Should Democrats Try to Expand the House?
Plus more discussion of the DNC, Trump's slush fund and whether progressives are dominating Dem primaries
Welcome to this week’s mailbag. So many questions this week, and so many of them are about the fallout from the Supreme Court ruling enabling racial gerrymandering. All of them dripping with existential dread — a sentiment I very much understand. Let’s get right into it, but first, some housekeeping.
These mailbags run every Saturday as a special feature for paid subscribers. Subscribe to get full access and drop your questions for future mailbags.
And don’t forget to leave your questions for next week’s mailbag in the comments.
Slow Loras
Dan, what impact do you think expanding the House to (population-of-US)/(population-of-Wyoming) representatives? This would have a big impact on the Electoral College, would probably make partisan gerrymandering a greater challenge (you’d end up splitting safe seats too finely to keep them safe?), and would just generally be more equitable (next stop: DC statehood).
Answer
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering, Democrats and others concerned about democracy have been looking for big structural solutions to a growing structural problem.
One idea getting a lot of discussion in certain corners is expanding the House. Unlike most other big democracy reforms — getting rid of the Electoral College, overturning Citizens United — changing the number of House members can be done legislatively. You do not need a constitutional amendment.
The 435 cap is set by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Congress could change it tomorrow with a simple majority in both chambers and a presidential signature. The only practical limitations set by the Constitution are that every state gets at least one representative and there can be no more than one representative per 30,000 people.
So it can be done. But is it a good idea, and should Democrats pursue it if and when we have a governing trifecta again?
