Puerto Rican Statehood: Effects on House Apportionment

CRS Report for Congress
Puerto Rican Statehood:
1
Effects on House Apportionment
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Statehood for Puerto Rico would likely cause the Congress to explore whether the
current limit of 435 on the total number of Representatives should be changed. If Puerto
Rico had been a state when the 2000 census was taken, it would have been entitled to
six Representatives based on its 2000 census population of 3.8 million residents. These
new Representatives could have been accommodated by either expanding the size of the
House, or adhering to the current 435-seat statutory limit, thereby reducing the number
of Representatives in other states. This report will be updated as conditions warrant.
Background
Proposals to change Puerto Rico’s governmental relationship with the United States
from a commonwealth to some other model raise many political, social, and economic
issues. This report focuses exclusively on what impact adding a new state that is more
populous than 24 of the existing 50 states would have on representation in the House.
The voters of Puerto Rico have considered three plebiscites regarding its relationship
with the United States since U.S. citizenship was conferred on persons born in Puerto
Rico in 1917.² In 1967, Puerto Rico’s voters approved continuing a commonwealth
relationship (60.5%) over statehood (38.9%) or independence (0.5%). In 1993, in a
second plebiscite, they also voted in favor of continuing a commonwealth status (48.6%)
over statehood (46.4%) or independence (4.5%).³ In another plebiscite held in 1998, the
citizens endorsed “none of the above” (50.3%) over statehood (46.5%), independence
(2.5%), free association (0.3%) and commonwealth (0.1%).⁴

¹ This report originally was authored by David C. Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.
² 39 Stat. 961.
³ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Resources, The Results of the 1998 Puerto Rico Plebiscite,
committee print, 106^th Cong., 1^st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 41.
⁴ Ibid., p. 10.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Hearings were held on the topic of plebiscites regarding the relationship of Puerto
Rico to the United States during the 104^th Congress in 1995 and 1996. In 1997, during
the 105^th Congress, the House passed H.R. 4281 to authorize a Puerto Rican status
plebiscite, and the Senate passed S.Res. 279, endorsing the right of Puerto Ricans to vote
on their status with the United States in 1998.⁵ However, no further action was taken on
either bill. In 2000, during the 106^th Congress, H.R. 4751 was introduced to recognize
entry of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico into permanent union with the United States,
but no further action was taken on the bill. Since then, no bills on this topic have been
introduced in Congress.
If Puerto Rico’s citizens had voted in favor of statehood in the plebiscites in the
1990s, and Congress had admitted the Commonwealth as a state by the end of December
2000, Puerto Rico would have six Representatives in Congress. If the House size had
remained at 435 Representatives, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and
Ohio would each have been allocated one seat fewer than they actually received when the
post-2000 Census reapportionment was completed. Another option would have been to
increase the size of the House.
Apportionment Options When Admitting New States
Congressional Precedent. General congressional practice when admitting new
states to the union has been to increase the size of the House, either permanently or
temporarily, to accommodate the new states. New states usually resulted in additions to
the size of the House in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The exceptions to this general
rule occurred when states were formed from other states (Maine, Kentucky, and West
Virginia). These states’ Representatives came from the allocations of Representatives of
the states from which the new ones had been formed.⁶
When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959 and 1960 the House size was
temporarily increased to 437. This modern precedent differed from the state admission
acts passed following the censuses in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which provided
that new states’ representation would be added to the apportionment totals. Table 1 lists
the number of seats each state has received after each census, and the notes show the
initial seat assignments to states admitted between censuses.
Table 1. Representatives Under Each Apportionment
^Yea^r
^ST¹⁷⁸⁹¹⁷⁹⁰¹⁸⁰⁰¹⁸¹⁰¹⁸²⁰¹⁸³⁰¹⁸⁴⁰¹⁸⁵⁰¹⁸⁶⁰¹⁸⁷⁰¹⁸⁸⁰¹⁸⁹⁰¹⁹⁰⁰¹⁹¹⁰¹⁹²⁰¹⁹³⁰¹⁹⁴⁰¹⁹⁵⁰¹⁹⁶⁰¹⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁸⁰¹⁹⁹⁰²⁰⁰⁰
^A^L^N^A^N^A^N^A^1357768899¹⁰¹^099987777
^A^K^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A¹¹¹¹¹¹
^A^Z^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^1112234568
^A^R^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{112345677777644444}
^C^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^2234678¹¹²⁰²³³⁰³⁸⁴³⁴⁵⁵²⁵³
^C^O^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{11234444445667}
^C^T^{57776644444455566666665}
^D^E^{11121111111111111111111}

⁵ Ibid.
⁶ For a general discussion of the history of admitting states to the union, please see CRS Report

98-702 GOV, Statehood Process of the Fifty States, by Garrine P. Laney.

^Yea^r
^ST¹⁷⁸⁹¹⁷⁹⁰¹⁸⁰⁰¹⁸¹⁰¹⁸²⁰¹⁸³⁰¹⁸⁴⁰¹⁸⁵⁰¹⁸⁶⁰¹⁸⁷⁰¹⁸⁸⁰¹⁸⁹⁰¹⁹⁰⁰¹⁹¹⁰¹⁹²⁰¹⁹³⁰¹⁹⁴⁰¹⁹⁵⁰¹⁹⁶⁰¹⁹⁷⁰¹⁹⁸⁰¹⁹⁹⁰²⁰⁰⁰
^F^L^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^111222344568¹²¹⁵¹⁹²³²⁵
^G^A^3246798879¹⁰¹¹¹²¹²¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹¹³
^H^I^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A¹²²²²²
^I^D^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1112222222222}
^I^L^N^A^N^A^N^A¹¹³⁷⁹¹⁴¹⁹²⁰²²⁵²⁷²⁷²⁷²⁶²⁵²⁴²⁴²²⁰¹⁹
^I^N^N^A^N^A^N^A¹³⁷¹⁰¹¹¹¹¹³¹³¹³¹³¹³¹³¹²¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹⁰¹⁰⁹
^I^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A²²⁶⁹¹¹¹¹¹^198876655
^K^S^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{137888876655544}
^K^Y^N^A²⁶¹⁰¹²¹³¹⁰¹⁰⁹¹⁰¹¹¹¹¹^199877766
^L^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{13344566678888888877}
^M^E^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{7876554444433322222}
^M^D^{68999866566666666788888}
^M^A⁸¹⁴¹⁷²⁰¹³¹²¹⁰¹¹¹⁰¹¹¹²¹³¹⁴¹⁶¹⁶¹⁵¹⁴¹⁴¹²¹²¹¹¹⁰¹⁰
^M^I^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A¹³⁴⁶⁹¹¹²¹²¹³¹³¹⁷¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹¹⁹¹⁸¹⁶¹⁵
^M^N^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A²²³⁵⁷⁹¹⁰¹^099988888
^M^S^N^A^N^A^N^A^{11245567788877655554}
^M^O^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A¹²⁵⁷⁹¹³¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶¹⁶¹⁶¹³¹³¹¹⁰¹⁰⁹⁹⁹
^M^T^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1112222222211}
^N^E^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{113666654433333}
^N^V^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{111111111111223}
^N^H^{34566543332222222222222}
^N^J^456666555778¹⁰¹²¹²¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁵¹⁵¹⁴¹³¹³
^N^M^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^1112222333
^N^Y⁶¹⁰¹⁷²⁷³⁴⁴⁰³⁴³³³¹³³³⁴³⁴³⁷⁴³⁴³⁴⁵⁴⁵⁴³⁴¹³⁹³⁴³¹²⁹
^N^C⁵¹⁰¹²¹³¹³¹^3987899¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹¹²¹²¹¹¹¹²¹³
^N^D^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1123322221111}
^O^H^N^A^N^A¹⁶¹⁴¹⁹²¹²¹¹⁹²⁰²¹²¹²¹²²²²²⁴²³²³²⁴²³²¹¹⁹¹⁸
^O^K^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^58898666665
^O^R^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1111223334444555}
^P^A⁸¹³¹⁸²³²⁶²⁸²⁴²⁵²⁴²⁷²⁸³⁰³²³⁶³⁶³⁴³³³⁰²⁷²⁵²³²¹¹⁹
^R^I^{12222222222223322222222}
^S^C^{56899976457777766666666}
^S^D^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{2223322222111}
^T^N^N^A¹³⁶⁹¹³¹¹⁰⁸¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰⁹¹^0998999
^T^X^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A²²⁴⁶¹¹³¹⁶¹⁸¹⁸²¹²¹²²³²⁴²⁷³⁰³²
^U^T^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^112222222333
^V^T^N^A^{2465543332222211111111}
^VA¹⁰¹⁹²²²³²²²¹¹⁵¹³¹¹⁹¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰⁹⁹¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹¹¹¹
^W^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1235566777899}
^W^V^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{34456666654433}
^W^I^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A²³⁶⁸⁹¹⁰¹¹¹¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰⁹⁹⁹⁸
^W^Y^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^N^A^{1111111111111}
^US⁶⁵¹⁰⁶¹⁴²¹⁸⁶²¹³²⁴²²³²²³⁷²⁴³²⁹³³³²³⁵⁷³⁹¹⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁷⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁵⁴³⁵
^Initia^{l se}^a^t^a^ssigⁿ^m^e^{nts to sta}^t^e^s^a^d^m^itte^{d be}^tw^e^eⁿ^c^eⁿ^suse^s^:
^A^f^te^r^the^{1790 Ce}^ns^us^—^K^e^ntucky⁽²^{, f}^r^o^m^Vⁱ^r^g^inia)
^A^f^te^r^the^{1800 Ce}^ns^us^—^T^e^nne^s^s^e^e⁽¹⁾^A^f^te^r^the^{1810 Ce}^ns^us^—^O^h^io⁽¹⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1820 Ce}^ns^us^—^A^l^abam^{a, I}^l^lⁱ^no^is^{, I}^{ndiana, L}^o^uisⁱ^{ana, (}¹^e^ach)^,^Maine⁽⁷^{, f}^r^o^m^Mas^s^achus^e^tts⁾^,^Mis^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^{ppi (}¹⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1830 Ce}^ns^us^—^N^o^ne
^A^f^te^r^the^{1840 Ce}^ns^us^—^A^r^kans^as^{, Michig}^{an (}¹^e^ach)
^A^f^te^r^the^{1850 Ce}^ns^us^—^O^r^e^g^oⁿ⁽¹⁾^Minne^s^o^{ta (}²⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1860 Ce}^ns^us^—^N^e^v^a^{da (}¹⁾^,^N^e^br^as^{ka (}¹⁾^,^W^e^s^t^Vⁱ^r^g^{inia (}³^{, f}^r^o^m^Vⁱ^r^g^inia)^A^f^te^r^the^{1870 Ce}^ns^us^—^Co^l^o^r^a^do⁽¹⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1880 Ce}^ns^us^—^I^d^aho^,^Mo^{ntana, N}^o^r^t^{h D}^a^ko^{ta, W}^a^s^h^ing^t^oⁿ^{, W}^y^o^m^ing⁽¹^e^ach)^,^S^o^{uth D}^a^ko^{ta (}²⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1890 Ce}^ns^us^—^U^t^{ah (}¹⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1900 Ce}^ns^us^—^O^k^l^a^ho^m^a⁽⁵⁾
^A^f^te^r^the^{1910 Ce}^ns^us^—^A^r^iz^oⁿ^{a (}¹⁾^,^N^e^w^Me^xⁱ^co⁽¹⁾^A^f^te^r^the^{1950 Ce}^ns^us^—^A^l^as^{ka (}¹⁾^,^H^a^w^a^{ii (}¹⁾
The apportionment act of 1911 anticipated the admission of Arizona and New
Mexico by providing for an increase in the House size from 433 to 435 if the states were
admitted.

As noted above, the House size was temporarily increased to 437 to accommodate
Alaska and Hawaii in 1960. In 1961, when the President reported the 1960 census results
and the resulting reapportionment of seats in the reestablished 435-seat House, Alaska
was entitled to one seat, and Hawaii two seats. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Missouri
each received one less seat than they would have if the House size had been increased to

438 (as was proposed by H.R. 10264, in 1962).

Puerto Rican Statehood Apportionment Options. If Puerto Rico were
admitted to statehood between censuses, Congress would have at least three options for
handling the approximately six Representatives the new state would be entitled to under
the current apportionment formula: (1) subtract seats from states that would have lost
them if Puerto Rico had been admitted before the previous census; (2) temporarily
increase the size of the House until the next census; or (3) permanently increase the size
of the House.
The first option, subtracting seats from other states, has only been done by Congress
when new states were formed from existing states. This would require the losing states
to redistrict to account for these losses. The second option, temporarily increasing the
House size, has only been done once, in the Alaska and Hawaii precedent. The third
option, permanently increasing the House size (probably to 441) might be an attractive
choice to sponsors of Puerto Rican statehood because, for example, the delegations from
the six states that would have lost seats if Puerto Rico had been a state prior to the 2000
census sum to a total of 127 Representatives.
Table 2 lists the 2000 census population of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, the
allocation of Representatives to states in 1990, and what the 2000 allocations would have
been with or without Puerto Rican statehood.
Table 2. Effect of Admitting Puerto Rico to Statehood
on Representation in the House of Representatives
Based on the 2000 Census (Assumes House Size of 435)
^{2000 A}^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t
²⁰⁰⁰
^A^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t^a¹⁹⁹⁰^b^W^ithout^W^ith^c
^Sta^t^e^P^opula^tion^A^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t^P^u^ert^o^Ri^co^P^u^ert^o^Ri^co^Dⁱ^ffe^r^eⁿ^c^e
^A^L^4,461,130⁷⁷⁷
^A^K^628,933¹¹¹
^A^Z^5,140,683⁶⁸⁸
^A^R^2,679,733⁴⁴⁴
^C^A^33,930,798⁵²⁵³⁵²^-¹
^C^O^4,311,882⁶⁷⁷
^C^T^3,409,535⁶⁵⁵
^D^E^785,068¹¹¹
^FL^16,028,890²³²⁵²⁴^-¹
^G^A^8,206,975¹¹¹³¹²^-¹
^H^I^1,216,642²²²
^I^D^1,297,274²²²
^I^L^12,439,042²⁰¹⁹¹⁹
^I^N^6,090,782¹⁰⁹⁹
^I^A^2,931,923⁵⁵⁴^-¹
^K^S^2,693,824⁴⁴⁴
^K^Y^4,049,431⁶⁶⁶
^L^A^4,480,271⁷⁷⁷
^ME^1,277,731²²²

^{2000 A}^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t
²⁰⁰⁰
^A^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t^a¹⁹⁹⁰^b^W^ithout^W^ith^c
^Sta^t^e^P^opula^tion^A^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t^P^u^ert^o^Ri^co^P^u^ert^o^Ri^co^Dⁱ^ffe^r^eⁿ^c^e
^MD^5,307,886⁸⁸⁸
^MA^6,355,568¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰
^MI^9,955,829¹⁶¹⁵¹⁵
^MN^4,925,670⁸⁸⁸
^MS^2,852,927⁵⁴⁴
^MO^5,606,260⁹⁹⁹
^MT^905,316¹¹¹
^N^E^1,715,369³³³
^N^V^2,002,032²³³
^N^H^1,238,415²²²
^N^J^8,424,354¹³¹³¹³
^N^M^1,823,821³³³
^N^Y^19,004,973³¹²⁹²⁹
^N^C^8,067,673¹²¹³¹²^-¹
^N^D^643,756¹¹¹
^O^H^11,374,540¹⁹¹⁸¹⁷^-¹
^O^K^3,458,819⁶⁵⁵
^O^R^3,428,543⁵⁵⁵
^P^A^12,300,670²¹¹⁹¹⁹
^R^I^1,049,662²²²
^SC^4,025,061⁶⁶⁶
^SD^756,874¹¹¹
^T^N^5,700,037⁹⁹⁹
^T^X^20,903,994³⁰³²³²
^U^T^2,236,714³³³
^VT^609,890¹¹¹
^VA^7,100,702¹¹¹¹¹¹
^W^A^5,908,684⁹⁹⁹
^W^V^1,813,077³³³
^W^I^5,371,210⁹⁸⁸
^W^Y^495,304¹¹¹
^P^R^3,808,610⁴³⁵⁰⁶⁶
^a^U^.^{S. D}^e^{pt. of}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^,^B^u^r^e^a^u^of^the^C^e^ns^us^,^C^e^ns^us^{2000 Show}^s^Re^sⁱ^de^{nt P}^opul^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^281,421,906;
^Appor^tionm^eⁿ^{t C}^ounts^D^e^liv^e^r^e^d^{to Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t,^P^r^e^s^s^R^e^le^a^s^e^C^B^00-^C^N^{.64 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^e^c^.^{28, 2000)}^{, T}^a^ble^1.^b^nd^st
^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^,^Appor^tionm^eⁿ^{t Population}^{and State}^Re^pr^e^s^eⁿ^tation,^H^.^D^o^c^.^102-^{18, 102}^C^ong^{., 1}
^s^e^s^s^.⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁹¹⁾^{, pp. 3,4.}^c
^Com^pute^d^by^{CRS. If}^P^u^e^r^{to Ric}^o^ha^{d be}^eⁿ^a^d^m^itte^d^to^s^t^a^t^e^{hood w}^{ith a}^prov^is^{o tha}^t^the^Ce^ns^us^Bure^a^u^fⁱ^rs^t
^c^a^l^c^u^la^te^how^m^a^ny^s^e^a^t^s^{it w}^ould^ha^v^e^be^eⁿ^eⁿ^title^{d unde}^{r a}^435-s^e^a^t^H^ous^e^,^a^{nd the}ⁿ^a^{dd tha}^t^tota^{l to the}^H^ous^e^sⁱ^z^e
^f^o^{r the}^fⁱⁿ^a^l^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^{on (re}^s^u^lting^{in 441 s}^e^a^t^s⁾^{, P}^u^e^r^{to Ric}^o^w^{ould s}^{till ha}^v^e^obtaⁱ^ne^{d s}ⁱ^x^s^e^a^t^s^;^the^sⁱ^x^s^t^a^t^e^s^tha^t
^o^t^h^e^rwⁱ^s^{e w}^o^u^l^d^each^h^a^{ve l}^o^st^{a seat}^wⁱ^t^h^a^435-^s^e^a^t^H^ous^e^w^{ould thus}^ha^v^e^r^e^ta^ine^d^the^s^e^a^t^s^.⁽^T^he^f^a^c^t^tha^t^the^s^a^m^e
^si^{x st}^at^es^w^o^u^l^d^regaiⁿ^t^h^{e seat}^{s t}^h^at^t^h^ey^l^o^st^t^o^P^u^ert^o^Ri^coⁱⁿ^t^h^{e t}^h^{ree scen}^ari^o^{s w}^o^u^l^dⁿ^o^tⁿ^ecessari^l^y^h^o^l^dⁱⁿ^al^l
^scen^ari^o^s.^Itⁱ^s^p^o^ssi^b^l^{e t}^h^atⁱⁿ^cr^e^a^sⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e^Ho^u^s^{e si}^{ze co}^u^l^d^ch^an^{ge t}^h^{e st}^at^{es’ f}^r^actⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^sh^{ares al}^l^o^cat^ed^b^y^t^h^e
^a^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^m^ula^s^o^tha^t^{not a}^{ll the}^“^l^os^ing^s^t^a^t^e^s^”^w^ouldⁿ^ecessari^l^y^regaiⁿ^t^h^{e l}^o^st^seat^s:^o^t^h^e^{r st}^at^{es m}ⁱ^gh^t^h^a^ve⁷

^great^{er cl}^ai^m^s^.⁾
⁷ For a more complete discussion of how the apportionment formula works, please see CRS
Report RL31074, House of Representatives Apportionment Formula: Analysis of Proposals for
Change and Their Impact on States, by Royce Crocker.

The Tradition of a 435-Seat House
The strong 20^th century tradition that the total number of Representatives in the
House of Representatives should total 435 members might prevent an increase in the
House size should Puerto Rico be admitted to statehood.
The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section II) requires that “Representatives shall be
apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each state.” The requirement that districts must be
apportioned among states means that district boundaries cannot cross state lines. The
Constitution also sets a minimum size for the House of Representatives (one
Representative for each state) and a maximum size for the House (one Representative for
every 30,000 persons). Congress is free to choose a House size within these parameters
by changing the relevant law.
The House size of 435 thus may be altered by changing statutory law rather than by
enacting a constitutional amendment.⁸ Based on the 2000 Census apportionment
population of 281,424,177, the House could be as large as 9,361 Representatives, based
on the constitutional maximum of one Representative for every 30,000 persons.
(Statehood for Puerto Rico would have raised the maximum to 9,507 Members.)
The House size was increased in every decade except one in the 19th century to
accommodate the growth of the country’s population, but the permanent increases stopped
after the 1910 census, when the House reached 435 Members. As noted previously, the
House size was increased temporarily to 437 in 1960, to accommodate the admission of
Alaska and Hawaii as states, but the total went back to 435 in 1963, with the new
reapportionment following the 1960 census.
Although one cannot say for sure why the House size has not been permanently
increased since the 1910 Census, the arguments most often raised center on efficiency and
cost. Proponents of the status quo suggest that a larger House would work less efficiently
and at greater cost, due to Member and staff salaries and allowances. Proponents of
increasing the House size often argue that other legislative bodies seem to work well with
larger memberships, and less populous districts might give minorities greater
representation in Congress.⁹

⁸ 46 Stat. 21, 26-27, as codified in 2 U.S.C. 2a(a).
⁹ For a more complete discussion of how the Congress settled on 435 as the House size, please
see CRS Report 95-791 GOV, House of Representatives: Setting the Size at 435, by David C.
Huckabee.