There were originally 12 articles proposed for ratification in the "bill of rights" ten were ratified soon after. One was ratified in 1992 and the remaining proposal has no deadline or date of expiration to be ratified and requires only one more state to accept it in order to be added to the Constitution.

The interesting part of this is that it would potentially increase the number of representatives in the house of representatives from 425 to approximately 6,400.

My question is as follows;

What are the possible consequences (positive and/or negative) and of the house of representatives being increased in such a drastic way?

  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Politics.SE because it isn't about law, it seems to be about political structure.
    – Ron Beyer
    Mar 15, 2019 at 2:26
  • @ron Beyer it's about law.... The United States Constitution is the basis of all law. The Supreme Court determines the validity of all laws through the reading and interpretation of the Constitution. Mar 15, 2019 at 2:40
  • I understand that, but it is a hypothetical question about the "consequences" of a political action. That alone is too broad, SE is about questions/answers not discussions. It would be like asking "what if congress made walking backwards illegal". Obviously the idea of 1 rep for every 50,000 people was thought about at a time when they couldn't imagine 300 million residents. It was never ratified because it simply would not work, there are a lot of amendments proposed that were DOA, this was just an early one. 6400 reps would basically mean the collapse of the house into chaos.
    – Ron Beyer
    Mar 15, 2019 at 2:50
  • 1
    @PeopleCallMeAdam just because something flows from the law or must comply with the law doesn't make it a legal question. the legal consequences of such a change are zero - congress would still pass laws, enforced by the administration and decided by the judiciary. Whether there are 425 or 6,400 or 3 or 2.6 million representatives is of no legal consequence. How it would work is a political question.
    – Dale M
    Mar 15, 2019 at 4:13
  • 1
    The effect ratifying this amendment would have is that the amendment would be ratified. Unless you have specific laws you think would change based on that, that's the end of the question. The consequences of such an action - what you're explicitly asking for - aren't on topic here. Mar 15, 2019 at 5:48

1 Answer 1


The legal consequence of ratifying this amendment is that it would become the 28th Amendment to the US constitution.

That simply means that there would be a number of elections with lots of election maps re-drawn. Also, the Capital building would likely have to be enlarged to accommodate more representatives.

Since ratification laws are based on the fraction of votes, it would not affect ratifying other laws.

There are no legal "ramifications."

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .