House Expansion Deserves a Serious Hearing by the People
Any argument against uncapping the House needs more than a prediction that powerful people will resist it.
In his recent article, How Do We End Gerrymandering for Good?, author Rufus Cox ponders the idea of federal House expansion before arriving at the following conclusion:
“Broader structural reforms to prevent gerrymandering [e.g. expanding the House and reducing district sizes]…seem to face too high of barriers to be implemented at the federal level.”
Now, dismissing the expansion of the U.S. House of Representatives as politically out of reach requires evidence, especially when the alternative faces many of the same obstacles.
Mr. Cox offers two reasons for skepticism: the longevity of the 435-seat cap (113 years), and the major parties’ incentive to resist competition. While these deserve consideration, they certainly don’t establish why expansion should be outright dismissed, especially when other reforms to end gerrymandering face the same political resistance.
The truth is that Congress can change House membership through legislation. House expansion does not require a constitutional amendment, and the Constitution itself does not prescribe 435 seats. In fact, the Constitution provides for population-based representation that is increased with each census. But things changed drastically in 1929 with the passing of the Permanent Apportionment Act, which froze the House-seat number at 435 (the 1913 count).
But with this in mind, it’s important to remember: Congress made these choices and Congress can make another one. Calling an apportionment act “permanent” does not prevent later lawmakers from changing it. For expansion to occur, legislation would need to clear both chambers and become law, ordinarily with the president’s signature. Overcoming a legislative filibuster under the Senate’s usual rules generally requires 60 votes. That obstacle also confronts other ambitious federal election reforms.
Mr. Cox ultimately favors federal legislation establishing independent redistricting commissions, arguing that public pressure could overcome congressional resistance. But this raises a question: if Mr. Cox is emphatic in his reasoning, why should this strategy be considered workable for commissions but inadequate for expansion? Commissions would take power away from partisan mapmakers. They, too, threaten entrenched interests. If organizing and electoral pressure can overcome that opposition, I believe that expansion deserves the same consideration.
My ultimate argument here is that until the People of the United States force Congress to uncap the House, Mr. Cox’s solution is impossible.
Now, full admission, a long history of inaction indicates that change will take work. Furthermore, this change doesn’t tell us which arguments voters will find persuasive, which legislators could be persuaded, or what compromises might produce a majority—and treating today’s political incentives as permanent risks discouraging the very organizing that could result in change.
And yet, despite these visible roadblocks, there are already concrete proposals, pathways, and workarounds being explored. For example, on June 25, 2025, Representative Sean Casten introduced the Equal Voices Act, proposing House expansion around a district population target of approximately 500,000. But Rep. Casten isn’t the only one taking initiative. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has laid out a proposition for a 585-member House, paving the way for future growth. The proposition’s authors include Lee Drutman, Jonathan D. Cohen, Yuval Levin (a Project No Cap Board Member), and Norman Ornstein.
Party incentives deserve closer examination, too. Candidates outside Congress might welcome additional seats. Parties disadvantaged by existing maps might see opportunities in new districts. Communities feeling overlooked might favor smaller constituencies. These possibilities warrant investigation rather than assumptions of permanent, unified opposition. The Academy’s modeling of Houses with 435 to 700 seats, using the 2020 election as its baseline, found relatively small and variable partisan effects. That cannot predict future outcomes, but it challenges claims that expansion necessarily delivers a decisive advantage to one major party.
Expansion also addresses something fairer boundaries cannot: how many people each representative serves. Currently, each Representative is responsible for roughly 760,000 people (and growing). Uncapping the House creates possibilities for more accessible representation.
Political resistance is real. Whether it can be overcome is partly the question public advocacy exists to answer. Before writing off expansion, we should give the People a serious opportunity to consider it!
Bill Robinson, California
Edited by Matt Beyer
This article was originally posted in the The Uncapped Papers by Project No Cap
Comments