Why hasn't the number of House Members ever changed from 435? I looked through the Constitution and 435 is never mentioned. Where did it come from? San Jose, California - 9/26/00

You are right -- 435 is not a constitutional number -- it is the number set by statute and it could be changed by Congress passing a new law at any time.

The Constitution [Article 1, section 2] has two references to the size of the House of Representatives. It sets a minimum size (at least one representative per state) and a maximum size (no more than one representative for every 30,000 persons.) Based on the 1990 census numbers, the maximum formula would give the House over 8,300 Members!

Since the first census, the size of the House was increased every 10 years to keep up with the growth in our nation's population, stopping with the 1910 census. The subsequent 1911 reallocation of seats resulted in 435 Members. After the 1920 census, Congress could come to no conclusion on reallocation. There were disputes over whether the rural population had been undercounted, favoring districts with urban centers. Mathmeticians had a raging argument about the apportionment formula then in use (something about fractional remainders!) and the stalemate left the size of the House unchanged at 435.

To avoid a repetition of the battle of the fractions and formulas, the Permanent Apportionment Act was passed in 1929. It set the then existing number of 435 as the permanent ceiling on the size of the House. This ended the battles every decade over the size of the House and also made permanent the use of the "equal proportions" formula, which scientists argued would deliver more neutral results in the battle of the larger vs. the smaller states. Montana promptly went to court arguing that automatic reapportionment based on an arbitrary cap on the size of the House would mean that the number of seats for states with growing populations would continue to increase at the expense of less populated states, and violate another constitutional principle -- "one man; one vote."

While numerous Supreme Court rulings have firmly established the doctrine of representational equity -- that congressional districts within a state should be as equal in population as possible -- they have not settled the question of inequality among states. For example, a California member today represents about 572,000 constituents; Montana's solitary Member represents 799,000. But the Supreme Court has affirmed in several rulings the freedom of the House of Representatives to calculate its own size using whatever formulas it wishes, as long as it does not violate the minimum and maximum stipulations for size set forth in the Constitution.

The question of apportionment has been controversial for over two centuries. In fact, President George Washington's first veto was of an apportionment formula drafted by Thomas Jefferson! From time to time there is some discussion about changing the 1929 law and increasing the overall size of the House giving each Member fewer constituents. However, these discussions have not produced serious legislative efforts due to conflicting concerns.

First, an increase in House size would give the more populous states a gain in their proportional share of the total number of House seats, allowing them to use their large voting blocs to overshadow the influence of smaller ones. For example, California now has the largest delegation with 52 seats, while seven states only have one. If the current formula is changed to reduce constituency size, California would gain many more seats, while single-seat states would gain none, or perhaps one. California's proportional influence within the House would increase even more. Dozens of mathematical solutions for this problem have been proposed but no solution has emerged.

However, if constituency size continues to grow unchecked, there is uncertainty and concern over the effect on the Voting Rights Act and its call for "majority-minority" districts, as well as the overall ability of minorities to gain influence within more populous districts.

Finally, if more Members are allowed, it would mean more staff, expanding existing office buildings, and perhaps even necessitate renovations to the House chamber in the Capitol itself. Given the cost-conscious environment surrounding Congress in recent years, it is unlikely that proposals to spend substantial monies on the institution would be seen as politically feasible.

So, the size of the House remains at 435.