R59.1 2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters, Whitepaper I

Official Workbook report source text

Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.

Report number/id

R59.1

Report title

R59.1 2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters, Whitepaper I

Workbook start page

147

Workbook end page

155

Source pages

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155

Source status

source_checked

Committee

Not available

R59.1

2026 Convention Workbook
148 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
3 
The heights of solid bars inFigure 1(excluding the slashed portion at the top, which reflects visitation circuits 1 
“combined away” into others to reach electoral circuit requirements) represent the number of electoral 2 
circuits formed for each convention, the green (lower) bar, those meeting the requirements and the red, 3 
yellow, and orange bars representing exceptions granted by the Office of the President to those that did not.4 
Throughout the period of Figure 1, in comparison to the circumstances of1969, when the present system was 5 
put into use, the Synod has had, on average, fewer and increasingly fewer confirmed members in an 6 
“average” electoral circuit than in 1969; it has also had fewer congregations per electoral circuit, although 7 
this ratio is increasing . In 1969, there were 11.5 member congregations and 3,928 confirmed members, on 8 
average, per electoral circuit; in 1998, there were 10 and 3,247; in 2023, 10.9 and 2,622.59 
Comparing lines to bars in Figure 1, the voting size of the convention 6 has only recently begun to trend 10
moderately downward in response to slight decline in the number of member congregations (5,775 in 2023 11
vs. 6,033 in 2004) and significant decline in confirmed membership(1.39M in 2023 vs. 1.95M in 1998). There 12
were 532 electoral circuits in 2023 compared to a 2004 high of 628, a decline of 15% in a period that saw a 13
27% decline in confirmed membership and a 5% decline in the number of member congregations. 14
There is a stable, regional non-uniformity. Figure 2 shows, for each region,7 in 2010 and 2023,the proportion 15
of confirmed members and congregations, plus the number of exceptions , all of which contribute to the 16
number of electoral circuits, and the number of non- SMP parish pastors .8 Exceptions tend to be granted 17
disproportionately in the ESE and WSW regions, as well as, to a lesser extent, the non-geographical districts,18
offsetting a relatively lower number of confirmed members in those regionsand a commensurate challenge 19
forming compliant electoral circuits—a long-term pattern, as the comparative data from 2010 indicate.9  20
5 Such averages are useful for general comparison over time of representation rates but obscure wide variance among actual circuits.
6 In 2023, the 532 electoral circuits were ultimately represented by 521 pastoral and 502 lay voting delegates plus 453 advisory and 
other registered attendees, for a total of 1,476, at the lower end of a range that has varied between 1,459 and 1,633 since 1989. In that 
period, the number of voting delegates (representing circuits) grew gradually from 1,139 in 1989 to 1,241 in 2004 and has declined 
since, the number of advisory and other registrants increasing significantly from 363 in 1989.
7 While the designated regions have no formal connection to circuit alignment or convention representation, they do provide familiar 
and reasonable “clusters” for analytical purposes. For the purposes of this study, the congregations of nongeographical districts 
(English and SELC) are removed from their usual regions and treated separately as one non-geographic region (“(NG)”).
8 These are eligible to serve as pastoral delegates to the Synod convention.
9 According to Bylaw 3.12.1, regions “shall take into consideration geographical and number of congregations information in the 
interest of fair representation.” They have, in addition, been formed in an attempt not to exacerbate imbalance of confirmed 
Figure 2: Proportion of Electoral and Visitation Circuits, Congregations, Confirmed Members, Non -SMP Pastors, and 
Exceptions per Region, 2010 and 2023
4 
2. Characterization of Current Visitation and Electoral Circuits1 
The Office of the President approved 532 electoral circuits for representation at the 2023 convention. Of 2 
these, 413 were visitation circuits thatsatisfied the minimum requirements in their own right, 59 were pairs 3 
of adjacent visitation circuits (7 of which had more than 20 congregations ), and 3 were triples of adjacent 4 
visitation circuits ( 2 of which had more than 20 congregations) . 57 (11%) were under requirements and 5 
received exceptions: 7, having fewer than 7 congregations; 49, having fewer than 1,500 members (10 of which 6 
were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits) ; and 1 , having both fewer than 7 congregations and fewer than 7 
1,500 members. Of the 57 “underage” exceptions, as noted above, 17 were granted to geographical districts 8 
in the WSW region and 16 in the ESE region.9 
Figure 3 shows, on a logarithmic axis, boxplot 10 histograms indicating the distribution of the confirmed 10
member sizes of the circuits in each district (the width of each box reflecting the number of circuits in each 11
district). Data are from SY2021, used to apportion circuits for the 2023 convention. The dark red line indicates 12
the lower bound of 1,500 confirmed members; the other two red lines are at 1,630 members and 1,792 13
members, the confirmed member sizes (all other things being equal) a circuit would need to have in 2023 to14
meet the requirement of 1,500 members, after atypical 8% triennial decline, in 2026 and, after an additional 15
9% triennial decline, in 2029, respectively. The darker red dots represent electoral circuits that received 16
exceptions in 2023; the lighter red dots, those that may require exceptions or realignment or combination of 17
adjacent visitation circuits , all other things being equal, for 2026  (52 circuits) and 2029 (49 circuits). With 18
these threshold lines moving well into the “box” of the two center quartiles (and even to or beyond the 19
median for districts like EN, SELC, MDS, OK, NE, SE, SO, WY, CNH and NOW), and with the total number of 20
exceptions required to maintain the present apportionment of circuits nearly doubling and tripling the 21
membership. It is important to note that electoral circuit metrics explicitly take into account confirmed membership. Higher 
historical rates of confirmed membership decline in the ESE and WSW regions may have contributed to the se regions’ heightened 
exception rate; geographical challenges and lower concentrations of LCMS presence may also play a role.
10 A boxplot represents a “distribution curve” (ideally, the familiar “bell curve”) coming up out of the page. The colored box represents 
the middle quartiles (half the data points) with the divider at the me dian. The “whiskers” protruding from the box represent the 
outer quartiles, but to a distance no more than 1.5 times the interquartile distance. Outliers beyond the whiskers are marked as black 
dots.
Figure 3: Distribution, Confirmed Membership of 2023 Electoral Circuit s (SY2021 data; thresholds at 1 ,500, 1,630, and 
1,792; see text)

2026 Convention Workbook
149
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS5 
number of exceptions that would be required in the next two conventions, it is clear that “doing nothing” is 1 
not a realistic option.112 
Figure 4 adds another dimension of the 2023 convention circuit apportionment, indicating on the vertical 3 
axis the number of congregations involved in each electoral circuit as well as (by the color of the dot) the 4 
number of visitation circuits included in each combined electoral circuit. Confirmed member thresholds 5 
are indicated as in Figure 3. The figure also distinguishes by color those electoral circuits formed of two or 6 
three adjacent visitation circuits. Evident from the figure are the following:7 
• Exceptions based on confirmed membership are today numerous in the WSW and ESE re gions; 8 
many electoral circuits in all regions, however, are likely within one or two conventions of falling, all 9 
things being equal, below that bar. With the greatest concentration of “optimized” circuits near 10
1,500 confirmed members and also the greatest historic confirmed member loss rates, the WSW and 11
ESE regions will continue to prove challenging for continuing apportionment of electoral circuits at 12
near-present levels.13
• A great number of circuits are also right at the minimum of 7 congregations, across all regions, and 14
are within one closure or merger of falling below that requirement (future closures are not modeled). 15
• There are presently many adjacent visitation circuits combined for purposes of representation in the 16
ESE and WSW regions and nongeographic districts (orange and red dots), but fewer elsewhere. 17
• In the WSW region, many of these combined circuits nonetheless require, or likely soon will, 18
exceptions for confirmed membership. A number of combined circuits, largely in the WSW, ESE, and 19
GP regions, have more than 20 congregations; as further combinations occur, perhaps to triple -20
circuit combinations rather than double, this can be expected to increase, perhaps markedly . This 21
may have a negative impact on the many far -flung congregations meeting together to determine 22
their representationor discuss. Electronic meeting is possible but has its own significant challenges. 23
11 Of course, one realistic option for “doing something” may be leaving requirements as they are, requiring districts to realign circuits
o n  t h e  u n d e r s t a n d i n g  t h a t  t h e  O f fi c e  o f  t h e  P r e s i d e n t  w i l l  l i k e l y  control the number of exceptions granted to a reasonable and 
customary level around 10%. It is important to note that any change recommended by the task force would impact, at the earliest, 
the 2029 convention.
Figure 4: Confirmed Membershipand Congregations of 2023 Electoral Circuits by Region (SY2021 data; confirmed 
membership thresholds at 1,500, 1,630, and 1,792; see explanation of Figure 3 in text), Indicating Combined Circuits  
6 
• A number of circuits with very large congregations have been granted exceptions on the number of 1 
congregations required, along with some more moderately -sized circuits (these fall below the 2 
horizontal red bar). 3 
3. Characterization of Confirmed Membership Change4 
The rate of confirmed membership change over time is a factor in the “stability” of circuit designations, 5 
electoral circuit combinations, and the rate of requests for exceptions. Electoral circuit qualification is based 6 
on the statistics gathered in the year prior to the convention (i.e., the 2023 convention relied on SY2021 7 
confirmed membership data as of December 31, 2021, gathered by roughly June 2022; the 2026 convention 8 
will rely on SY2024 data). District alignment of visitation regions, usually done at district conventions in the 9 
year prior to the Synod convention, generally relies on the previous statistical year (SY), so districts have to 10
predict circuits likely to drop below requirements in the intervening year of data reporting.11
Through the period 1994 –2022, t he confirmed membership of the Synod has been decreasing at an 12
accelerating rate, with some regional variation. Figure 5 shows the triennial rate of confirmed membership 13
change throughout the period for each district and region (these data are presented to show the trendusing 14
LOESS, or “locally-weighted scatterplot smoothing”). The confirmed membership of the Synod as a whole 15
was experiencing 2% triennial loss in 200 3, 4% in 201 1, 6% in 201 6, and approaching 8% in 2023. In 2022, 16
the WSW Region was experiencing 9.5% triennial loss (with CNH and NOW districts reporting experiencing17
12–13% reported triennial losses, despite having some of the greatest reporting lags in the Synod, which may 18
mean the actual reportable losses at present may be significantly higher). ESE, CEN, and GL regions are near 19
the Synod average, while the GP Region and non-geographic districts are experiencing 5–6% triennial losses.20
This means an electoral circuit of 1,630 confirmed members at the time of one convention’s electoral circuit 21
qualification will likely have, allother things being equal, 1,500 for the next, and 1,380 for the one thereafter.22
(In the WSW region, again, all other things being equal, a circuit would need 1,657 members at one 23
convention to have 1,500 for the next;and in the GP Region, 1,590.) 24
Of course, these changes are not uniform within a given district. Figure 6 shows the distribution (in box-plot 25
form, with the colored portion of the box reflecting the two inner quartiles, or half the circuits) of recent rates 26
of confirmed membership change across the districts—a reminder that “all other things” are rarely equal.A 27
considerable number of circuits reported confirmed membership losses, over the past three years, of more 28
Figure 5: Triennial Rate of Reported Confirmed Member Gain / Loss by District / Region, 1994–2022

2026 Convention Workbook
150 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
7 
than 10%, with some districts having half or more of their circuits in this range.12 At the same time, there are 1 
districts reporting as many as a quarter of their circuits having net gains in the past three years.In this sense, 2 
the vertical lines indicated in Figures 3 and 4 to show threats to circuit stability may here and there—and 3 
more frequently in the WSW region—underestimate the challenge at hand, or, in fewer places, overstate it. 4 
Suggested by these data is a fundamental philosophical question for the task force: To what extent should 5 
the convention shrink to reflect this decline (see also Figure 1)? On the one hand, a proportional “shrinkage”6 
seems rational; on the other, it would result in “loss of representational resolution” in the areas of the Synod 7 
where our congregations and ministerium and visitation are stretched the thinnest, areas in which 8 
congregations face unique challenges and areas that may in some ways be the “tip of the spear” for all.  9 
4. Selected Changes Proposed at the Level of Synod Convention Overtures for the Formation of10
Circuits, Visitation and Electoral11
In addition to the adopted changes detailed in the rationale to 2023 Res. 9-06A, there have been over the years 12
any number of overtures and resolutions proposing changes to the requirements and/or process for the 13
formation of visitation and/or electoral circuits. These are briefly summarized as follows, going back only to 14
2010, the most recent restructuring of the Synod (interestingly, the part of the restructuring that would have 15
changed how Synod convention delegates were elected received another three years of discussion and then 16
was roundly defeated, as 2013 Res. 7-07A, by a vote of 62 in favor and 830 opposed).  17
More recent proposals have been less (conceptually, if not numerically) radical, suggesting dropping the 18
confirmed membership requirement to 1,250, 1,000, or 750, and/or revising the congregation requirement to 19
5. Such proposals would render presently exceptional circuits unexceptional and give some degree of buffer 20
of stability into the future. They would, however, if adopted alone , also introduce the possibility of at least 21
some districts “optimizing” circuits for the new limits, trading stability for representational share. To the 22
extent this is done, representational shift will occur and the sought-after stability would not be achieved.23
12 A study on the regional level of circuits segmented by starting confirmed membership “size” indicated no significant correlat ion 
between that size and the circuit’s rate of change in the years 2019–22. 
Figure 6: Distribution of Visitation-Circuit-Level Reported Confirmed Membership Change, 2019–22
8 
Interesting “tweaks” have included allowing a lower congregational bound for circuits with more than 4,000 1 
confirmed members or requiring a certain number of installed pastors. These would tend to balance the 2 
possibility of realignment to much smaller circuits with fewer members, either by allowing greater 3 
representation for the largest congregations or by limiting the division of new circuits.4 
Long-term (at least three triennia) stability of representation has been proposed a number of times as a 5 
desirable feature (perhaps by allowing automatic exceptions for a certain number of conventions for a once-6 
valid circuit falling below bounds) but never adopted.7 
Table 1: Overview of Convention Overtures and Resolutions regarding Synod Convention Representation, 2010–238 
2023 Ov. 9-01, 13 To appoint task force to study (adopted as 2023 Res. 9-06A)
Ov. 9-12 To lower confirmed membership requirement proportional to change in membership, in 
consultation with Council of Presidents
Ov. 9-14 To lower confirmed membership requirement to 1,250
Ov. 9-15 To l ower congregation requirement to 5 and confirmed membership to 1,000, with the 
districts setting the circuits at the beginning of a decade and the circuits remaining valid 
despite changes
Ov. 9-16 To lower congregation requirement to 5 and confirmed membership requirement to 750
Ov. 9-17 To eliminate distinction between visitation and electoral circuits and eliminate confirmed 
membership requirement
2019 Ov. 9-06, 07 To a llow district board of directors to shift congregations to meet electoral circuit 
requirements, but to create no more electoral than visitation circuits
Ov. 9-08 To allow each district president to grant exception to no more than 20% of his district’s 
electoral circuits
Ov. 9-09 To eliminate distinction between visitation and electoral circuits and eliminate confirmed 
membership requirement, requiring at least 7 pastors (excluding the effect of pastoral 
vacancies).
Ov. 9-11 See 2013 Ov. 7-15
2016 Ov. 11-38 To allow d istrict boards of directors to align according to existing criteria but with
alignments remaining valid for 9 years.
Ov. 11-39 To allow d istrict boards of directors establish electoral circuits independent of visitation 
circuit boundaries, with a minimum of 7 congregations and 1,500 members, except that if 
5,000 confirmed members are represented, only 4 congregations are required.
2013 Ov. 7-03 To allow visitation circuits to be distinct from electoral circuits
Ov. 7-08 To study definition of electoral circuits
Ov. 7-14, 24
Res. 7-07A 
(declined)
To elect Synod convention delegates by electoral circuit caucus at district conventions, with 
a total number of delegates equal to 10% of the number of Synod congregations (this would 
be c. 580). Ordained/ lay delegate pairs would be allotted to districts proportional to the 
average of their proportions of member congregations and confirmed members.  Delegates 
would need to be present at the district convention; ordained would not be required to be 
parish pastors. (Ov. 7-24 from COH in response to referral of 2010 Res. 8-05B.)

2026 Convention Workbook
151
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS9 
22001100  Ov. 8 -28– 29, 
31– 32 
To reject Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG)  proposal 
to elect Synod convention delegates at district conventions 
  Ov. 8-43 To return to direct representation of each pastor and congregation at the Synod convention 
  Ov. 8-56 To remove distinction of electoral and visitation circuits. Require 10 – 15 congregations in 
geographic proximity , of compact shape. Large congregations of over 2,000 baptized 
members are to be dispersed to the extent possible, starting with metropolitan areas. Allow 
geographical exceptions for circuits with one -way drive time to a central location of more 
than three hours. 
  BRTFSSG 
Ov. 8-44 
Res. 8-05B 
(referred) 
To fix convention voting delegate count at 650, 325 ordained/commissioned ministers and 
325 lay. These would be sent by each district in a number proportional to the average of its 
proportions of member congregations and confirmed members. Election would be by 
circuit caucus at the district convention, the electoral circuits being formed early in the 
convention. 
This resulted in 2010 Res 8 -05B, which was referred to the Commission on Handbook 
(COH). (Ov. 8-44 was similar but with delegates being pastor/lay.) 
While even a resounding rejection of a resolution does not necessarily mean that the delegates shared a 1 
common reason for rejecting it, it does seem likely that the resounding defeat of 2013 Res. 7 -07A— albeit 2 
more than a decade ago — suggests that, despite its challenges, the Synod’s congregations remain quite 3 
attached to the present system, in which visitation circuits gather individually or with neighbors to elect 4 
directly their member congregations’ pastoral and lay representation at the Synod convention. 5 
While various adjustments of parameters have been proposed, this has been done without a great deal of 6 
insight into how these adjustments could not only arrest the decline of but potentially dramatically increase 7 
the size of the Synod convention, or have the potential to encourage districts so inclined to sacrifice stability 8 
or visitation circuit viability for representational share. This is the topic of this document’s next section. 9 
55..  AAnnaallyyssiiss  ooff  PPootteennttiiaall  CChhaannggee  dduuee  ttoo  VVaarriiaattiioonn  ooff  EElleeccttoorraall  CCiirrccuuiitt  FFoorrmmaattiioonn  PPaarraammeetteerrss  10 
What would be the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes to representational 11 
balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7 member 12 
congregations and 1,500 confirmed members)? The answer to this question is not simply mathematical but 13 
also geographical, and the unique features of the districts (principally, distribution of congregation 14 
membership count and geographic dispersal of congregations with large membership) make it impossible 15 
to adopt a generally useful “rule of thumb.” Recalling Figure 1, the number of congregations in the Synod 16 
suggest the possibility of 825 electoral circuits (for the 2023 convention) and the number of confirmed 17 
members, 930, but the actual number of electoral circuits, 532, is 64% of the one (districts ranging from 43% 18 
to 89%) and 57% of the other (districts ranging from 40% to 100%). 19 
A set of experiments was conducted using a heuristic Max-P Regionalization algorithm13 adapted to make use 20 
of multiple spatially extensive regional attribute thresholds (in this case,  principally, number of 21 
congregations and collective confirmed membership, but also in some instances the number of parishes or 22 
non-SMP pastors installed). Max-P attempts to cluster a set of geographic areas into the maximum number 23 
of “homogeneous” regions such that each cluster satisfies such thresholds. In this instance, the measure of 24 
 
13 https:/ /pysal.org/spopt/notebooks/maxp.html. 999 iterations were used, with 10 rounds of simulated annealing on each viable 
partition. The code was adapted by the author to allow multiple dimensions of spatially extensive thresholds and fo r generalized 
threshold functions (i.e., not requiring simply x congregations and y confirmed members but satisfaction of a function of x and y) 
and corrected to avoid a deadlock condition. 
10 
“homogeneity” is strictly geographical; the latitude and longitude were used as the homogeneity variables 1 
to keep the circuits formed as geographically compact as possible.  2 
These experiments have important limitations. Being a stochastic, heuristic algorithm, there is no guarantee 3 
that the algorithm achieves the maximum number of electoral circuits possible. It is theoretically possible 4 
that it understates to some (likely small) degree the number of electoral circuits possible. It also assumes no 5 
exceptions, which we know are presently occurring at a rate of about 11%. More importantly, it may ignore 6 
important geographical features (i.e., mountain ranges, bodies of water, non-Euclidean travel times) or the 7 
many other factors that rightly go into the selection of visitation and electoral circuits. It is likely that, 8 
because of all these factors, the algorithm  likely somewhat overstates the number of reasonably achievable 9 
circuits.  10 
Nonetheless, noting that 15% of 2023 circuits are already exceptional relative to SY2022 data,14 the number 11 
of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2022 data for a given district varied from 96% to 139% 15 of those aligned 12 
for the 2023 convention, with a median (coincidentally) of 111%  (standard deviation 12%). Some districts 13 
(e.g., AT, CNH, NJ, OK, PSW, SELC, SE, SW, TX, WY) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize 14 
representation16 (Max-P forms 4% fewer to 5% more circuits); others (CI, MNS, MT, ND, NE, NEB, NI, NW, 15 
OH, RM, SD, SI) are far ther from such  (Max-P forms 20– 39% more circuits), possibly reflecting other 16 
alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long-term rather than continually realign to maximize 17 
representation. 18 
These preliminaries out of the way, we will now evaluate, for a variety of parameter selections, the extent to 19 
which a given set of parameters : (1) renders presently or likely- soon-to-be exceptional circuits 20 
unexceptional; and (2) would give districts the option  of optimizing their representation to new, lower 21 
standards, increasing their representation share and the size of the total convention delegation.  Max-P 22 
enables the second measure. 23 
Table 2: Percent of 2023 convention circuits (assuming no realignment  or recombination of visitation circuits , and an 8 – 9% 24 
triennial drop in confirmed membership) that would require exceptions for the 2026 (see text), 2029, and 2032 conventions 25 
Congregations  
Confirmed Members  Confirmed Members  Confirmed Members  
800 1000 1200 1500  800 1000 1200 1500  800 1000 1200 1500 
4 0% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 29%  1% 5% 18% 39% 
5 1% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 30%  2% 5% 18% 39% 
6 1% 2% 5% 21%  1% 2% 9% 30%  2% 5% 19% 40% 
7 2% 3% 6% 22%  2% 4% 11% 31%17  3% 7% 20% 41% 
 SY2024 proj. (2026 convention)  SY2027 proj. (2029 convention)  SY2030 proj. (2032 convention) 
Under the assumption that districts do not realign or recombine 2023 circuits, Table 2 shows, for a variety of 26 
combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and minimum confirmed 27 
members) the estimated proportion of 2023 circuits (assuming an 8 – 9% triennial drop in confirmed 28 
membership and no congregation closures or mergers) that would require exceptions for the 2026,18 2029, and 29 
2032 conventions. As indicated previously, 22% of existing 2023 electoral circuits would require exceptions 30 
 
14 11% were exceptional at the time 2023 convention representation was fixed on the basis of SY2021 data. 
15 If Max-P is taken as an “upper bound” on the number of possible circuits, district “efficiency” at forming “optimal representation” 
circuits ranges from 72% to 104% (median 90%; value in excess of 100% possible due to exceptions) . Max-P, taking into account 
geographical constraints, presents a tighter upper bound on the number of unexceptional electoral circuits possible to form given a 
particular set of parameters. It is useful as a bound but not likely useful as a method, as it takes into account only optimization for 
maximum representation and that, with an imperfect understanding of real travel times. 
16 This is not the only, and perhaps not the most important factor for “optimization” of visitation and electoral circuits. 
17 These are not evenly distributed: 65% of non-geographical circuits, 45% of those in the WSW region, and 39% of those in the ESE 
region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2023 circuits in 2029, with 15– 30% requiring them in other regions. 
18 Note that any changes to the circuit formation parameters would take effect subsequent to the 2026 convention; hence, the shading 
of all but the lower-right corner of the 2026 frame.

2026 Convention Workbook
152 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
11
for 2026, 31% for 2029, and 41% for 2032. If the confirmed member requirement were reduced to 1200, the 1 
exception rate could be held to 11% for the 2029 convention (but would likely rise to 20% for 2032).Lowering 2 
the confirmed member requirement to 1200 would likely allow 6 additional visitation circuits in 2029 due 3 
to splitting of electoral circuits combined for 2023, but these , too, would likely revert by 2032. It should be 4 
noted that in the “congregation requirement” dimension, closures, mergers, and charters are not modeled.5 
It must at the same time be asked, however, if districts were to take advantage of changed circuit 6 
requirements to realign circuits to optimize for representation, how significant the change in proportional 7 
representation or in the total convention size would be. A significant increase in convention size might have 8 
undesirable budgetary and logistical complications, and a significant potential for districts to increase their 9 
proportion of representation, potentially at the cost of visitation or other “working” aspects of current 10
circuits may also raise appropriate concern. The previously described Max -P algorithm was used to 11
“optimally” form electoral circuits under a wide range of parameters, based on SY2022 data. Table 3 shows, 12
for a range of congregation and confirmed membership requirements, the theoretical potential increase in 13
the size of the national convention (left) ,19 if all districts redistricted “optimally,” and the percentage of 14
optimally formed circuits that would require exceptions after the elapse of three years (right).15
Table 3: Potential for increase in number of electoral circuits relative to an “optimal” baseline and proportion of resulting circuits 16
requiring exceptions after a 3-year interval (present data; no accounting for future change)17
Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2022 (present) Confirmed Members in SY2025
800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500
4 68% / 91% 50% / 70% 34% / 52% 14% / 29% 28% 34% 42% 47%
5 52% / 73% 39% / 58% 26% / 44% 11% / 26% 22% 30% 36% 44%
6 37% / 55% 28% / 45% 19% / 35% 6% / 20% 14% 26% 33% 39%
7 22% / 38% 16% / 32% 11% / 26% – / 14% 12% 20% 28% 35%
Potential increase in convention voting delegation given 
various changes in circuit minimums, relative to optimal 
(602 circuits) / (ital.) 2023 actual (532 circuits)
Proportion of “optimally formed” circuits 
likely to require exceptions after 3 years (of 
8–9% conf. membership decline)
Table 3 reflects formation of circuits based on present statistics, a definite upper bound on increases. Given 18
that 2029 is the first convention for which changed requirements would take effect, and given that districts 19
tend to desire some stability in circuit formation, Table 4 shows the change in number of circuits relative to 20
optimal formation at current parameters and relative to 2023 counts, for a variety of parameters, assuming 21
districts form circuits with the assumption of an 8–9% triennial confirmed membership decline and forming circuits 22
that will likely be valid in 2029. For more conservative parameter changes (e.g., to 6 congregations and 1,200 23
members) this likely better estimates the “upper bound” on convention size impact relative to 2023.24
Table 4: Potential for increase in number of 2029 electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of an 8–9% triennial membership 25
decline) relative to an “optimal” baseline and proportion of resulting circuits requiring exceptions for the 2032 convention26
Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.) Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)
800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500
4 69% / 76% 48% / 55% 31% / 37% 10% / 15% 49% 58% 63% 68%
5 56% / 63% 39% / 46% 26% / 31% 7% / 12% 40% 48% 59% 66%
6 41% / 48% 31% / 36% 19% / 25% 3% / 8% 31% 45% 53% 62%
7 28% / 34% 21% / 26% 12% / 17% – /5% 23% 36% 47% 57%
Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation given 
various changes in circuit minimums, relative to 
optimal (556 circuits) / (ital.) 2023 actual (532 circuits)
Proportion of “optimally formed” 
circuits likely to require
exceptions after another 3 years
19 P ercentages set in Roman type are relative to optimally formed circuits , given current requirements (7 congregations and 1,500 
members); on SY2022 data, 602 such circuits are possible, 1 3% more electoral circuits than are currently formed (15% of which are 
currently exceptional). Italicized percentages are relative to the actual number of 2023 electoral circuits, of which there are 532.
12
The interaction of congregation confirmed membership sizes, counts, and geographical factors, and their 1 
peculiar combinations in the different districts and regions mean that variation of parameters does not have 2 
a uniform effect across the Synod. Figure 7 shows the potential for relative increase in the number of electoral 3 
circuits as estimated by the Max -P algorithm, configured to form circuits with sufficient excess confirmed 4 
members today to survive a continued 8–9% triennial decline until the 2029 convention, for (a) a variety of 5 
parameter combinations, by region; and (b) for circuits with a minimum 6 congregations and 1,200 6 
members, by district. In (a), variation in the confirmed membership requirement is along the x-axis; 7 
variation in the congregation count requirement is indicated by the different line styles. Variation in the 8 
latter requirement has a more pronounced effect in the regions with a greater proportion of relatively larger 9 
congregations. ESE and WSW regions struggle to add circuits at a rate similar to other regions (of course, 10
their “baseline” includes a greater proportion of exceptional circuits already, so they have more “negative 11
inertia” to overcome). P erhaps p aradoxically, though, lowered requirements would allow other regions12
(especially in the GP region, but for reasonable parameters also in the GL and CEN regions) to add circuits at 13
a higher rate than these could.14
Taking one example of moderate change to parameters in Figure 7(b), with 6 congregations and 1,200 15
members required, one can see a great variety in the ability of districts to add new circuits, ranging from 16
increases at or below 10% (AT, SO, NJ, SW Districts and all of the WSW Region except for RM District) to over 17
50% (NEB, NW, SD) .20 Such potential swings in representation are neither “right” nor “wrong,” but are 18
significant to note and perhaps of broader variance than might be expected, even in districts that are not 19
among the smallest. Note also that these figures include no exceptional circuits, for which some provision (even 20
if limited, either with empirical rationales, hard ratios, or spatial or numerical limits) might presumably 21
continue to be made. 22
6. Alternate Requirements for Electoral Circuit Formation23
Similar circuit formation experiments were performed with alternative requirements for electoral circuit 24
formation, including requiring 4, 5, 6, or 7 parishes instead of congregations, or requiring 2, 3, or 4 installed 25
pastors in addition to the existing requirements for congregations and confirmed members. The former 26
20 District-level rates of potential representation change range from 1.11 to 1.75, with a mean of 1. 37 and standard deviation of 0.17. 
Comparing “optimal” circuits of 7 congregations and 1,500 members to those of 6 congregations and 1,200 members (using the 
“optimal” instead of 2023 actual as baseline), district -level rates of potential representation change range from 1.11 to 1.50, with a 
mean of 1.21 and standard deviation of 0.075. A significant amount of the potential change and the variability in the potential change 
is due to pre-existing differences in how “optimally” districts have selected circuits (see all prior caveats on the sense of “optimal”).
(a) With a variety of parameters, regionally (b) With 6 congs. and 1200 conf. mbrs., by district  
Figure 7: Change in electoral circuits, relative to 2023 actual, using Max -P and forming for 2029 with the assumption of 
continued 8–9% triennial confirmed membership decline

2026 Convention Workbook
153
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS13
would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums, 1 
district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact 2 
circuits that have for other reasons a low ratio of installed pastors to congregations. These results can be 3 
detailed for the task force at some point if there is interest.4 
7. Codependent Bounds for Electoral Circuit Formation (“Relieved Model” )5 
At least one overture has proposed codependent bounds on electoral circuit size, allowing a circuit with a 6 
surplus of confirmed members to exist with a deficit of congregations. The inverse, to allow a circuit with a 7 
surplus of congregations to exist with a deficit of confirmed members, has more potential to address the bulk 8 
of current exceptions. Suppose one such model (of many possible) is defined as follows:9 
A valid electoral circuit shall consist of no fewer than: 10
and
1,500
confirmed 
members
if it has
≤ 7
congregations
1,450 8
1,400 9
1,350 10
1,300 11
4 congregations
if it has
≥ 6000 confirmed 
members
1,250 12
5 ≥ 4500 1,200 13
6 ≥ 3000 1,150 14
7 congregations otherwise 1,100 15
1,050 16
1,000 17
950 18
900 19
850 ≥ 20
While far more complicated than the “rectangular” rule we have today, this “relieved rule” has the benefit of 11
allowing regular “rel ieving” of the membership relieving for circuits well in excess of the number of 12
congregations and, conversely, in the congregation parameter for circuits well in excess of the required 13
number of confirmed members. Figure 8 shows graphically the range of circuits (here, formed using Max-P), 14
targeting 2029 compliance, as described above. This is a mathematically more detailed version of an 15
eminently reasonable specification of electoral circuits of ages past, that “Large congregations shall form 16
small circuits, and small congregations shall form large circuits” (1960 Bylaw 1.51) , allowing the relatively 17
larger circuits, in terms of either congregations or confirmed members, to be relatively smaller in the other 18
Figure 8: 2023 electoral circuits compared to (left ), and Max-P electoral circuits formed using (right), “relieved” model, 
targeting 2029 compliance, by region.
14
dimension. Recall Figure 4, which shows how many of the 2023 exceptions (and potential 2026 and 2029 1 
exceptions, if nothing is done) fall within the “relieved wings” opened by the relaxed model. This approach 2 
has the benefit of not moving the “lower left” corner of the “acceptable domain” (which remains at 7 3 
congregations and 1,500 confirmed members).Note that different regions use the “space” differently.4 
Only 78 % of 2023 circuits are likely to meet present confirmed membership requirements for the 2026 5 
convention, and 69% for 2029 and 59% for 2032(see Table 2). Were current requirements to be replaced with 6 
the “relieved” model (applying the same model of annual change used in Table 2), 88% of 2023 circuits7 
would meet requirements in 2026,21 80% in 2029 (64% non-geographic, 71% ESE, 74% WSW, 83% CEN and 8 
GL, 87% GP), and 71% in 2032  ( 57% WSW, 64% non -geographic, 64% ESE, 72% CEN , 77% GL, 85% GP) . 9 
Considering Max-P formed circuits optimized to deliver maximum representation but targeting compliance 10
in 2029 (compare Table 4) , the relieved model could be used to form an approximate maximum of 593 11
electoral circuits, an increase of 7% relative to those formed “ideally” using current metrics and of 11% 12
relative to actual 2023 circuits. Of these circuits, 90% would likely remain compliant for 2032 (78% of non-13
geographic, 82% ESE, 87% WSW, 88% CEN, 94% GP, 96% GL). 14
The “relieved” model thus has a lower potential for convention growth than any of the alternative models 15
considered in Table 4 except for the not very useful 6 congregation/1500 confirmed member model and a 16
much more stable “ideal,” with a much greater proportion of circuits remaining compliant for the next 17
convention. By offering to accommodate the (numerically) most “reasonable” of the current exceptions for 18
at least the next few conventions, while avoiding the potential for explosive representation growth, this 19
model—complicated though it may be to explain, relative to what we have today—may show some promise.20
A concise statement of the “relieved” rule using a piecewise function would be as follows ( m being the 21
number of confirmed members and c being the number of congregations: 22
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐4 and 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑐 �
15
00 + 1500(7 −𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) if 4 ≤𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐<7
1500 − 50(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐− 7) if 7 ≤𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐≤ 2 0
850 if 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐> 20
23
8. Basic Contextual Data on the Member Congregations and Pastors in the Circuits of the Synod24
Geographic factors are significant when considering the reasonability of circuit formation. Figure 9 shows, 25
for 2023 visitation and electoral circuits, the distribution, by district, of electoral circuit radii, expressed in 26
21 It is not possible, of course, to apply the relaxed model rule as early as for the 2026 convention, though it could be used a s a guide 
in judging the “reasonableness” of exceptions in bulk.
Figure 9: Minimum radius (miles) of 2023 visitation (left) and electoral circuits (right), by district and region.

2026 Convention Workbook
154 
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
15
miles22 (these are displayed on a logarithmic scale due to the great variation in the geographic size of 1 
electoral circuits). Northern Illinois and South Wisconsin (and the Great Lakes Region, in general) have the 2 
most compact visitation circuits, with a median radius below 10 miles. Among geographical districts, 3 
Montana and Wyoming have the highest median radii at ~80 and ~50 miles, respectively (these increase to 4 
~110 and ~85 miles for electoral circuits, when combination is taken into account) ; Great Plains and West-5 
Southwest regions are similarly challenged with relatively large visitation circuits that tend to combine into 6 
significantly larger electoral circuits (this is, of course, even more the case with the nongeographic districts). 7 
These data highlight, especially in those districts and regions where congregations are more geographically 8 
dispersed, the significant difference between visitation circuit expanse (these having no minimum 9 
parameters except common sense) and electoral circuit expanse, which may render visitation, gathering for 10
regular Winkels and circuit forums, convocations, or other functionsmuch more difficult or even impractical.11
Presently, there is pressure to increase the size of visitation circuits to maximize representation, rather than 12
combining adjacent visitation circuit, generally “inefficiently,” into combined electoral circuits and “losing” 13
representation. However, the value of the visitation circuit as such may be greater —if it is working well —14
than the incremental value of greater Synod convention representation. This may be increasingly true as 15
pressures (vacancy and MDiv “droughts,” cultural, demographic, and economic pressures —as well as 16
potential for new planting and revitalization opportunities) can only increase the need for visitation and for 17
circuits to work meaningfully and regularly together.18
Another important aspect of visitation circuit formation (in addition to electoral circuit formation) is the 19
having “critical mass” available to elect a circuit visitor and a pastoral delegate and alternate for the Synod 20
convention. Figure 10 shows the distribution of installed, non -SMP pastors per visitation circuit (left) and 21
the number of installed pastor FTEs per circuit (right), as reported on the Parochial Service Report (the 22
shadow on the right indicates the installed total plus the number of FTEs currently reported as being called).23
(Note that emeriti pastors are eligible to serve as circuit visitors, but not as delegates/alternates; nonetheless, 24
they are not included in the counts above.) In the West-Southwest Region and in a number of other districts, 25
a quarter or more of visitation circuits have six or fewer non-SMP installed pastors and a similar number of 26
total FTEs. A handful of circuits have fewer than four or even two. Such circuits are highly pressured to 27
identify eligible pastors to serve as visitor and delegate, and probably have lack “critical mass” to support 28
winkels, forums, and convocations in a fulsome way. (It is possible, at the same time, that extreme 29
geographic isolation, for example, may be a reason the circuits are as they are.) As the task force looks at 30
adjusting electoral and (to some extent) visitation circuit parameters (the latter are not specified numerically 31
22 Due to issues with projection, the radius of circuits involving Hawaii and the Church of All Nations in Hong Kong are inaccurate.
Figure 10: Number of eligible (non-SMP) installed pastors (left) and total installed pastor FTEs (right) per visitation circuit
16
at present) the task force will want to be sure that the non -electoral functions of the circuits are not 1 
negatively impacted.2 
9. Concluding Thoughts3 
This whitepaper intends to provide useful, baseline background for the task force as it undertakes its work. 4 
It is certainly not thought to be exhaustive of the information the task force may want or need to consider.5 
The Office of the Secretary and Department of Rosters, Statistics, and Research Services stands at the ready 6 
to provide further analytical and/or survey work needed. This paper has also been shared with the Council 7 
of Presidents at its September 2024 meeting, with the request that any input for the task force be shared with 8 
the Office of the Secretary for distribution to the task force.9 
This paper is not intended to and does not identify a particular solution (though it does survey and extend 10
on a variety of proposals previously suggested). Neither does it definitively identify the numerical or 11
philosophical questions that will identify or refine whatever solution (if any modification is, in fact warranted) 12
the task force will ultimately recommend. It is hoped that the paper will, however, support the task force in 13
rapidly identifying such questions and the means necessary to work through them to identify a well -14
reasoned recommendation or recommendations.15

2026 Convention Workbook
155
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS1 
2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force1 
To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters2 
Whitepaper II3 
John W. Sias, Secretary4 
February 13, 2026 5 
This whitepaper provides a supplemental update, subsequent to circuit alignment for the 2026 convention6 
based on Statistical Year (SY) 2024 data, to the statistical and historical data provided in Whitepaper I. Due 7 
to significant realignment in a number of districts, projections based on current state have changed8 
somewhat. A preliminary form of the data presented in this paper was available to the task force as it 9 
assembled its proposal; it is hoped to be useful for the floor committee and convention as they consider the 10
task force proposal and any alternatives.11
1. Electoral and Visitation Circuits Today, Statistically and Historically Considered12
Had no circuits been realigned or recombined from their 2023 configurations,22% of electoral circuits would 13
have required exceptions for the 2026 convention (confirming pre -convention estimates, Whitepaper I, 14
Table 2). Significant realignment, however, by several districts and a disciplined approach, by the Office of 15
the President, to granting exceptions, has resulted in only a 7% exception rate for 2026. This reflects the 16
general impression of the task force that a reduction in convention size is reasonable, and reasonably 17
achievable, within essentially the current framework of requirements.18
The 2026 convention will comprise delegates from 497 electoral circuits, 461 meeting the requirements and19
34 having “underage” exceptions. These 497 electoral circuits represent 5,672 member congregations and 20
1,291,318 confirmed members. Figure 1 updates Whitepaper I, Figure 1, to include also the 2026 convention. 21
The line graphs indicate the number of confirmed members in the Synod divided by 1,500 (the lower bound 22
for electoral circuit formation; for comparison, in 1968, this figure would have been 1,252, slightly below 23
1998’s 1,301) and the number of member congregations divided by 7 (again, the lower bound; for 24
comparison, the 1968 figure was 783).  25
The heights of solid bars inFigure 1(excluding the slashed portion at the top, which reflects visitation circuits 26
“combined away” into others to reach electoral circuit requirements—an increasingly prominent category) 27
represent the number of electoral circuits formed for each convention, the green (lower) bar, those meeting 28
Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2026 Conventions
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2023 2026
Circuits and Congregations / 7 and Confirmed 
Members / 1500
Regular Except ? Except < M
Except < C Except < C < M
 Combined w/ Adjacent(s)
Congs/7 ConfMbrs/1500
2 
the requirements and the red, yellow, and orange bars representing exceptions granted by the Office of the 1 
President to those that did not.2 
Throughout the period of Figure 1, in comparison to the circumstances of1969, when the present system was 3 
put into use, the Synod has had, on average, fewer and increasingly fewer confirmed members in an 4 
“average” electoral circuit than in 1969; it has also had fewer congregations per electoral circuit, although 5 
this ratio has rebounded, in 2026, to near the 1969 level. In 1969, there were 11.5 member congregations and 6 
3,928 confirmed members, on average, per electoral circuit; in 1998, there were 10 and 3,247; in 2023, 10.9 7 
and 2,622; in 2026, 11.4 and 2,602.18 
Comparing lines to bars in Figure 1, the voting size of the convention 2 has only recently begun to trend 9 
moderately downward in response to slight decline in the number of member congregations (5,672 in 2026 10
vs. 6,033 in 2004) and significant decline in confirmed membership (1.29M in 2026 vs. 1.95M in 1998). There 11
were 497 electoral circuits in 2026 compared to a 2004 high of 628, a decline of 21% in a period that saw a 12
32% decline in confirmed membership and a 6% decline in the number of member congregations. 13
There is a stable, regional non-uniformity. Figure 2 shows, for each region, in 2010 and 2026, the proportion 14
of confirmed members and congregations, plus the number of exceptions , all of which contribute to the 15
number of electoral circuits, and the number of non- SMP parish pastors. Exceptions tend to be granted 16
disproportionately in the ESE and WSW regions, offsetting a relatively lower number of confirmed members 17
in those regions and a commensurate challenge forming compliant electoral circuits—a long-term pattern, 18
as the comparative data from 2010 indicate.3  19
2. Characterization of Current Visitation and Electoral Circuits20
The Office of the President approved 497 electoral circuits for representation at the 2026 convention. Of 21
these, 375 were visitation circuits thatsatisfied the minimum requirements in their own right, 76 were pairs 22
of adjacent visitation circuits (11 of which had more than 20 congregations), and 12 were triples of adjacent 23
visitation circuits ( 8 of which had more than 20 congregations) . 34 (7 %) were under requirements and 24
received exceptions: 3, having fewer than 7 congregations; 31, having fewer than 1,500 members (4 of which 25
were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits); and none, having both fewer than 7 congregations and fewer than 26
1 Such averages are useful for general comparison over time of representation rates but obscure wide variance among actual circuits.
2 See details in Whitepaper I, note 2.
3 In 2026, many fewer exceptions were requested and granted inCEN, GL, and GP regions; the 2023 distribution of exceptions granted 
was very similar to that for 2010. 
Figure 2: Proportion of Electoral and Visitation Circuits, Congregations, Confirmed Members, Non-SMP Pastors, and 
Exceptions per Region, 2010 and 2026