At the House level, the most (from a non-At Large district) was CO-02 (457K) and the least was TX-33 (126K).
126k?!? Holy crap! Is that the district everyone goes to have kids or something?
That's in the Dallas area too, Geez if the Dems get turnout up in that district Texas probably could be competitive!
No, that district, like a few others in TX, like two districts in AZ, and like several districts in CA, is very heavily Hispanic. Many Hispanic residents of TX, AZ, and CA are not U.S. citizens. So therefore they're not eligible to vote. The Constitution says to count all residents of the states in order to apportion the seats of the House, it does not say to count only citizens (and ignore non-citizens). When the U.S. Supreme Court declared that there was a "one-person, one vote" principle implicit in the Constitution, and that all congressional districts within a state should have nearly identical numbers of voters, the Court was, at first, fibbing, and then it eventually clarified that what the Constitution actually requires is equal population in all districts, not equal numbers of voters. But when certain regions within a state have extremely high percentages of residents who are not citizens, the result is vast disparities in the numbers of votes that are actually cast in each congressional district. I've especially seen these vast disparities among the districts of those three states: Texas, Arizona, and California.
