Do We Need More Members of the House of Representatives?

There's a group out there that thinks so based on the disparities between low population and high population states. This is from their website:

A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi today challenging the constitutionality of the current size of the United States House of Representatives. The lawsuit argues that the provision in the United States Code (2 USC §2a) that freezes the size of the House at 435 members is unconstitutional, egregiously violating the well-established principle of “one person, one vote” affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions. At the state level, the implication of “one person, one vote” means that each state must ensure a population variance of less than 1% across all its federal congressional districts so that voter equality is strictly maintained. At the national level, however, this principle has not been applied, and the population variance between the most under-represented congressional district and most over-represented district exceeds 80%. Fortunately, the current disparity and resulting inequity can be remedied by simply adding more members to the House of Representatives.

The five plaintiffs in the case each represent the five most under-represented states and include: Lisa Schea from Delaware, John Tyler Clemons from Mississippi, Jessica Wagner from Montana, Krystal Brunner from South Dakota and Frank Mylar from Utah. Not only do these five plaintiffs suffer from unconstitutionally diminished voting power, but so do all other qualified and registered voters throughout these states. The five most over-represented states are: Iowa, Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wyoming. “Our Constitution was crafted around the idea that all citizens deserve an equal voice in the decisions of their government,” Clemons said. “If someone’s vote in Iowa or Wyoming counts for more than mine, how is that equality?”

Apportionment.US, Inc. is the non-profit organization coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. “The foundation of our constitutional form of government in America is defined by ‘We the People,’ which demands equal representation across our entire Republic,” said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US. He added, “Whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent, working to achieve equal representation is the ultimate non-partisan, grassroots effort that is worthy of support from all Americans.”

Despite the U.S. population more than tripling in the last 100 years (from less than 100 million to over 300 million people), the number of House representatives over the same time has remained identical at 435 members. Why has this inequity in voting rights and representation never been formally corrected or challenged? Scharpen answered, “It’s not clear. While many scholars and political analysts have raised these important issues, this lawsuit is the first of its kind seeking to correct the inequity, which clearly violates the Framers’ intent. We are committed to correcting the injustice perpetrated on the residents of these five states, but we are also working to ensure that both current and future generations of Americans across the land have a representative form of government that maintains structural equality for all.”

If this lawsuit is successful, the court will require an increase in House membership to achieve appropriate voter equality across America, and bring about perhaps the most significant change in the federal government structure in nearly a century.

It is easy to see how the small population states get the short end in the House, just as they do in the electoral college (each state gets electoral votes equal to their number of House and Senate members). A California voter's impact on a presidential election, or in the House is much greater than that of a South Dakota voter just because the potential impact of the vote is so much greater. I can sympathize with their complaint.

However, at the same time the last thing I'd like to see is more bureaucrats and their staff members running around Washington. We waste enough money on that town without paying for hundreds of more people to support new House members and their staff.

Right now I'm pretty much ambivalent on this one.