In the Detroit News, I have this op-ed with Michigan state representative Andrew Fink. It begins:

Michigan’s population grew by 2% in the last decade and now has more than 10 million inhabitants. But those Census figures couldn’t stop the state from losing a seat in the House of Representatives, dropping to 13 members.

When states grow in population, they shouldn’t lose influence in Washington. It’s time to expand Congress to represent the interests of a growing national population by amending the Constitution.

Representative Fink has introduced a joint resolution in the Michigan legislature to ratify the last pending amendment of James Madison, which would guarantee a representative in the House for every 50,000 people. (Fink is the first representative to introduce such legislation in any state in recent memory, but perhaps a reader with a longer memory can think of another instance!) That would expand the size of the House from 435 to around 7000. And it can be done without any congressional action.

I’m sure some readers would strongly oppose such a measure or think of it as absurd. We defend reasons to think why much more robust legislative oversight and a House much more closely connected to the people would be a good thing. (Professor Danielle Allen has been among those writing more recently on the topic and in defense of it, such as in this Washington Post piece.)

Congress approved the amendment in 1789, and 11 states ratified it. It would take 27 more for it to become an amendment to the Constitution. But if even one state ratified, we think it might spur serious reflection in Congress about what the appropriate size of the House ought to be–perhaps less than 7000, but something that would spur Congress to react.