A dispute involving the state of Montana has sparked an alarming idea: increasing the size of Congress.
It wouldn't be a big increase - just six or seven members added to the House, perhaps just temporarily to tide Montana over to the next Census.After every Census, the population is totaled and divided by 435, the number of House members, and that gives the size of each House district - currently 572,446 people.
Montana has 803,655, not enough for two congressional districts but, the state argues, way, way too many for one. Montana would like the Supreme Court to ensure that the state continues to have two House members in Congress for the next 10 years.
Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that Congress just cap the number of House members from California at 45 - it is supposed to rise to 52 - and divvy up the seven seats among states like Montana that are populationally impaired.
Californians were not as immediately opposed to the Scalia formula as you might think. Scripps Howard's Mary Deibel put the solution to Vic Fazio, a California Democrat, who quickly and willingly offered to sacrifice his colleague, Bill Dannemeyer, a Republican.
In the early days of the Republic, Congress regularly increased its size and, as so often happens with Congress, got carried away with itself.
In its first full decade, Congress doubled to 106 members. It grew another 120 percent in the next 60 years; 42 percent in the next 30; and 31 percent in the 30 after that, until 1910 when Congress got uneasy and called a halt at 435 House members.
If congressional seats had been passed out according to the original formulation, the House would now have about 8,400 members.
Suppose we increased the House to about that number? For a start, that would mean 230,000 jobs for staff aides, counsels, assistants and other assorted spear-carriers.
There are, by one measure, 80,000 some lobbyists in Washington to lobby members of Congress, about 200 per House member. With 8,400 in the House, there would be 1.6 million new jobs for lobbyists, who would have to be fed and housed at great expense.
While this would be a boon of sorts to the economy - it would cut the unemployment rate alone by 20 percent - we would have to sell Montana to pay for it.
Why don't we just let Montana have its second House member and not tell anybody? Who's going to notice there's 436 of them when there's only supposed to be 435?