Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which states gained or lost US House seats after 2020 census?
Executive summary
After the 2020 Census, seven states lost one U.S. House seat each (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), while six states gained seats — five states gained one each (Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon) and Texas gained two seats (total six-seat gain) [1] [2]. In sum, seven seats moved away from seven states and six seats were added to six states, producing a net zero-sum shift among the 435 seats [1] [2].
1. What changed — the plain numbers
The Census Bureau’s apportionment delivered the formal seat counts: Texas +2; Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each +1; and California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each −1 [1] [2]. Multiple outlets and briefings reiterated these specific state gains and losses when the bureau published the apportionment on April 26, 2021 [3] [4].
2. Why those states — migration and growth patterns
Analysts note the pattern reflects longer-term population shifts: faster growth in many Sun Belt and Mountain West states and relative stagnation or decline in parts of the Northeast and Midwest. FiveThirtyEight summarized that Midwestern and Northeastern losses and Southern and Western gains continue a multi-decade trend tied to demographic and economic changes [3]. The Census Bureau’s own materials explain apportionment is purely population-based using the method of equal proportions [5].
3. The zero-sum game — what “gain” and “loss” really mean
Apportionment redistributes the fixed 435 House seats, so every seat gained by one state must be lost by another; the 2020 reapportionment moved seven seats among 13 states (six states gained seats, seven lost seats), not increasing the overall House size [1] [2]. The process uses a mathematical priority list; the outcome depends only on relative state populations as counted [5].
4. Political implications — contested interpretations
Commentators pointed out political implications: many gaining states lean Republican and many losing states lean Democratic, prompting debate about partisan effects. FiveThirtyEight warned that raw geography doesn’t guarantee partisan advantage because intra-state growth patterns and redistricting choices matter; fast-growing areas in red states can be Democratic-leaning [3]. Bloomberg Government also observed that partisan control of state legislatures affected how new maps were drawn, which in turn shaped electoral outcomes after reapportionment [6].
5. Accuracy debates and alternative analyses
Some groups and commentators questioned whether census undercounts or the treatment of noncitizens affected apportionment. The American Redistricting Project and others examined Post-Enumeration Survey results and modeled alternative scenarios; their analyses suggested some states’ counts might have been over- or under-counted but did not overturn the official apportionment [7]. Independent fact-checkers and analysts discussed how excluding unauthorized immigrants would have shifted only a handful of seats under extreme assumptions, and different studies reached different estimates [8].
6. Practical follow-ups — redistricting and local impacts
After apportionment, states received data for redistricting; how each state redraws its district maps determines how the population shifts translate into seats competitively and practically. The Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts and later redistricting data to states, and several states used independent commissions or legislative processes to redraw maps — choices that affected political control at the district level [1] [9].
7. Where reporting agrees and where it differs
Primary sources — the Census Bureau release and major analyses (FiveThirtyEight, Ballotpedia, Brennan Center, USAFacts) — agree on which states gained and lost seats and that Texas gained two [1] [3] [2] [10] [9]. Disagreements emerge mainly in downstream interpretation: how much apportionment altered partisan balance and how much census counting errors could have changed the outcome; those are debated and vary by methodology [3] [7] [8].
8. Limitations of available reporting
Available sources give consistent lists of gainers and losers and discuss trends and controversies, but they do not settle disputed claims that census “rigging” or specific counting errors definitively changed partisan control; such assertions are analyzed by third parties with divergent conclusions [11] [7] [8]. For claims not documented in the provided set of sources, available sources do not mention them.
If you want, I can produce a one‑page printable list of the 13 affected states and their seat changes, or dig deeper into any single state’s population trend and how it contributed to the apportionment outcome using the Census Bureau’s apportionment tables [12] [4].