About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

51 Washburn L.J. 73 (2011-2012)
House of the Rising Population: The Case for Eliminating the 435-Member Limit on the U.S. House of Representatives

handle is hein.journals/wasbur51 and id is 75 raw text is: House of the Rising Population: The Case for Eliminating the 435-Member Limit on the U.S. House of Representatives Byron J. Harden* I. INTRODUCTION More than two centuries ago the Founding Fathers placed their lives in peril by standing up to British tyranny and declaring independence. They objected to the British assault on self-governance of the American colonies. Today, the Founding Fathers are being assaulted once again, this time by a statute that undermines the very process the Founders put into place to protect self-governance in the United States. Until 1929, an apportionment process tied to the decennial census determined the size of the U.S. House of Representatives.1 Accordingly, the membership of the House progressively increased in tandem with the increasing population.2 The Founding Fathers envisioned House membership increasing with the population in order for the House to remain representative of the people.3 However, The Founders' vision was destroyed by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 (1929 Act).4 This statute locked in House membership at the 1929 number of 435 members.5 Over eighty years later, the 435-member limit remains in effect, despite the U.S. population increasing over threefold during that period.6 House districts have become leviathans averaging over 500,000 persons per district.7 These colossal districts are as dangerous to the nation today as the British were at the time of the Founding. Unfortunately for citizens of the Unites States, few are willing to stand up and confront this danger. * B.A. 2009, Thomas A. Edison State College; J.D. Candidate 2012, Washburn University School of Law. A project of this magnitude requires the assistance and support of many people. Professionally, I would like to thank the Washburn Law Journal Editorial Board for your editorial assistance, Professor Reggie Robinson for your feedback, Clayton L. Barker, Esq., for granting access to your law library and knowledge, and the website www.thirty-thousand.org for giving me the idea and a starting point for this Note. Personally, I would like to thank my parents, fianc6, and friends for your support and my grandmother Edith Harden for inspiring me to write. 1. Charles A. Kromkowski & John A. Kromkowski, Why 435? A Question of Political Arithmetic, 24 POLITY 129, 133 (1991). 2. Id. 3. See infra Part II.A. 4. See infra Part II.B. 5. Id. 6. Clemons v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 710 F.Supp. 2d 570, 572 (N.D. Miss. 2010). 7. Kromkowski & Kromkowski, supra note 1, at 135. 73

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most