I was going to comment about ME, but I see you've caught that.

Did you use the official 2000 numbers? I get the following list for apportionment (469K/seat with 600 seats):

AL 10, AK 1, AZ 11, AR 6, CA 72, CO 9, CT 7, DE 2, FL 34, GA 17, HI 3, ID 3, IL 26, IN 13, IA 6, KS 6, KY 9, LA 10, ME 3, MD 11, MA 14, MI 21, MN 11, MS 6, MO 12, MT 2, NE 4, NV 4, NH 3, NJ 18, NM 4, NY 40, NC 17, ND 1, OH 24, OK 7, OR 7, PA 26, RI 2, SC 9, SD 2, TN 12, TX 45, UT 5, VT 1, VA 15, WA 13, WV 4, WI 11, WY 1

A real change in the number of seats could in principle be placed into effect for 2010 to be used in the next apportionment. Using the projection method I discussed with jimrtex recently, and 600 seats, the ideal district would become 519K in 2010.

The new apportionment for 2010 would look like:

AL 9, AK 1, AZ 13, AR 6, CA 75, CO 10, CT 7, DE 2, FL 38, GA 19, HI 3, ID 3, IL 25, IN 12, IA 6, KS 5, KY 8, LA 9, ME 3, MD 11, MA 13, MI 20, MN 10, MS 6, MO 11, MT 2, NE 3, NV 6, NH 3, NJ 17, NM 4, NY 38, NC 18, ND 1, OH 22, OK 7, OR 7, PA 24, RI 2, SC 9, SD 2, TN 12, TX 48, UT 5, VT 1, VA 15, WA 13, WV 4, WI 11, WY 1

Excellent...