213 seats due to census data received belatedly from the state of Alabama.
At the time of the 1850 census, the size of the house had been set ahead of time at 233 seats, with the understanding that apportionment based on the census, and therefore the ratio of seats to population, would be automatically adjusted. However, this plan was derailed by late census data from California due to a fire. Therefore, in 1852 an extra seat was added for California, bringing the total number of seats to 234. The 1870 census was plagued with inaccuracies, possibly due to the effects of the Civil War. In 1872, after much argument, the size of the House grew to 292 seats, ensuring that no state lost a seat.
During the 1920s, by which time the House had grown to 435 seats, there were several failed attempts to again increase the size of the House. However, Congress ended by abandoning the “Count and Increase” method of apportionment, and instead passed The Reapportionment Act of 1929, a combined census and apportionment bill, which established a permanent method for assigning seats and keeping the number constant at 435. The method established for communicating this information was known as “Announce and Transmit,” which refers to the U.S. Census Bureau announcing publicly the number of people in each state and the resulting number of House seats for each state, and which information is immediately conveyed through the President to the Congress for action.
The current method of apportionment calculation has been in use since 1941 and is called the “Method of Equal Proportions.” Given that each state is entitled to at least one seat by the Constitution, and that the number of seats remains constant at 435 even as the population varies, the method’s goal is to mathematically minimize differences in representation among states. The exact mathematical formula is here: https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/about/computing.html
Between 1941 and now there was a brief blip of 437 House seats when Alaska and Hawaii were added as states in 1959, but just until the 1960 census results were received, when the size was returned to 435.
Why is it important to know the history of congressional apportionment? Apportionment affects almost every other area of government, either directly or indirectly. Through apportionment, your representation affects the national, state, and local economies, your taxes, your public services, and federal, state, and local laws. It is also important to know the history in order to fully understand the impact of political gerrymandering (the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one party the advantage) on individual voters and groups of voters, and to form a basis for protecting and creating more fairness in the future of representation.
Gerrymandering: A Complex and Pervasive Issue
By Mark Harris
Gerrymandering is a process in which political incumbents use their positions of authority to alter the apportionment of electoral districts to benefit themselves or their party. The incentives for drawing an electoral map that benefits incumbents and/or the party in power are self-evident, but so too is the corruption implicit in the action of manipulating the way voters are grouped to subvert their collective interest.
Gerrymandering is an old practice in this country, the term originating in 1812 when Massachusetts cut its state senate district map to favor the party in power. The map was signed off by the governor of the time, Elbridge Gerry, who expressed dissatisfaction with the map. One of the districts gave the impression of a mythical creature known as a salamander, not the amphibian. The synthesis of the two terms into a popular political cartoon cemented the term’s association with the practice, and the success of the practice led to its adoption by many state governments who followed.
The practice of gerrymandering has been employed frequently in many states across the country, as well as in nations worldwide. However, it has perhaps been employed no more perniciously than in Ohio, with a particularly egregious example in my home county of Athens. The city of Athens, Ohio, is the county seat and ishome to Ohio University. The city is a Democratic stronghold in no small part due to the university, and since the city’s population outnumbers the rest of the county, the city’s disposition makes the county consistently vote Democrat as well. This is a continual thorn in the side of the state Republican party, which has held power in the legislature and the governor’s mansion since 2011. This has given them both the time and motive to employ some intense gerrymandering.
Athens County has 14 townships, one of which is Athens Township, which contains the city of Athens. The Ohio State House Map, as of this past election cycle, now splits not just the county of Athens, but the township of Athens, so that the city is no longer in the same district as the majority of Athens County, or all but one neighboring county. This effectively let both State House districts that contain Athens County be comfortable wins for the Republican Party.
The map used in 2024 was challenged for the year preceding its use, but ultimately, the challenges were quashed due to the power the Republican party had over the process, due to their control of all the necessary bodies of government. To be clear, it is likely that any political party put in such a position would have done the same, as the system of apportionment for Ohio electoral maps itself is truly to blame. This is not an Ohio-only problem, as many states struggle with similar gerrymandering issues. Though unsurprisingly, there is limited discussion of the individual state struggles beyond the borders of the states where the issues lie.
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project is perhaps the most comprehensive national resource on the subject. The project’s website has an interactive map grading states on their redistricting of federal district maps for the Senate and House. (https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/) Ohio received Ds on the project’s A-F scale for both the Federal Senate and Federal House district maps. Though no data in this project was collected on Ohio’s state-level district maps, it is safe to assume that similar results would be found, as they are created through a very similar process.
The problem stems from a flaw in the function of the system. Those currently in power in the state, when it is time to draw new district maps, are the ones in charge of how the maps are drawn for the next election, in which many of them will be participating. For state lawmakers to wish to relinquish the ability to rig the system in their favor, state lawmakers must believe that wielding their power inappropriately will lead to the loss of power altogether.
This will only happen through electoral pressure. Save for an uncharacteristic act of benevolence, there is little chance anything will become fairer in this area of governance without straightforward non-partisan pressure to make the system fairer. The problem with this is twofold: the gerrymandered maps like Ohio’s State House District Map benefit one party as is, and the party not in power would likewise use power to gerrymander when they achieve power. Independent non-partisan bodies would provide a fairer map. However, if it is not compulsory to adopt such maps, the state legislature could just prevent the adoption of any new map that doesn’t benefit the majority party.
The precision and pressure needed to overcome gerrymandering is made evident by the failure of Ohio’s electoral maps to comply with Article 6 of the Ohio State Constitution, which states, “the Ohio redistricting commission shall attempt to draw a general assembly district plan that meets all of the following standards: (A) No general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party. (B) The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio. (C) General assembly districts shall be compact.” The Ohio State Constitution seems to be directing map makers not to create maps riddled with gerrymandering, yet they do, nonetheless. This provision was only placed in the state constitution in 2021 after immense and organized efforts by voters across Ohio, yet the very next election cycle saw maps more gerrymandered than ever.
In the next two election cycles, we will likely see the continued use of gerrymandered maps in Ohio. However, after the completion of the 2030 census, the maps must be cut differently to reflect the changes in population across the state, and if voters can change the system of creation of those electoral maps to be performed by an independent non-partisan body, as well as require their adoption of maps created by this body, then Ohioans may finally see a solution to this issue.
Apportionment Re-Imagined
By Donald Wiggins
As citizens of the United States of America and the world, we find ourselves at an inflection point which requires us to respond anew to the existential question, how shall we govern ourselves? Under that heading, arguably the most central issue to address would be the House of Representatives within the legislative branch, and how to bring the chamber into alignment with advancement in society; emerging, existing, and developing industries; and representation.
Dilemma
Since 1929, the size of the United States House of Representatives has remained at 435 members. Challenge—since 1929 the size of the United States population has grown; new industries have emerged; new market possibilities exist; and space as a frontier is now science fact and not reserved to the realm of fantasy or science fiction. Legality—Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 provides the authority, duty, and guidelines for the United States House of Representatives to set the size of the House by legislation—historically done using information from the decennial census in reapportionment legislation. As set forth in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, no district size should be larger than one (1) Representative for every thirty-thousand (30,000) individuals in the district. Why does this matter?—The United State House of Representatives is created to represent the people inhabiting the United States: their collective needs, hopes for the future, findings, and desired collective psychological, sociological, emotional consciousness. This is achieved by the House of Representatives making sure that each geographical area throughout the United States has a person who serves as the information collection point for the area’s populace and who participates in the ideation and legislation chamber (i.e. House of Representatives). Per the U.S. Constitution, the person (i.e. the Representative) should not represent more than 30,000 people. Rub—To make sure the United States House of Representatives represents the current population adequately, a change is needed to bring the chamber into constitutional alignment.
Options for Change
1. Replace the House of Representatives with a Citizen-Centered Process
Imagine a United States where the United States Senate remains as the chamber whose mission and purpose is to serve as the long-term strategic guidance; vision guiding and distilling; and financial modeling chamber. In this same thought, imagine now a process and the tools where citizens can identify, discuss, and build on ideas for resolution around issues on the federal jurisdictional level, propose legislation; and ultimately allow for citizens to send federal legislation to the ballot box to be voted on by individual members of the electorate?
With the modern technology enabling social networks and digital canvassing, and the real world possibility of using them to create a citizen-centered process and tools for development of policy and legislation, we could realize a more timely, fair and efficient way for our United States to fulfill in full the will of the people. In this vision, legislation passed by the people still will have to be voted on by the United States Senate.
2. Expand the Size of the House of Representatives
Expanding the size of the House of Representatives raises the question, to what size? The American Academy of Arts and Sciences offers some potential answers by setting forth four options and explaining considerations for each option in “The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives Part IV: Alternative Proposals for House Enlargement”. On one end of the range of options offered, is to align the House of Representatives with the historical vision for the size of the House to either 1,600 seats, 6,500 seats, or 9,400 seats depending on the chosen historical point. On the other end is to take what is called the “Wyoming approach” which involves using the population of the least populous state as the basis for the determination of the number of seats for each state in the House of Representatives.
Evaluating the options:
Both options require consideration be given to factors, which include: (1) real property (i.e. land) is represented as to ensure tangible assets which individuals and industry rely on is maintained for a individual, ecological, health, and industry purposes, which is currently achieved through Representative districts; (2) people’s access to the representative by lowering the representative-to-constituent ratio; and (3) ideas, concepts, and markets are represented by the individual supported in a given area, which can be achieved by creating larger multi-member districts—thus eliminating any concerns as to district shape and size gerrymandering.
Either of these two options would serve the purpose of fulfilling the spirit of the House of Representatives as the “people’s” chamber in our existing system.
Resolution
If the first option is chosen, then United States citizens are tasked with creating a system which can fulfill the function and spirit of the United States House of Representatives. This system at minimum will need to: (1) enable individual citizens to identify others individuals interested in the same issue area; (2) propose legislation; (3) enable interested parties to offer their perspective on proposed legislation; (4) create a manner for public deliberation; and (5) serve as a vehicle to ultimately bring the proposed legislation to be voted on by the entirety of the voting eligible electorate.
If the second option is chosen, citizens have before them the work of deciding what the right size is so that the House of Representatives can be truly and fully representative.
Both options call upon United States citizens to have the courage to think, dream, and believe boldly towards a possibility-rich future in which each human’s free will and ideation is allowed to be freely expressed while working together to create a collective good shared reality, which we call society.
What We’re Reading
The History of Congressional Apportionment by Charles M. Biles (2021)
How many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives does each state get and why? Charles M. Biles’ The History of Congressional Apportionment offers a detailed, thorough, and well-researched examination of the methods and political implications of apportionment—in other words, the allocation of Congressional seats by state. The author, a professor emeritus of mathematics, draws on mathematical analysis and historical narrative to examine congressional apportionment. His book is an invaluable resource for understanding political representation in the United States. If you enjoy historical and political analysis and want to dig into the mathematical steps behind how Congressional seats are allocated to states, then this is a must-read resource.
The book begins by explaining the constitutional framework for congressional apportionment, including the mandate that representation be based on population as collected from a decennial census. The book examines different methods employed throughout American history to translate population data into congressional seats. It highlights various mathematical issues inherent in apportionment, along with the challenge of achieving fairness in representation. The author explores the historical context during which different apportionment methods were used, highlighting political debates, regional interests, demographic shifts, and compromises that influenced the allocation of seats to the states. He provides detailed accounts of historical legislation, including the Apportionment Act of 1792 and the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which capped the House at 435 members and established automatic reapportionment following each census.
The History of Congressional Apportionment posits that “Congressional apportionment is a two-sided coin involving fairness on one side and power on the other.” The book examines how very small changes in apportionment calculations can lead to significant shifts in political power, which in turn can influence the outcomes of presidential elections and the relative influence of different states in our national elections. This perspective underscores the large impact that seemingly technical decisions can have on democratic representation.
Related to these procedural explanations, Biles assesses apportionment based on the 2020 census data, exploring the effects of partisanship on apportionment, along with consequences of the Electoral College system on elections. In his concluding chapters, he explores how apportionment is connected to other components of the American political ecosystem, such as population count through the census, districting (and its related issue of gerrymandering), suffrage (who is allowed to vote) and voting practices. Overall, The History of Congressional Apportionment is an important and valuable resource for understanding not only how congressional representation is determined, but also how it influences and shapes our political system.
– Reviewed by Alicia Meckstroth
This Month In History
June 11, 1787 – At the constitutional convention, James Wilson introduced the text that became the Apportionment Clause, including the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise–counting enslaved people as three-fifths in population totals for both representation and taxation.
June 29, 1787 – The Great Compromise was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Roger Sherman. Sherman proposed a two-chamber legislature: proportional House, equal Senate. This settled disputes between large and small states and still shapes Congress today.
June 8, 1929 – The Reapportionment Act of 1929 was passed by Congress on June 8, marking a significant shift in how the House of Representatives responded to population growth. It capped the House at 435 members and shifted the responsibility of reapportionment to the Census Bureau.
June 8, 1929 — “By failing to expand with population, we risk shrinking the voice of the people,” Rep. William B. Bankhead (D-AL) warned in a floor debate.
June 15, 1964 – The Supreme Court rules that state legislative districts must have roughly equal populations. Chief Justice Earl Warren declared, “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” The ruling cemented the one person, one vote principle.
Compiled by Elizabeth Frost and Interns
Coming Next Month: Taxes
Interact at: Facebook, Bluesky, LinkedIn
Mission Statement
Citizens Digest is a non-partisan news research and analysis service for citizens who want to make up their own minds, but need access to rigorous, accurate, and impartial human-reported information on topics of importance in Ohio, the nation, and the world.
Subscription Facts
Free – You will receive a monthly newsletter around the 4th Friday of every month, preceded by 3 consecutive Friday capsules previewing segments of the monthly newsletter.
Coming Soon:
Sustaining Paid ($60 annually) – In addition to the monthly newsletter and capsules, you will receive a annual gift print issue around Thanksgiving plus three free podcasts per year.
Podcasts – Beginning in October, 2025, podcasts will be $5 per person per podcast for free subscribers and sustaining paid subscribers will receive 3 free podcasts of their choice.
Citizen Leader ($120 or more annually) – In addition to the monthly newsletter and capsules and Thanksgiving gift print issue, you will receive all podcasts free, public acknowledgement in the newsletter, and a T-Shirt with our motto and sign-off “Keep Cool and Think It Out”.
Opinion
Podcast link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2514822/episodes/17408997
Letters to the Editor –
Please send your suggestions, opinions, and letters to the editor to [email protected]
Please be aware that the content of the Podcast and Letters to the Editor reflect the opinions of the speakers/writers and not the official position of Citizens Digest. All statements of fact in Letters to the Editor will be fact-checked. Citizens Digest reserves the right to not publish podcast responses or Letters to the Editor that contain foul or insulting language or false or misleading statements.
Keep Cool and Think It Out
The Editors
Citizens Digest Staff
- Ruth McLatchie, Editor-in-Chief, Written Media
- Mike Gonzalez, Technical Editor, Writer
- Donald Wiggins, Chief Legal and Organizational Officer
- Daniel DeLuca, Chief Financial Officer
- Mark Harris, Operations Manager
- Elizabeth Frost, Circulation and Volunteer Manager
- Alicia Meckstroth, Contributor