Click on the banner to learn about the problem and the solution
Q1: Aren’t the districts’ populations supposed to grow along
with the general population?
Q2: How did the number of Representatives become fixed at 435?
Q3: What is wrong with super-sized Congressional districts?
Q4: What is the Solution?
Q5: Do we need more politicians?
Q6: What about the diverse views and values of the American people?
Q7: Wouldn’t more Representatives mean a bigger government?
Q8: Even with reduced federal expenditures, wouldn’t it be
too costly to add all these Representatives?
Q9: How would that many Representatives get anything done?
10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?
Q11: Would Congress voluntarily increase the number of Representatives?
Q12: What is “Article the first”?
Q13: How could such an amendment ever come about?
Q14: Who would advocate and support the creation of such an amendment?
Q15: Who would oppose the creation of such an amendment?
Questions?
If you've read the Complaint and the information on the Background page, you likely have questions. We have prepared a Frequently Asked Questions document.
To download a copy of the FAQ, click here.
State-by-State Analysis
How does YOUR state compare as it relates to House representation? Are you and your state being treated unfairly under the current system? How does your state fare under the Plans A and B as proposed in the lawsuit?
To download a PDF, click here.
Supreme Court Cases
Thesis statement to support this lawsuit:
Government—National, State, and local—must grant to each citizen the equal protection of its laws, which includes an equal opportunity to influence the election of lawmakers, no matter how large the majority wishing to deprive other citizens of equal treatment or how small the minority who object to their mistreatment.
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 481, n.6 (1968).
Important cases involving apportionment and representation:
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968)
Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969)
Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542 (1969)
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973)
White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)
White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973)
Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977)
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)
United States Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992)
Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996)
Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)
Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)
Replies