Appointment Methods for the House of Representatives and the Court Challenges
回顾了美国众议院席位分配方法的四种历史方案，重点分析了1991年蒙大拿州和马萨诸塞州对现行等比例法的合宪性挑战，以及最高法院1992年维持该方法的裁决。作者作为辩护方专家，提供了数学和统计方面的声明。
Four different methods have been used to apportion the seats in the United States House of Representatives among the states following the decennial census. The current method, the method of equal proportions, has been used for each census since 1940. In 1991, for the first time in U.S. history, the constitutionality of an apportionment method was challenged in court, by Montana and Massachusetts in separate cases. Montana proposed two methods as alternatives to equal proportions, the methods of harmonic means and smallest divisors, while Massachusetts proposed the method of major fractions. On March 31, 1992, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of equal proportions. This author wrote the declarations on the mathematical and statistical issues used by the defense in these cases. The declarations in the Massachusetts case contain several new theoretical and empirical results. This paper discusses the technical issues in these cases together with a brief history of the apportionment problem.