When I was 16 and working in DC as an intern, being the upstart that I was, I asked my boss why there was a limit and was introduced to this whole issue. As for cost, well, it would be pretty darn big because there simply isn’t any more room in the House of Representatives. It would require building a new Capitol building; or having a separate building somewhere in DC (along with new office spaces). Now, when I was 16 (nearly 50 years ago) there was no such thing as the internet… and one would think that remote work might be an option today. But we all know how “secure” our internet is today. Much of the work these folks do actually involves (normally) that they walk and talk, have a coffee together, get their aides together to talk to each other, grab lunch together in the cafe, or just drop by each other’s offices for quick private meetings. There are committee meetings by the many dozens and they do (in normal times) actually meet face-to-face with constituents and lobbyists. So, remote work would still involve public facing offices nearby to each other. Creative thinking could solve this problem and we would have to hold our noses at the tear down of some historic buildings to make room for a new and much larger Capitol building somewhere nearby its current location. Many people may not know this, but there really is a whole network of underground tunnels connecting various buildings there which is why you rarely see your Senators and Representatives walking across the National Mall. They would rather hop on a golf cart underground and ride to their next meeting at an office building across the street. But perhaps a modernized, upgraded facility would benefit what they do. Certainly, these days, they no longer recognize or feel the great reverence for earlier greats who served (actually SERVED) our country. Maybe they just need the coldness of modernity to come back to their senses and do their jobs.
Chris, like every Substack you post, this one cries out for the pasturing of establishment Dems too long comfy in their minimally-confrontational roles. In that vain, and looking down the road, it strikes me that, for example, AOC might be far more valuable and effective as Speaker or Majority Leader than as President. Congress is where the action should and must be, and there is so much work to be done.
If representation is the foundation of a democracy, keeping the House frozen at 435 is a century‑long act of self‑sabotage. Expanding it is one of the few reforms Congress could pass tomorrow that would actually shift power back to citizens.
Just assign Senate activities to the Capitol building and build a bigger building for the House and joint sessions. To get TrumpleThinSkin to sign the bill, just include something that says his likeness will be on the new building, then make sure the likeness is bald and in an orange jumpsuit behind bars. A fun challenge for one of our more creative sculptors.
Done! I will advise you about what I receive. Here is the letter:
Dear Congressman Womack,
Congress capped the House of Representatives at 435 seats in 1929 and has kept it at that number for almost a century. The country has added more than 200 million people since then. The number of representatives has stayed at 435. The cap is a statute Congress wrote, and Congress can remove it the same way it imposed it.
One member for every 761,000 people limits how much direct contact any single constituent can have. No member can speak with most of the people in the district. Paid lobbyists and organized donors, who can contact a congressional office, gain influence over a member relative to ordinary constituents as the district grows.
Congress can uncap the House with an ordinary statute. The number 435 is set in federal law at 2 U.S.C. 2a, so changing it requires no constitutional amendment and no state ratification. Congress raised the number many times before 1929 and can raise it again.
I ask you to email me a written answer within two weeks whether you would support repeal or amendment of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and pledging to cosponsor a bill to expand the size of the House.
Here's the response (not even on House letterhead):
June 29, 2026
Dear Dr. Parrish II,
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for constitutional principles in government. It is good to hear from you.
Like you, I have a deep and abiding love for our Constitution, and I agree that leaders – from the President down – have an obligation to adhere to the principles espoused by our founding document. When they do not, we the people have an obligation to hold them accountable. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to uphold the Constitution.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you and be sure to visit my website, www.womack.house.gov, for more information and to sign up for my newsletter.
For more than a century, Congress has refused to uncap the House of Representatives, leaving millions of Americans underrepresented. The House has been frozen at 435 seats since 1929, even though the U.S. population has more than tripled.
With the 2030 Census approaching, it's time to fix this. Every census should result in a House that reflects the nation's growing population—not one locked into an arbitrary number set nearly 100 years ago.
A larger House would mean fairer representation, smaller congressional districts, and an Electoral College that better reflects today's America. Democracy works best when every voice has a fair chance to be heard.
And if Congress keeps putting this off, maybe we should tell them the House has been capped for so long it's now eligible for landmark status. At this rate, the only thing expanding in Washington is the excuses.
I would have to think about the idea for awhile before total agreement. First, I have always thought the Senate is unfair. A state of 700,000 persons has an overrepresented vote. My COUNTY has maybe 3x more than the aforementioned state. Second, figures need to be shown because the cost of adding that number would seem significant to me. Finally, can we just abolish the electoral college or somehow change to popular vote? At minimum ever state should have EC votes be apportioned by vote of each candidate not one candidate gets all the votes for a state.
This gives some hope for better representation. I live in a district with a mixed rural and urban population and have long thought that the interests of these two groups are often diametrically opposed. More is better!
I guess we'd need a 2/3 majority in both house and senate but it's a brilliant idea. It really shows how much Republicans have always known how unpopular their legislation is, except to the few, that they found so many ways to disenfranchise the many.
Fascinating. I had no idea how we got to the 435 number. Being a Californian, I have always been annoyed that, for example, Wyoming residents had more voice in the government. This is a great idea, but the difficulty will be getting it past the Senate (let alone the orange guy's signature).
This was definitely an “if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, that makes me psychic” moment. For whatever reason, I woke this morning thinking about exactly this issue. Then I saw this column. Actually, I was thinking the same thing regarding the Senate. Big donor states are as weary of unrepresentation as we are of donating to the feds for naked criminality. Let us keep on with sovereign state action.
We can as a nation afford to expand the Capital. If we can bomb Iran, build a ballroom and give tax cuts to families and corporations that would carry on just fine without them, surely we can build. Connect two chambers in a figure 8 with hard wired screens between them if you think the internet is insecure. There is plenty of land there to house more offices. Run airport style moving walks to offices next to the new chamber floor and enclosed halls to the neighboring “old” office wings. Rotate members chamber seats every two years so nobody whines about sitting in the addition. It’s all possible if we just choose. Smaller districts means more accountability and harder work for lobbists to buy them all. I love this idea and will be writing. You write too, please.
When I was 16 and working in DC as an intern, being the upstart that I was, I asked my boss why there was a limit and was introduced to this whole issue. As for cost, well, it would be pretty darn big because there simply isn’t any more room in the House of Representatives. It would require building a new Capitol building; or having a separate building somewhere in DC (along with new office spaces). Now, when I was 16 (nearly 50 years ago) there was no such thing as the internet… and one would think that remote work might be an option today. But we all know how “secure” our internet is today. Much of the work these folks do actually involves (normally) that they walk and talk, have a coffee together, get their aides together to talk to each other, grab lunch together in the cafe, or just drop by each other’s offices for quick private meetings. There are committee meetings by the many dozens and they do (in normal times) actually meet face-to-face with constituents and lobbyists. So, remote work would still involve public facing offices nearby to each other. Creative thinking could solve this problem and we would have to hold our noses at the tear down of some historic buildings to make room for a new and much larger Capitol building somewhere nearby its current location. Many people may not know this, but there really is a whole network of underground tunnels connecting various buildings there which is why you rarely see your Senators and Representatives walking across the National Mall. They would rather hop on a golf cart underground and ride to their next meeting at an office building across the street. But perhaps a modernized, upgraded facility would benefit what they do. Certainly, these days, they no longer recognize or feel the great reverence for earlier greats who served (actually SERVED) our country. Maybe they just need the coldness of modernity to come back to their senses and do their jobs.
Chris, like every Substack you post, this one cries out for the pasturing of establishment Dems too long comfy in their minimally-confrontational roles. In that vain, and looking down the road, it strikes me that, for example, AOC might be far more valuable and effective as Speaker or Majority Leader than as President. Congress is where the action should and must be, and there is so much work to be done.
Well said, Tom 🌲🌲🌲
If representation is the foundation of a democracy, keeping the House frozen at 435 is a century‑long act of self‑sabotage. Expanding it is one of the few reforms Congress could pass tomorrow that would actually shift power back to citizens.
Is there physical space in the US Capitol for a chamber of this size? Will Congress Critters vote to be a smaller fish in a bigger pond?
Just assign Senate activities to the Capitol building and build a bigger building for the House and joint sessions. To get TrumpleThinSkin to sign the bill, just include something that says his likeness will be on the new building, then make sure the likeness is bald and in an orange jumpsuit behind bars. A fun challenge for one of our more creative sculptors.
Problem solved!
The ballroom at the whitehouse
The WaPo did a piece about the actual size of the building back in 2023
Opinion | What the U.S. Capitol would look like with a bigger House - Washington Post https://share.google/TnZ83Ay0OBlC5P3IG
Done! I will advise you about what I receive. Here is the letter:
Dear Congressman Womack,
Congress capped the House of Representatives at 435 seats in 1929 and has kept it at that number for almost a century. The country has added more than 200 million people since then. The number of representatives has stayed at 435. The cap is a statute Congress wrote, and Congress can remove it the same way it imposed it.
One member for every 761,000 people limits how much direct contact any single constituent can have. No member can speak with most of the people in the district. Paid lobbyists and organized donors, who can contact a congressional office, gain influence over a member relative to ordinary constituents as the district grows.
Congress can uncap the House with an ordinary statute. The number 435 is set in federal law at 2 U.S.C. 2a, so changing it requires no constitutional amendment and no state ratification. Congress raised the number many times before 1929 and can raise it again.
I ask you to email me a written answer within two weeks whether you would support repeal or amendment of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and pledging to cosponsor a bill to expand the size of the House.
Best regards,
Richard Parrish
Excellent letter, Richard!
Thanks for sharing 🌲🌲🌲
Here's the response (not even on House letterhead):
June 29, 2026
Dear Dr. Parrish II,
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for constitutional principles in government. It is good to hear from you.
Like you, I have a deep and abiding love for our Constitution, and I agree that leaders – from the President down – have an obligation to adhere to the principles espoused by our founding document. When they do not, we the people have an obligation to hold them accountable. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to uphold the Constitution.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you and be sure to visit my website, www.womack.house.gov, for more information and to sign up for my newsletter.
Sincerely,
Congressman
Signature
Congressman Steve Womack
Member of Congress
For more than a century, Congress has refused to uncap the House of Representatives, leaving millions of Americans underrepresented. The House has been frozen at 435 seats since 1929, even though the U.S. population has more than tripled.
With the 2030 Census approaching, it's time to fix this. Every census should result in a House that reflects the nation's growing population—not one locked into an arbitrary number set nearly 100 years ago.
A larger House would mean fairer representation, smaller congressional districts, and an Electoral College that better reflects today's America. Democracy works best when every voice has a fair chance to be heard.
And if Congress keeps putting this off, maybe we should tell them the House has been capped for so long it's now eligible for landmark status. At this rate, the only thing expanding in Washington is the excuses.
The Cube Root Rule!
You are brilliant, Christopher! We need to Uncap the House! After all, it's about representation for, we the people.
I have been saying we need to expand the house to neutralize the gerrymander.
Skip the ballroom and Arch. We should be planning a major expansion of Capital Hill
Genius. Needs to be done. Increasing the number of districts would likely break the stranglehold the two major parties have at this point.
I would have to think about the idea for awhile before total agreement. First, I have always thought the Senate is unfair. A state of 700,000 persons has an overrepresented vote. My COUNTY has maybe 3x more than the aforementioned state. Second, figures need to be shown because the cost of adding that number would seem significant to me. Finally, can we just abolish the electoral college or somehow change to popular vote? At minimum ever state should have EC votes be apportioned by vote of each candidate not one candidate gets all the votes for a state.
This gives some hope for better representation. I live in a district with a mixed rural and urban population and have long thought that the interests of these two groups are often diametrically opposed. More is better!
I guess we'd need a 2/3 majority in both house and senate but it's a brilliant idea. It really shows how much Republicans have always known how unpopular their legislation is, except to the few, that they found so many ways to disenfranchise the many.
Fascinating. I had no idea how we got to the 435 number. Being a Californian, I have always been annoyed that, for example, Wyoming residents had more voice in the government. This is a great idea, but the difficulty will be getting it past the Senate (let alone the orange guy's signature).
This was definitely an “if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, that makes me psychic” moment. For whatever reason, I woke this morning thinking about exactly this issue. Then I saw this column. Actually, I was thinking the same thing regarding the Senate. Big donor states are as weary of unrepresentation as we are of donating to the feds for naked criminality. Let us keep on with sovereign state action.
P.S My letter is going to the Democratic Party(s). There is no point whatsoever in sending anything to my uber maga representative!
Fantastic idea
We can as a nation afford to expand the Capital. If we can bomb Iran, build a ballroom and give tax cuts to families and corporations that would carry on just fine without them, surely we can build. Connect two chambers in a figure 8 with hard wired screens between them if you think the internet is insecure. There is plenty of land there to house more offices. Run airport style moving walks to offices next to the new chamber floor and enclosed halls to the neighboring “old” office wings. Rotate members chamber seats every two years so nobody whines about sitting in the addition. It’s all possible if we just choose. Smaller districts means more accountability and harder work for lobbists to buy them all. I love this idea and will be writing. You write too, please.