Oregon's Sixth Congressman

The House of Representatives has had 435 members since 1912.  It expanded briefly to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1958, then dropped back to 435 after the apportionment based upon the 1960 census.  Earlier this month, the Congress failed to act on an initiative to boost the House back up to 437 members.  Why the push for more representatives?  Well, the prime instigator has been Utah.

In the apportionment after the 2000 census, Utah was the bridesmaid--the first one below the cut line for getting another representative.  With Utah being mostly Mormon, it always has a number of folks living overseas while doing their missions.  If it had been able to count those ~11,000 missionaries, Utah would have been above the cut line rather that North Carolina.  Utah figures that since federal employees are counted for their "state of residence" when living overseas, the same ought to apply for missionaries.  But what about other Americans living overseas?  From this link:

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced legislation directing the Census Bureau to conduct a test count of Americans living abroad.

In 2004, the Census Bureau spent $7.8 million attempting to count Americans living in France, Kuwait and Mexico. While 600,000 survey forms were printed, only about 5,400 were returned.

"We believe the response was low by any standard," said former Census Bureau director Charles Kincannon in congressional testimony.

Federal investigators then recommended the Census Bureau exclude Americans living abroad as part of the U.S. Census in 2010. Officials with the Government Accountability Office cited high costs and poor survey responses.

And if you were wondering, the census counts illegal aliens...as best it can.  Thus, those folks matter when apportioning House seats.

Since the 2000 apportionment, Utah has twice pressed its case for counting missionaries (or not counting any Americans living overseas) to the Supreme Court.  The Court refused to hear the first case and voted 5-4 against the second.  So, the state has been supporting a new gambit.  The District of Columbia has no representatives, so why not add two new seats...one for Utah and one for D.C.  The state of Utah has already approved a gerrymandering based upon having that additional seat.  With how it's drawn, the new district would almost assuredly go Republican, while D.C. would almost certainly go Democratic.  Utah and D.C. officials are now hoping that the new Democratic majority will support this initiative.

Why am I delving into this?  Because I read a couple of articles today that projected state populations through the 2010 and 2020 censuses, and Utah is expected to grow from today's three representatives to five in 2020.  And in that same article on 2020, it noted the following about Oregon...

Using state population estimates and census projections, in 2020, Utah would receive the 434th House seat--its fifth--under a complex reapportionment formula. Oregon would be awarded the 435th seat. Virginia just misses out.

But Utah's seat would be far from secure. If Oregon's population is .2 percent and Virginia's is .4 percent greater than projected, the analysis shows Virginia takes Utah's spot.

So, would Oregon be just above the cut line for a sixth seat or to keep the five it has?  This link, which has a nice explanation of how apportionment works, says the answer is a sixth seat.  Oregon is not near the cut line for either the 2010 or 2030 projected apportionments.

Additional representatives is one of the benefits of Oregon's population growing faster than the national average.  We gained a third seat when the House expanded from 391 to 435 seats after the 1910 census.  The fourth came after the 1940 census, and the fifth came after the 1980 census.  2020 looks like it's right on schedule. 

Comments

[David English]

RP,

Here's a question, I've lived overseas for three years now. Granted there hasn't been a census done since 2000. Am I counted as a resident? I vote and I file taxes even though I'm living in Korea.

Personally, I think Utah is trying to hold the idea of Washington DC having an electoral vote hostage to get their own way.

I don't understand why we should change the electoral college count before the next census. I agree that Washington DC should get some representation in Congress, but if that means giving Utah what they want, then screw it.

[RoguePundit]

I agree with you regarding Utah and D.C.

Regarding residency, first bear in mind that state and Census Bureau residency rules often differ, as do tax and census laws.

The short answer regarding the Census Bureau is that...

A state's resident population consists of those persons "usually resident" in that state (where they live and sleep most of the time). A state's apportionment population is the sum of its resident population and a count of overseas U.S. military and federal civilian employees (and their dependents living with them) allocated to the state, as reported by the employing federal agencies.

Thus, the question becomes what does "usually resident" mean. The Census Bureau has been struggling with that for a long time (this survey shows differences between census and American Community Survey data). A common example though is that a college student is usually resident of his/her college address rather than the parent's house. The student's tax status when it comes to dependency could certainly differ.

So, the Census Bureau recently had the National Acadamies' Committee on National Statistics study the question in preparation for applying residency rules in 2010. The executive summary is several pages long, but skimming it should help with understanding why 9 percent of the U.S. population may not report its residency correctly.

Bottom line though...if you're living in Korea "most of the time" when the next census comes around, unless you're a federal employee then, you're going to have a difficult time coming up with a way to be counted as a resident of Oregon.

[David Greig]

Dear Congressman:

Since the democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the following things have happened:

• The price of regular fuel has increased from $2.19 per gallon to $4.17 per gallon.
• American households have seen a $2.3 trillion reduction in the value of their stocks and mutual funds.
• Consumer confidence in the government has plummeted.
• Unemployment has gone from 4.5% to 5% (a 10% increase).
• American homeowners have seen a $1.2 trillion decrease in the value of their homes.
• 1% of Americans’ homes are in foreclosure.

Leaders, as congressmen should be, are needed especially during hard economic times. Congressman should be in the spotlight frequently. Where are you? I haven’t seen you on TV, heard you on the radio or seen your quotes in newspapers. You are invisible.

I refuse to ever vote again for a ghost and I am sharing this information with everyone I know.

Respectfully yours,

David R. Greig