Press Release: 09/05/2020

Oral Argument Scheduled on 10/13 for the Lawsuit Demanding Equal Representation in the House of Representatives

New York City: Demanding equal representation for all Americans in the House of Representatives, Equal Vote America Corp. (EVA) have filed appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals against Congress (CASE # 19-3054) on the ground that the existing apportionment laws since 1929 are unconstitutional.

The Court has scheduled the oral argument on 10/13/2020.

On September 3, 2019, Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the case on the ground of lacking standing even though she sympathizes with Plaintiff that “our House representatives stand for 717,707 of us (New Yorkers) rather than a mere 563,626 Wyomingites.”

With all due respect to SDNY, we strongly disagree such decision. In 1857, the Supreme Court dismissed Dred Scott’s case also citing lack of standing because a black person, free or enslaved, was not a citizen protected by the Constitution. It was unanimously regarded as the worst decision in the court’s history. Employing legal technicality to perpetuate injustice was wrong in 1857, and must be equally wrong today in the 21st century.

Furthermore, the SDNY decision gives those dictatorship regimes the perfect propaganda that America’s democracy is a sham where our rights to equal vote and equal representation are not worth the paper they are printed on, and we as citizens have no recourse when our constitutional right is violated. The SDNY decision essentially has raised the following two troubling questions:

The redress that Plaintiff is seeking is a declaratory judgment by the Court – as the Supreme Court clearly did in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) – such as follows:

Once the existing reapportionment laws are declared unconstitutional, the current Congress has the duty and obligation under Article VI, Par. 2 & 3, and the power under Article I, § 1 & § 4, and the Fourteenth Amendment § 5 to enact new apportionment laws to not only honor the Founding Fathers’ Great Compromise, but also uphold the Constitution.

We propose “the Wyoming Rule of the Nearest Tenth Digit” to increase the number of house votes based on the least population state’s representative-to-population ratio rounded to the nearest tenth digit. According to 2017 Census estimates, Wyoming has the least population of 579,315. Hence for example, NY population (19,849,399) / (579,315) = 34.264, rounded to the nearest tenth digit, 34.3. Hence NY is entitled to 34.3 house votes instead of 27, i.e. 33 members have 1 vote each, the 34th member has a vote of 1.3 for a larger district. Likewise, Montanans would have one representative whose vote is worth 1.8.

Applying the same arithmetical operation to the three previous censuses, the variance of representations among all 50 states would be all within +/-5%, compared to currently from under 43% to over 7%.

More importantly, under this proposal all Americans of all states will be guaranteed equal presentation at the same time, there will be no American of any state ranked as “lower priority” any more.

Fellow Americans from 40 states have joined  this lawsuit by completing the Online Affidavit. Come join us, together, let’s honor our Founding Fathers, uphold our country’s founding principle and defend the Constitution.

For more information, please visit

Previous Press Releases:

2019/01/11; 2019/02/18; 2019/03/26; 2019/04/11; 2019/04/26; 2019/09/28

****** The History ******

At the Constitutional Convention 1787, James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan in which the population would elect the members of the lower house, which in turn would elect the members in the upper house. William Patterson countered with the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal representation of each state in a unicameral legislature. The convention almost fell apart until the founding fathers reached the Great Compromise — literally the founding agreement for the Union — to establish a bicameral legislature where the populace was represented in the House of Representatives, and the states were represented at the Senate. Hence, the Constitution provides:

In 1792 Washington, advised by Jefferson, exercised the very first presidential veto over the first apportionment bill precisely because these two founding fathers felt the bill failed to comply with the aforementioned founding agreement.

****** The Current Situation ******

However, the current apportionment laws since 1929 have caused significant unequal representation in the House of Representatives. Based on the 2010 Census Data, for example:

CA, TX, NY and FL have been deprived of at least 13, 9, 7 and 6 house seats, respectively. In fact, residents of 39 states (over 95% of national population) have been under-represented by at least 110 house seats in total. Click MyState to see how many house seats your state has been deprived of. Click here for State-by-State Unequal Representation.

***** Congress Has Violated … ******

Therefore, Congress has collectively dishonored the founding agreement reached by the founding fathers, and violated Article I, § 2 & the 14th Amendment § 2. Furthermore, the significant under-representation in the House of Representatives has violated over 95% of Americans’ constitutional rights with respect to …

It must be also noted that the Founding Agreement reached by our Founding Fathers has two sides, the House and the Senate. If the blatant breach on the Equal Representation in the House is not rectified, then the two-seat for every state at the Senate shall be declared illegitimate and no longer constitutional. Were our Founding Fathers alive today, they would have been outraged, and Washington and Jefferson would certainly have vetoed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 as they did in 1792.

***** Why We Filed This Lawsuit ******

In the fable Animal Farm by George Orwell, “All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals are More Equal than Others.

As proud Americans, we believe America is not such Animal Farm, and all Americans shall be equally represented in the House regardless of state residence according to our Founding Fathers’ Founding Agreement and the Constitution.

Our lawsuit has become a grass-root movement as more and more ordinary citizens from 13 states (AZ, CA, FL, IA, KY, MA, MO, NY, NJ, OR, TN, TX, and VA) have signed up to be co-plaintiffs  in our lawsuit demanding Congress to pass new apportionment laws to ensure Equal Representation for all Americans of all 50 states. Fellow Americans, please …

***** The Remedy Sought ******

The redress that Plaintiff is seeking is simply for the Court to make a declaratory judgment – as the Supreme Court clearly did in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) – such as follows:
The Apportionment Acts of 1911, 1929 and 1941 are unconstitutional with respect to the Great Compromise, Article I, § 1 & 2, Article IV, § 2, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Every American’s rights to equal representation in the House and equal vote in any election shall not be denied, diluted, debased, diminished, demeaned, disadvantaged, or manipulated in any way by any means on any account.

**** FQAs ******

What is the Great Compromise?

According to the Great Compromise, the Constitution Provides:

Do You Know the Original First Amendment?

Do You Know the First Presidential Veto?

What are the existing apportionment laws?

The Triple-Injustice for over 95% of Americans:​