In 1911, the US Congress passed Public Law 62-5. In this legislation, the voting member size of the House of Representatives was set at 433, and included a provision to add an additional seat upon the admissions of Alaska and Hawaii to the union. It has remained at that size, regardless of population increases, ever since. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 finalized this cap at 435 voting members, and it has remained at that size in the nearly nine decades since.
The 1790 Census (the first full census) set apportionment of seats at 34,436 constituents per representative, per the Apportionment Act of 1792. During the intervening years, the size of the House increased until it, as of 1920 Census, sat at 210,583 constituents per representative, split proportionally between the 435 seats.
Beginning with the 1930 Census however, the size of the House of Representatives has not increased to compensate for rises in population.
The current method of apportionment being used is the “equal proportions” method. The first step in this process allots one representative to each of the 50 states, per constitutional mandate. Beyond that, a series of equations determines apportionment, ranking each state by population and cycling through until all of the remaining 385 seats are allocated. This method fails to recognize shifts in population density, since any truly proportional method would include provision for an increase in the number of House seats being allocated, to maintain equal representation based on population. Instead, the current method of apportionment increases the population size in each constituency in order to adhere to the mandated 435 House seats.
This method has created a situation where, as of the 2010 Census, the apportionment size of House seats has become 709,760 constituents per representative. This effectively reduces the representation “weight” of a person in California or Texas (currently the two most populous states) to a fraction of that of a person in Wyoming, currently the least populous state.
The “Wyoming Rule” is proposed to restructure representation in the House by apportioning seats based on the population of the smallest entitled unit - currently the state of Wyoming. In the 2010 Census, Wyoming had a population of 563,626. Using that number as the baseline (rounded down to 500,000), seats in the House would be apportioned by simply dividing their census population (also rounded down to the nearest 500,000) by that baseline. This simplified method would ensure equal representation between House districts. Each member of the House would represent approximately 500,000 constituents. Rounding down all population numbers would ensure that all calculations would result in a whole number.
In order to achieve this equal representation, the limit of 435 seats will need to be removed. Since this limitation is simply legislative, not constitutional, changing it requires no substantial process.
As shown in Figure 1, implementing the “Wyoming Rule” would see no lessening of representation in any state. 36 states would see a rise in the number of representatives, based on their census population. Overall, the number of seats in the House would increase from 435 to 593.
Given the unequal representation of states under the current apportioning and seat-limited system, it is difficult to understand why anyone would resist what seems like a simple fix.
However, there are reasons why some would choose to do so.
Additional Expense of New Members
Adding additional members to the House would entail a significant addition to the House budget. Currently, members are paid $174,000 per year, plus Member’s Representational Allowance (MRA) expenses for staff, offices, and constituent communications. The average of these expenses in 2011 was $1.4 million per member. There are additional covered expenses, including health benefits, pensions, and travel. Speaking generally, per member additional costs will likely run $2 million/year.
While these are considerable expenses, they can be mitigated by transferring responsibility for some of them back to the member’s state if legislation is enacted to that end. Ultimately, pursuing this avenue could reduce the fiscal burden of all Congress members significantly. There is a strong case to be made that costs for representatives should be borne by the states, not the federal government. Barring member salaries and benefits, and core costs for office space within the Capitol and its associated office buildings, the expenses of maintaining staffing and an office presence in Washington D.C. could be transferred off the federal budget.
Another expense involved in having representatives in Washington for extended periods of time involves housing expenses for each member. This expense is typically borne by the individual members, and given the cost of housing, can be a significant burden. Rather than increasing salaries due to area housing costs, it would be worth consideration for the federal government to purchase or build hotel/apartment-style residential units which can be utilized by members while in D.C., on an as-needed basis. These units would, of course, be optional for the members, but could be budgeted and billed-back to the member according to usage.
Physical Limitations of the Chamber
The current configuration of the House chamber allows for enough seating to hold the mandated 435 representatives plus a small amount of additional floor seating for non-voting entities (US Territories, Washington DC representative, etc.). (See Figure 2) While reconfiguring the chamber would involve a significant investment in renovation, the process is not without precedent. The chamber has been redesigned several times in the history of the Congress, and an update of the room is currently needed in any case, to incorporate technological improvements at the very least. Revamping the seating layout to hold more members could occur at the same time, and have additional seating for future members included as well.
House Traditions
A third reason for resistance to the changes enacting the Wyoming Rule would engender is likely the one most difficult to change: Congressional traditions.
Many members of Congress (in both houses) maintain a strong attitude against alteration of any perceived traditions. These attitudes are frequently held in opposition to needed changes in Congress, which can prove insurmountable. In addition, many members would be resistant to the changes represented by the “Wyoming Rule”, viewing them as a lessening of their accumulated power and the “prestige” of their elected office.
Allaying these concerns will need to be a primary focus of any effort to alter existing apportionment.
Additional Considerations
The Apportionment Act of 1911 contained a specific direction regarding the creation of electoral districts as part of the apportionment process. It directed that Congress “shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” This provided a basis for challenging gerrymandering, helping to ensure that enumerated districts were created in a fair and reasonable manner.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929, however, did not include this language, and in 1932, the Supreme Court decision in Wood v. Broom eliminated the requirement for contiguous and compact districts, ruling that new apportionment acts overrule the guidelines of previous versions entirely. Since that time, the ability of states to utilize gerrymandered districts has been an ever-increasing issue. The language of the 1911 Act has never been re-inserted into any apportionment bill in the following years.
The “Wyoming Rule” would be undermined if this lapse were allowed to continue, given that all affected states will need to redraw their districts in the wake of its adoption. In addition, including specific language about Congressional districting in the legislation would allay the repeated legal actions which have been brought about this issue over the years.
The Electoral College
One final consideration should be noted regarding the effects of the “Wyoming Rule”: the composition of the Electoral College would more closely align with the current population of the states, rendering its representation more accurate for future elections. With two presidential elections in recent years affected by disparity between the popular vote and the Electoral College totals, this would be a valuable change that requires no constitutional action to achieve.
