R59 — Task Force on Electoral Circuit Parameters (2023 Res. 9-06A)

Introduction 2023 Res. 9-06A, “To Appoint Task Force to Evaluate Current Electoral Circuit Parameters,” was adopted with the acknowledgement that “due to demographic changes over the past several convention cycles, it has become necessary for more and more visitation circuits either to request an exemption from the President of the Synod or to be combined in order to qualify to meet the parameters for an electoral circuit. The result has been a gradual decrease in the number of electoral circuits within the Synod and the number of delegates attending conventions.” The charge to the task force was to “consider the parameters for the electoral circuits which se-

lect delegates to conventions of the Synod to determine if they are adequate as they are or should be changed” and “to clarify some of the ambiguity in the Bylaws regarding multi-congregation parishes which cross district or circuit lines.” The task force was to include “the Secretary of [the] Synod, the Commission on Constitutional Matters [CCM], the Commission on Handbook [COH], and three district presidents and three district secretaries (from different districts) chosen by the Council of Presidents.” Realizing the difficulty of accommodating so many individuals, the CCM and COH each designated three individuals to serve as their primary representatives to the task force. In preparation for the first meeting, the Secretary of the Synod drafted a white paper with the history of selecting delegates, the trend in delegate numbers to the convention and exceptions requested and granted, and a view toward the shape of the future based upon past and current demographics. The task force met nine times from October 2024 to December 2025 to review the charge by the 2023 Synod convention and to offer a report and to recommend to the Synod changes to the Bylaws to address the concerns raised.

Background In its founding, the Synod defined its own polity, giving each congregation an equal vote (the equality of congregational votes is known as Stimme ng le ich he it). The office of pastor being a divine institution conferred through the congregation as the possessor of all ecclesiastical authority, the Synod determined to have each congregation receive two votes, one by its pastor and the other by its lay delegate. Before growth necessitated a change and the division into districts had been adopted, the Synod left it to the individual congregations to select a lay delegate to accompany the pastor and the matter was relatively simple. The franchise was given to the congregation, exercised by the pastor and a lay delegate to the Synod convention. The basic principles of this franchise gave congregations or parishes equal representation, no matter what their numerical size, and a “balance of power” was maintained by equal representation of clergy and lay. The Synod is conceived as an aid and, indeed, an extension of such congregations or parishes without any other constituencies or units. When it was no longer feasible because of size, and after the division of the Synod into districts in 1854, beginning with the 1872 convention, the congregations and parishes of the Synod were represented by a circuit delegation consisting of one pastor and one lay vote at the Synod convention. The Constitution did not change and was applicable to both district and Synod conventions. The practice for conventions of the Synod was that each pair of delegates, one a pastor of a Pfarrgemeinde (that is, the collection of congregations regularly served by one pastor: 2019 Res. 9-12, Bylaw 2.5.5) and the other a layman, now came from a group of congregations (circuit). Since the 1969 convention of the Synod (due to 1967 Res. 5-18), electoral circuits have consisted of “either of one or two adjacent visitation circuits, as shall be determined by the district board of directors on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations, involving an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from 1,500 to 10,000” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [a]). “Exceptions to these requirements may be made only by the President of the Synod upon request of a district board of directors” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [b]). The visitation circuits themselves are established by districts (that is, by district conventions, unless a district convention has explicitly authorized a district board of directors to carry this out) “according to geographical criteria.” There is technically no lower

or upper limit (other than practical ones) on the size of a visitation circuit, other than that one should ordinarily not exceed the upper bound for the related electoral circuit, either in number of confirmed members or of member congregations, and that it should ordinarily take no more than two adjacent visitation circuits to form one electoral circuit. Practical limits, lower and upper, may be inferred from the functions—important in their own right—described in Bylaw chapter 5. The 1973 report of the Committee on Organization to the convention dealt with questions raised about the voting rights with some consideration given to a more equitable division of delegates among districts, allowing large congregations more than one lay vote, giving a second and third lay vote to the other congregations of a multi-congregation parish, and allowing advisory pastors and campus pastors, too, to vote. The committee rejected all as incompatible with the essential principles of voting rights in the Constitution: that the Synod consists of equal congregations or parishes, no matter the size, that possess the franchise, and that there be a balance of lay and clergy vote (1973 Workbook, 208–9). Another task force had been established by the 1975 Anaheim convention that was to study and propose revisions to the Constitution, Bylaws, and organization of the Synod. Several overtures to change the franchise within the Synod were submitted to the 1977 Synod convention. Two new issues were added to the charge given to the task force formed in 1975: one was to consider the way delegates were elected, and the other was to consider allowing advisory delegates to vote, with a proportional increase in the lay votes (1979 Workbook, 59–63). The task force in 1979 proposed significant wording changes to several articles of the Constitution, and in addition proposed changes to the eligibility of the delegates who would cast the two votes of the congregation or parish. One vote was to be cast by a pastor or teacher in full-time office in the congregation, and the other by a duly elected lay delegate of the congregation (1979 Proceedings, 111, 137). At the 1981 convention, the President of the Synod, in his address to the convention, recommended the proposed changes both to allow teachers to vote (Proceedings, 64) and Res. 2-14, which proposed that the delegates of an electoral circuit be a pastor and anyone else from a congregation of that circuit. Preferably, it should be a layman, but any teacher or ordained minister who was not the pastor of one of the congregations would also be eligible. After lengthy discussion, this was referred to a committee to be appointed by the President of the Synod for a report to the 1983 Synod convention (1981 Proceedings, 141). In its report to the 1983 convention, the task force formed by the 1981 convention gave a report detailing the length of its research and the various possibilities that have been suggested with the advantages and disadvantages of each. In the end, it concluded that the disadvantages of any of the suggested ways to change the exercise of the franchise in the Synod outweighed what would be gained by such a change. It termed the current exercise of franchise a long-established and well-working procedure (1983 Workbook, 213–15). The floor committee’s Res. 5-23 resolved that no change be made in the Constitution or Bylaws pertaining to the franchise. However, no action was taken, and it was apparently not brought to the floor of the convention (1983 Proceedings, 190). Another overture submitted to the 1995 convention of the Synod was declined by inclusion in “Omnibus B Resolution,” declining to act on it and simply referencing the past action of the Synod, specifically that of 1983 (1995 Proceedings, 160).

By 1998 the decline in the number of congregations and parishes and the number of communicant members had resulted in an increasing number of exceptions requested of the Synod President. The number of exceptions has ranged from 3 percent and 9 percent, in 1998 and 2001, respectively, to 14 percent in 2004, hovering between 10–12 percent since, apart from a low 7 percent exception ratio in 2016. Absent a bylaw to define on what basis or criteria exceptions may be granted, the decision has been largely subjective and not without its own controversy at times. By the time of the creation of this task force, predictions based on the trends observed in the decline in both congregations and communicants expected larger and larger numbers of requests for exceptions from visitation circuits that did not meet the current bylaw criteria as electoral circuits. Assuming a uniform 8 percent triennial drop in confirmed membership, this would have anticipated that 22 percent of 2023 electoral circuits could require exceptions for the 2026 convention—a number that could approach 30–40 percent in the 2029 and 2032 conventions.

Work of the Task Force The task force commissioned several surveys to determine the health and viability of the current visitation circuits and the opinions of pastors, circuit visitors, district presidents, and Praesidium on the size and effectiveness of Synod conventions in view of their purpose “to afford an opportunity for worship, nurture, inspiration, fellowship, and the communication of vital information.” The general conclusions from these surveys both set the direction for the work of the task force and under girded the recommendations made in this report. The surveys revealed a profound desire on the part of all to strengthen visitation circuits and the functioning of winkels (circuit pastors’ conferences) and indicated that the optimum number needed was five actively serving pastors with the emeritus pastors who reside in the circuit. When the numbers of active participants dropped below that number, it directly impacted upon the health and effectiveness of the visitation circuit. With respect to the electoral circuits, the surveys needed to be flexible enough to provide adequate and fair representation at the Synod convention and yet maintain a viable connection to the visitation circuit wherever possible. The discussions and proposed changes in the Bylaws recommended by the task force flowed from the concrete data of the white paper, the opinions of 1,682 parish pastors, 772 candidate or emeritus pastors, 393 circuit visitors, and 27 district presidents, and the combined experience of the members of the task force across the regions of the Synod and within the districts and circuits where they reside. Even early on, the task force felt the urgency of the task and the consequences of making no change to the status quo. Although this is not the recommendation of the task force, the failure to make any changes would create an untenable situation due to the the rise in the number of exceptions for electoral circuits from triennium to triennium and the increasing difficulties in forming circuits within the current parameters of the Bylaws. An increasing number of electoral circuits for the 2026 Synod convention and beyond are approaching the minimum numbers of communicant members required to constitute an electoral circuit (1,500) and others are very close to the maximum number of congregations allowed (20). Details of these trends are outlined in the white paper along with projections for the situation three to six years beyond the 2026 Synod convention. Already the districts have realized and begun to address the situation by realigning circuits at their 2025 conventions and by work-ing to minimize their number of exceptions. With this realignment and the reduction in exceptions requested and because of the work of the Synod President to reduce the number of exceptions granted, only 7 percent of the 2026 Synod convention electoral circuits required and were granted exceptions, instead of the 22 percent expected if the districts had done no realignment. This, combined with a small but significant slowdown from the projected 8–9 percent triennial drop in confirmed membership to closer to 7 percent, has relieved the situation for the moment, but this will not remove the necessity for the Synod to address this at the 2026 convention to prevent even greater challenges down the road. It should be noted here that exceptions are not only for those circuits that fall below the 1,500 communicant minimum but are also granted for those which must exceed the upper limit of 20 congregations in order to reach the 1,500-communicant limit. The task force gave consideration to a number of options. The first set of those options was to deal with the matter of exceptions. In the past, districts have typically requested exceptions for electoral circuits which fall below the 7 to 20 congregations and 1,500 to 10,000 communicant member parameters of the Bylaws instead of redrawing circuit boundaries so that visitation circuits meet the requirements of the Bylaws to be electoral circuits. As the Synod decreases in both the aggregate communicant membership and the number of congregations due to closure or consolidation, the pressure upon the districts will continue to be felt going forward. Some districts may find it more difficult to eliminate the request for exceptions because of geographical constraints (the “saltwater” and non-geographical districts in particular). Because of this, the task force considered the various reasons for exceptions and a means to allow continued exceptions but under tighter parameters spelled out under bylaw requirements. If no exceptions were permitted, the Synod would then place the full responsibility squarely on district boards of directors to assure compliant-sized electoral circuits. Second, the task force considered changing the current upper limits for electoral circuits, currently 20 congregations or 10,000 confirmed members. It was noted that the upper limit of confirmed membership number is never reached, but removing the upper limit on numbers of congregations (or parishes, as will be addressed later) could be helpful for some districts in forming electoral circuits. With this, the task force considered another limit placed on the formation of visitation circuits into an electoral circuit. Currently, the bylaw allows for two adjacent visitation circuits to be formed into an electoral circuit; anything else requires the request for an exception. Removing this limit of two visitation circuits would allow more flexibility for districts both to create visitation circuits with ideal sizes for ministry needs while allowing them greater flexibility when they must be combined to form an electoral circuit. Along with this was the consideration of removing the requirement that visitation circuits combining into an electoral circuit be “adjacent” and allowing non-adjacent visitation circuits to combine into an electoral circuit. The rationale for this was that visitation circuits which could be ideal sizes to combine into an electoral circuit are not always adjacent to each other and that changes in communication technology would facilitate non-adjacent visitation circuits to meet. However, it was determined that such a change would affect only a few districts and circuits and, while helpful, would not contribute greatly to the solution of the problem. Furthermore, it was feared that such non-adjacent permission might create its own problems similar to the gerrymandering seen in the political sphere and that cobbling together a patchwork of visitation circuits

which do not share knowledge of each other and which would need to elect delegates who are unknown to each other would create its own set of problems. The task force discussed simply changing the composition of circuits from “congregations” to “parishes” and thus acknowledging the growing number of multi-congregation parishes being formed due to declining size and ability to support a full-time pastor. This was also seen as a means to encourage circuits to have a viable number of actively serving pastors to support the health and vitality of those visitation circuits. Without a “critical mass” number of pastors within visitation circuits, the circuit will find it difficult to network together “for [the] mutual care, support, advice, study, ecclesiastical encouragement, service, coordination, resources, and counsel” for the sake of both congregation and Synod. If a circuit is composed of several congregations in dual or tri-parishes, then the functioning of the circuit and the pastoral winkels can be adversely affected. It was noted from the surveys that winkels suffer if fewer than five pastors are present. Having a greater number of pastors is beneficial to the health and vitality of both congregation and clergy. Requiring six parishes in a circuit rather than seven congregations would increase the likelihood of having six or more pastors present at winkels. Obviously, this proposal would have a greater effect on districts with a higher number of multi-congregation parishes; however, a change from seven congregations to six parishes would help both rural and urban circuits ensure adequate visitation needs as well as balanced electoral representation for the Synod convention. Another option considered by the task force, a so-called “relieved model,” would attempt to provide more flexibility in the size of circuits to allow for circuits with larger congregations in urban and suburban areas (and therefore well above the confirmed member limit) to have fewer congregations, while providing for circuits with many small congregations in sparsely populated regions to qualify with somewhat fewer members, through the use of a mathematical equation. While the current thresholds of congregations and communicant members do not take into account the difference between larger and smaller congregations, this could potentially account for population and geographic differences. Although this could provide some stability from triennium to triennium and might relieve the pressure on districts to realign circuits, the formula is complex and presents its own difficulty to circuits and districts and would require much more explanation and understanding to be useful. For these reasons, the task force decided not to recommend this option at this time. Finally, the task force considered completely separating visitation from electoral circuits so that the districts were not in any way bound by the boundaries of the visitation circuits in creating electoral circuits which would meet the current criteria. Districts could conceivably draw different maps for each purpose. Visitation circuits would continue to have the purpose of ecclesiastical visitation and pastors’ winkels while electoral circuits could be drawn differently for the limited purposes of election of delegates to the Synod convention. In this way, the Synod could decide to reduce the overall size of the convention both for cost savings and in order to facilitate more deliberation among fewer delegates. The task force considered how it might work to simply apportion the number of delegates to each district based upon a formula of number of congregations and communicant membership and leave it to the districts to draw the electoral map based on those numbers, perhaps even without geographical constraints. The task force believed that such an option represented a fairly radical change both in representation and structure for the Synod and that such was well beyond the Synod’s charge to the task force. Even a more modest version of this option retaining the necessity for geographic lines in the electoral circuit and expecting circuit forums could still meet in person was not without its own set of problems. On one hand, the electoral circuits could be more easily adjusted to the changing needs or dynamic situations of the Synod while preserving its congregations from disruption in the normal work of the visitation circuit. Though visitation circuits would be formed with the sole focus on visitation and the mission of God without being concerned about meeting specific numerical membership requirements, the separation of the electoral circuit from the visitation circuit was not believed to be helpful overall. The Synod has for the entirety of its existence seen a connection between the two and this might lead to weakened ties between the individual congregations or parishes of the circuit and the overall work in common through the Synod. Because of the confusion this might occasion, the task force did not give more serious consideration to this change.

Recommendations Having considered all the foregoing, the task force makes the following proposal to the 2026 Synod convention: 1.

Change the Bylaw 3.1.2 standard from congregations to parishes;

2. Remove from the bylaw entirely the possibility of exceptions (except that no district shall be left without any circuit); and

3. Remove from the bylaw the upper limits for the number of congregations, confirmed members, and how many visitation circuits may combine into an electoral circuit.

The task force believes that this realignment would more closely connect the number of delegates to the actual size of the Synod and the number of its parishes. Therefore, the task force recommends the following bylaw changes to the Synod in convention:

Proposed Action Resolved, That Bylaw 3.1.2 be amended as follows: PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING Voting Delegates 3.1.2 Electoral circuits shall meet as required by the Bylaws of the Synod to elect circuit voting delegates to the Synod’s national conventions. (a) An electoral circuit shall consist either of one or two of one or more adjacent visitation circuits, as shall be determined by the district board of directors on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations at least six (6) parishes (as defined in Bylaw 2.5.5; each congregation of a parish divided across circuit lines counts, for this purpose, as an equal fraction of the parish, i.e., ½ for each congregation in a parish of two congregations; ⅓ for each in a parish of three; etc.), involving an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from of at least 1,500 to 10,000. (b) Exceptions to these requirements may be made only by the President of the Synod upon request of a district board of directors. No exceptions shall be granted, except that each

district shall have at least one electoral circuit. (c) Voting delegates shall consist of one pastor and one layperson from each electoral circuit. These pastoral and lay delegates and their alternates shall be elected according to the regulations of the Synod (Bylaw 3.1.2.1). (d) The lay delegate shall serve throughout the triennium following the convention as an advisory member of the forum or fora of the visitation circuit(s) comprising the electoral circuit forum.

Addendum While 2023 Res. 9-06A did not assign to the task force the topic of nonvoting advisory delegates, the task force did review the work of the task force to the 2023 convention of the Synod and its work with respect to advisory delegates and giving the voting franchise to advisory delegates. Given the projection of retirements and the increasing numbers of pastors emeriti in particular, the task force did discuss how this would impact the overall potential size of the convention. Given the track record of most districts electing fewer than the current Bylaws allow for advisory commissioned and ordained delegates to the Synod convention, the task force did not believe that this merited an addition to the charge given to the task force by the 2023 convention and decided to leave this topic to another group for study and recommendation, should the convention so choose. The task force does point out the potential, should districts exercise it and advisory members desire, to have the number of advisory delegates increase in proportion to the number of voting delegates. Larry A. Peters, Chairman

R59.1

2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters

White paper I

John W. Sias, Secretary September 9, 2024 (Revised October 4, 2024)

5 6 7 8

This white paper is intended to supplement the historical context found in the rationale of 2023 Res. 9-06A (Proc., pp. 206–9) with statistical and historical data generally informative for the task force’s early work. It intends to cover the following areas:

5. 6.

7. 8.

A description of electoral and visitation circuits today, statistically and historically considered A brief characterization of current electoral circuits An overview of confirmed membership change and variation there in throughout the Synod A historical overview of selected recent changes to formation requirements and procedures of circuits, visitation and electoral, that have been proposed in relatively recent Synod convention overtures (supplementing the changes made over time, detailed in the charging resolution) A study of the potential effect on Synod convention size and representation change that could occur in a number of hypothetical proposals of various configurations A study of alternate requirements for electoral circuit formation, including a parish rather than congregation basis and addition of an installed, non-SMP pastor requirement A study of codependent bounds for electoral circuit formation, in which circuits with a surplus of congregations can have a deficit of members and vice-versa Basic contextual data on member congregations and pastors in the circuits of the Synod

These data are, of course, not exhaustive of the material or perspectives the task force may need to consider, but they are intended to offer a well-considered starting point for the task force’s work.

1. Electoral and Visitation Circuits Today, Statistically and Historically Considered

Since the 1969 convention of the Synod (due to 1967 Res. 5-18), electoral circuits have consisted of “either one or two 1 adjacent visitation circuits, 2 as shall be determined by the district board of directors on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations, involving an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from 1,500 to 10,000 3” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [a]).

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

their number. This has contributed to at least one significant and damaging controversy, related to the 2004 convention (See R1-8-01 and Addendum 1, 2007 Workbook, pp. 14–18). Supposing that no circuits are realigned or recombined from their 2023 configurations, and assuming a uniform 8% triennial drop in confirmed membership (see below), we anticipate that 22% of 2023 electoral circuits would require exceptions for the 2026 convention (based on SY2022 data, one year newer than that used to validate the 2023 circuits, 15% already are exceptional, compared to the 11% that were a year before). Some macro-level historical context will be valuable. While changes to the original, 1872 representational formula of “between two and seven congregations” attempted in 1893 and made in 1917 (to “five and ten”) and 1944 (to “ten and fifteen”) were to control the burgeoning size of the Synod convention in a growing Synod, the 1967 changes had the principal effect of aligning visitation and electoral circuits across the Synod (these were already fully aligned, following 1917 guidance, in about a third of the districts) and a secondary effect of somewhat increasing the convention size. The 1969 convention met with delegates from 478 domestic electoral circuits, 4 representing 5,486 member congregations and 1,877,799 confirmed members (1968 Statistical Yearbook), an increase from 424 domestic electoral circuits in 1967, under the 1944 rule. For comparison, the 2023 convention allowed for delegates from 532 electoral circuits, 475 meeting the requirements and 57 having “underage” exceptions. These 532 electoral circuits represented 5,775 member congregations and 1,395,076 confirmed members. Figure 1 provides some recent historical context, 1998–2023. The line graphs indicate the number of confirmed members in the Synod divided by 1,500 (the lower bound for electoral circuit formation; for comparison, in 1968, this figure would have been 1,252, slightly below 1998’s 1,301) and the number of member congregations divided by 7 (again, the lower bound; for comparison, the 1968 figure was 783).

“Exceptions to these requirements may be made only by the President of the Synod upon a request of a district board of directors” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [b]). Since 1998, the proportion of electoral circuits allowed to stand due to granted exceptions has ranged from 3% and 9%, in 1998 and 2001, respectively, to 14% in 2004, hovering between 10–12% since, with the exception of a low 7% exception ratio in 2016. Bylaws neither specify any underlying basis upon which these exceptions are to be evaluated, nor specify any limitation on

1. 2. 3. 4.

1 2

Circuits and Congregations / 7 and Confirmed Members / 1500

In a few cases, three adjacent, in an exception not allowed for explicitly in Bylaw 3.1.2 but inferred as one of the possible grant able exceptions. 1

The visitation circuits themselves are established by districts (that is, by district conventions, unless a district convention has explicitly authorized a district board of directors to carry this out) “according to geographical criteria.” There is technically no lower or upper limit (other than practical ones) on the size of a visitation circuit, other than that one should ordinarily not exceed the upper bound for the related electoral circuit, either in number of confirmed members or of member congregations, and that it should take no more than two adjacent visitation circuits to form one electoral circuit. Practical limits, lower and upper, may be inferred from the functions—important in their own right—described in Bylaw chapter 5.

Regular

Except ?

Except < M

Except < C

Except < C < M

Combined w/ Adjacent(s)

Congs/7

Conf Mbrs/1500

It has proven in some instances not possible, when assembling electoral circuits, to satisfy a lower bound (for example, on confirmed members) without transgressing an upper bound (number of member congregations) or combining more than two visitation circuits. While the “overage” exceptions are exceptional circuits, it is the “underage” exceptions that have been the principal concern. In this white paper, exceptions may be assumed to include only the “underage” exceptions (fewer than 7 member congregations or 1,500 confirmed members), unless the “overage” exceptions are explicitly mentioned.

This number excludes, in the interest of comparability, three Canadian districts and the Argentina/Brazil District, all of which have become independent church bodies since (with the exception of certain Canadian congregations remaining in the English and SELC Districts. There were at least 490 domestic electoral circuits in 1971 and 503 in 1973, changes roughly proportional to the confirmed member growth of the Synod in the period.

Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2023 Conventions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Throughout the period of Figure 1, in comparison to the circumstances of 1969, when the present system was put into use, the Synod has had, on average, fewer and increasingly fewer confirmed members in an “average” electoral circuit than in 1969; it has also had fewer congregations per electoral circuit, although this ratio is increasing. In 1969, there were 11.5 member congregations and 3,928 confirmed members, on average, per electoral circuit; in 1998, there were 10 and 3,247; in 2023, 10.9 and 2,622. 5

2. Characterization of Current Visitation and Electoral Circuits

The Office of the President approved 532 electoral circuits for representation at the 2023 convention. Of these, 413 were visitation circuits that satisfied the minimum requirements in their own right, 59 were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits (7 of which had more than 20 congregations), and 3 were triples of adjacent visitation circuits (2 of which had more than 20 congregations). 57 (11%) were under requirements and received exceptions: 7, having fewer than 7 congregations; 49, having fewer than 1,500 members (10 of which were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits); and 1, having both fewer than 7 congregations and fewer than 1,500 members. Of the 57 “underage” exceptions, as noted above, 17 were granted to geographical districts in the WSW region and 16 in the ESE region.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Comparing lines to bars in Figure 1, the voting size of the convention 6 has only recently begun to trend moderately downward in response to slight decline in the number of member congregations (5,775 in 2023 vs. 6,033 in 2004) and significant decline in confirmed membership (1.39M in 2023 vs. 1.95M in 1998). There were 532 electoral circuits in 2023 compared to a 2004 high of 628, a decline of 15% in a period that saw a 27% decline in confirmed membership and a 5% decline in the number of member congregations. There is a stable, regional non-uniformity. Figure 2 shows, for each region, 7 in 2010 and 2023, the proportion of confirmed members and congregations, plus the number of exceptions, all of which contribute to the number of electoral circuits, and the number of non-SMP parish pastors. 8 Exceptions tend to be granted disproportionately in the ESE and WSW regions, as well as, to a lesser extent, the non-geographical districts, offsetting a relatively lower number of confirmed members in those regions and a commensurate challenge forming compliant electoral circuits—a long-term pattern, as the comparative data from 2010 indicate. 9

Figure 3: Distribution, Confirmed Membership of 2023 Electoral Circuits (SY2021 data; thresholds at 1,500, 1,630, and 1,792; see text)

Figure 2: Proportion of Electoral and Visitation Circuits, Congregations, Confirmed Members, Non-SMP Pastors, and Exceptions per Region, 2010 and 2023

Such averages are useful for general comparison over time of representation rates but obscure wide variance among actual circuits.

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 non geographical districts (English and SELC) are removed from their usual regions and treated separately as one non-geographic region (“(NG)”).

Figure 3 shows, on a logarithmic axis, box plot 10 histograms indicating the distribution of the confirmed member sizes of the circuits in each district (the width of each box reflecting the number of circuits in each district). Data are from SY2021, used to apportion circuits for the 2023 convention. The dark red line indicates the lower bound of 1,500 confirmed members; the other two red lines are at 1,630 members and 1,792 members, the confirmed member sizes (all other things being equal) a circuit would need to have in 2023 to meet the requirement of 1,500 members, after a typical 8% triennial decline, in 2026 and, after an additional 9% triennial decline, in 2029, respectively. The darker red dots represent electoral circuits that received exceptions in 2023; the lighter red dots, those that may require exceptions or realignment or combination of adjacent visitation circuits, all other things being equal, for 2026 (52 circuits) and 2029 (49 circuits). With these threshold lines moving well into the “box” of the two center quartiles (and even to or beyond the median for districts like EN, SELC, MDS, OK, NE, SE, SO, WY, CNH and NOW), and with the total number of exceptions required to maintain the present apportionment of circuits nearly doubling and tripling the

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 these regions’ heightened exception rate; geographical challenges and lower concentrations of LCMS presence may also play a role.

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

A box plot 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 median. 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.

These are eligible to serve as pastoral delegates to the Synod convention.

The heights of solid bars in Figure 1 (excluding the slashed portion at the top, which reflects visitation circuits “combined away” into others to reach electoral circuit requirements) represent the number of electoral circuits formed for each convention, the green (lower) bar, those meeting the requirements and the red, yellow, and orange bars representing exceptions granted by the Office of the President to those that did not.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

number of exceptions that would be required in the next two conventions, it is clear that “doing nothing” is not a realistic option. 11 Figure 4 adds another dimension of the 2023 convention circuit apportionment, indicating on the vertical axis the number of congregations involved in each electoral circuit as well as (by the color of the dot) the number of visitation circuits included in each combined electoral circuit. Confirmed member thresholds are indicated as in Figure 3. The figure also distinguishes by color those electoral circuits formed of two or three adjacent visitation circuits. Evident from the figure are the following: • 8 9

•
3
A number of circuits with very large congregations have been granted exceptions on the number of congregations required, along with some more moderately-sized circuits (these fall below the horizontal red bar).

3. Characterization of Confirmed Membership Change

The rate of confirmed membership change over time is a factor in the “stability” of circuit designations, electoral circuit combinations, and the rate of requests for exceptions. Electoral circuit qualification is based on the statistics gathered in the year prior to the convention (i.e., the 2023 convention relied on SY2021 confirmed membership data as of December 31, 2021, gathered by roughly June 2022; the 2026 convention will rely on SY2024 data). District alignment of visitation regions, usually done at district conventions in the year prior to the Synod convention, generally relies on the previous statistical year (SY), so districts have to predict circuits likely to drop below requirements in the intervening year of data reporting.

6 7 8 9

Through the period 1994–2022, the confirmed membership of the Synod has been decreasing at an accelerating rate, with some regional variation. Figure 5 shows the triennial rate of confirmed membership change throughout the period for each district and region (these data are presented to show the trend using LOESS, or “locally-weighted scatter plot smoothing”). The confirmed membership of the Synod as a whole was experiencing 2% triennial loss in 2003, 4% in 2011, 6% in 2016, and approaching 8% in 2023. In 2022, the WSW Region was experiencing 9.5% triennial loss (with CNH and NOW districts reporting experiencing 12–13% reported triennial losses, despite having some of the greatest reporting lags in the Synod, which may mean the actual report able losses at present may be significantly higher). ESE, CEN, and GL regions are near the Synod average, while the GP Region and non-geographic districts are experiencing 5–6% triennial losses. This means an electoral circuit of 1,630 confirmed members at the time of one convention’s electoral circuit qualification will likely have, all other things being equal, 1,500 for the next, and 1,380 for the one thereafter. (In the WSW region, again, all other things being equal, a circuit would need 1,657 members at one convention to have 1,500 for the next; and in the GP Region, 1,590.)

Exceptions based on confirmed membership are today numerous in the WSW and ESE regions; many electoral circuits in all regions, however, are likely within one or two conventions of falling, all things being equal, below that bar. With the greatest concentration of “optimized” circuits near 1,500 confirmed members and also the greatest historic confirmed member loss rates, the WSW and ESE regions will continue to prove challenging for continuing apportionment of electoral circuits at near-present levels. A great number of circuits are also right at the minimum of 7 congregations, across all regions, and are within one closure or merger of falling below that requirement (future closures are not modeled). There are presently many adjacent visitation circuits combined for purposes of representation in the ESE and WSW regions and non geographic districts (orange and red dots), but fewer elsewhere. In the WSW region, many of these combined circuits nonetheless require, or likely soon will, exceptions for confirmed membership. A number of combined circuits, largely in the WSW, ESE, and GP regions, have more than 20 congregations; as further combinations occur, perhaps to triple circuit combinations rather than double, this can be expected to increase, perhaps markedly. This may have a negative impact on the many far-flung congregations meeting together to determine their representation or discuss. Electronic meeting is possible but has its own significant challenges.

1 2

Figure 5: Triennial Rate of Reported Confirmed Member Gain / Loss by District / Region, 1994–2022

Of course, one realistic option for “doing something” may be leaving requirements as they are, requiring districts to realign circuits on the understanding that the Office of the President will likely 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.

Of course, these changes are not uniform within a given district. Figure 6 shows the distribution (in box-plot form, with the colored portion of the box reflecting the two inner quartiles, or half the circuits) of recent rates of confirmed membership change across the districts—a reminder that “all other things” are rarely equal. A considerable number of circuits reported confirmed membership losses, over the past three years, of more

Figure 4: Confirmed Membership and 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

than 10%, with some districts having half or more of their circuits in this range.12 At the same time, there are districts reporting as many as a quarter of their circuits having net gains in the past three years. In this sense, the vertical lines indicated in Figures 3 and 4 to show threats to circuit stability may here and there—and more frequently in the WSW region—underestimate the challenge at hand, or, in fewer places, overstate it. Suggested by these data is a fundamental philosophical question for the task force: To what extent should the convention shrink to reflect this decline (see also Figure 1)? On the one hand, a proportional “shrinkage” seems rational; on the other, it would result in “loss of representational resolution” in the areas of the Synod where our congregations and ministerium and visitation are stretched the thinnest, areas in which congregations face unique challenges and areas that may in some ways be the “tip of the spear” for all.

1 2 3 4

Interesting “tweaks” have included allowing a lower congregational bound for circuits with more than 4,000 confirmed members or requiring a certain number of installed pastors. These would tend to balance the possibility of realignment to much smaller circuits with fewer members, either by allowing greater representation for the largest congregations or by limiting the division of new circuits.

Long-term (at least three triennia) stability of representation has been proposed a number of times as a desirable feature (perhaps by allowing automatic exceptions for a certain number of conventions for a once valid circuit falling below bounds) but never adopted.

Table 1: Overview of Convention Overtures and Resolutions regarding Synod Convention Representation, 2010–23

5 6

Figure 6: Distribution of Visitation-Circuit-Level Reported Confirmed Membership Change, 2019–22

4. Selected Changes Proposed at the Level of Synod Convention Overtures for the Formation of Circuits, Visitation and Electoral In addition to the adopted changes detailed in the rationale to 2023 Res. 9-06A, there have been over the years any number of overtures and resolutions proposing changes to the requirements and/or process for the formation of visitation and/or electoral circuits. These are briefly summarized as follows, going back only to 2010, the most recent restructuring of the Synod (interestingly, the part of the restructuring that would have changed how Synod convention delegates were elected received another three years of discussion and then was roundly defeated, as 2013 Res. 7-07A, by a vote of 62 in favor and 830 opposed). More recent proposals have been less (conceptually, if not numerically) radical, suggesting dropping the confirmed membership requirement to 1,250, 1,000, or 750, and/or revising the congregation requirement to 5. Such proposals would render presently exceptional circuits unexceptional and give some degree of buffer of stability into the future. They would, however, if adopted alone, also introduce the possibility of at least some districts “optimizing” circuits for the new limits, trading stability for representational share. To the extent this is done, representational shift will occur and the sought-after stability would not be achieved.

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 lower 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

Ov. 9-06, 07

To allow 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

Ov. 11-38

To allow district boards of directors to align according to existing criteria but with alignments remaining valid for 9 years.

Ov. 11-39

To allow district 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.

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

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.)

Res. 7-07A (declined) A study on the regional level of circuits segmented by starting confirmed membership “size” indicated no significant correlation between that size and the circuit’s rate of change in the years 2019–22.

Ov. 9-01, 13

201 0

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

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.)

5 6 7 8 9

These experiments have important limitations. Being a stochastic, heuristic algorithm, there is no guarantee that the algorithm achieves the maximum number of electoral circuits possible. It is theoretically possible that it understates to some (likely small) degree the number of electoral circuits possible. It also assumes no exceptions, which we know are presently occurring at a rate of about 11%. More importantly, it may ignore important geographical features (i.e., mountain ranges, bodies of water, non-Euclidean travel times) or the many other factors that rightly go into the selection of visitation and electoral circuits. It is likely that, because of all these factors, the algorithm likely somewhat over states the number of reasonably achievable circuits. Nonetheless, noting that 15% of 2023 circuits are already exceptional relative to SY2022 data, 14 the number of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2022 data for a given district varied from 96% to 139% 15 of those aligned for the 2023 convention, with a median (coincidentally) of 111% (standard deviation 12%). Some districts (e.g., AT, CNH, NJ, OK, PSW, SELC, SE, SW, TX, WY) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize representation 16 (Max-P forms 4% fewer to 5% more circuits); others (CI, MNS, MT, ND, NE, NEB, NI, NW, OH, RM, SD, SI) are farther from such (Max-P forms 20–39% more circuits), possibly reflecting other alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long-term rather than continually realign to maximize representation.

While even a resounding rejection of a resolution does not necessarily mean that the delegates shared a common reason for rejecting it, it does seem likely that the resounding defeat of 2013 Res. 7-07A—albeit more than a decade ago—suggests that, despite its challenges, the Synod’s congregations remain quite attached to the present system, in which visitation circuits gather individually or with neighbors to elect directly their member congregations’ pastoral and lay representation at the Synod convention.

Table 2: Percent of 2023 convention circuits (assuming no realignment or recombination of visitation circuits, and an 8–9% triennial drop in confirmed membership) that would require exceptions for the 2026 (see text), 2029, and 2032 conventions

While various adjustments of parameters have been proposed, this has been done without a great deal of insight into how these adjustments could not only arrest the decline of but potentially dramatically increase the size of the Synod convention, or have the potential to encourage districts so inclined to sacrifice stability or visitation circuit viability for representational share. This is the topic of this document’s next section.

These preliminaries out of the way, we will now evaluate, for a variety of parameter selections, the extent to which a given set of parameters: (1) renders presently or likely-soon-to-be exceptional circuits unexceptional; and (2) would give districts the option of optimizing their representation to new, lower standards, increasing their representation share and the size of the total convention delegation. Max-P enables the second measure.

5. Anal ysi s of Poten ti al Chan ge du e to Var i ation of Elec toral Ci rc u i t For m ation P aram eter s

What would be the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes to representational balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7 member congregations and 1,500 confirmed members)? The answer to this question is not simply mathematical but also geographical, and the unique features of the districts (principally, distribution of congregation membership count and geographic dispersal of congregations with large membership) make it impossible to adopt a generally useful “rule of thumb.” Recalling Figure 1, the number of congregations in the Synod suggest the possibility of 825 electoral circuits (for the 2023 convention) and the number of confirmed members, 930, but the actual number of electoral circuits, 532, is 64% of the one (districts ranging from 43% to 89%) and 57% of the other (districts ranging from 40% to 100%).

3 4 5 6 7 8

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 for 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.

Confirmed Members

1% 2% 9% 29% 1% 2% 9% 30% 1% 2% 9% 30% 2% 4% 11% 31% 17 SY2027 proj. (2029 convention)

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200 1500 1% 5% 18% 39% 2% 5% 18% 39% 2% 5% 19% 40% 3% 7% 20% 41% SY2030 proj. (2032 convention)

Under the assumption that districts do not realign or recombine 2023 circuits, Table 2 shows, for a variety of combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and minimum confirmed members) the estimated proportion of 2023 circuits (assuming an 8–9% triennial drop in confirmed membership and no congregation closures or mergers) that would require exceptions for the 2026, 18 2029, and 2032 conventions. As indicated previously, 22% of existing 2023 electoral circuits would require exceptions

11% were exceptional at the time 2023 convention representation was fixed on the basis of SY2021 data.

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.

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200 1500 0% 2% 5% 21% 1% 2% 5% 21% 1% 2% 5% 21% 2% 3% 6% 22% SY2024 proj. (2026 convention)

This is not the only, and perhaps not the most important factor for “optimization” of visitation and electoral circuits.

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.

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.

A set of experiments was conducted using a heuristic Max-P Regionalization algorithm 13 adapted to make use of multiple spatially extensive regional attribute thresholds (in this case, principally, number of congregations and collective confirmed membership, but also in some instances the number of parishes or non-SMP pastors installed). Max-P attempts to cluster a set of geographic areas into the maximum number of “homogeneous” regions such that each cluster satisfies such thresholds. In this instance, the measure of

Congregations

1 2

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.

“homogeneity” is strictly geographical; the latitude and longitude were used as the homogeneity variables to keep the circuits formed as geographically compact as possible.

3 4 5

for 2026, 31% for 2029, and 41% for 2032. If the confirmed member requirement were reduced to 1200, the exception rate could be held to 11% for the 2029 convention (but would likely rise to 20% for 2032). Lowering the confirmed member requirement to 1200 would likely allow 6 additional visitation circuits in 2029 due to splitting of electoral circuits combined for 2023, but these, too, would likely revert by 2032. It should be noted that in the “congregation requirement” dimension, closures, mergers, and charters are not modeled.

Table 3: Potential for increase in number of electoral circuits relative to an “optimal” baseline and proportion of resulting circuits requiring exceptions after a 3-year interval (present data; no accounting for future change)

7 8 9

Congregations

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members in SY2022 (present)

68% / 91% 50% / 70% 34% / 52% 14% / 29% 52% / 73% 39% / 58% 26% / 44% 11% / 26% 37% / 55% 28% / 45% 19% / 35% 6% / 20% 22% / 38% 16% / 32% 11% / 26% – / 14% Potential increase in convention voting delegation given various changes in circuit minimums, relative to optimal (602 circuits) / (ital.) 2023 actual (532 circuits)

28% 22% 14% 12%

Confirmed Members in SY2025

34% 42% 47% 30% 36% 44% 26% 33% 39% 20% 28% 35% 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 that 2029 is the first convention for which changed requirements would take effect, and given that districts tend to desire some stability in circuit formation, Table 4 shows the change in number of circuits relative to optimal formation at current parameters and relative to 2023 counts, for a variety of parameters, assuming districts form circuits with the assumption of an 8–9% triennial confirmed membership decline and forming circuits that will likely be valid in 2029. For more conservative parameter changes (e.g., to 6 congregations and 1,200 members) this likely better estimates the “upper bound” on convention size impact relative to 2023.

Table 4: Potential for increase in number of 2029 electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of an 8–9% triennial membership decline) relative to an “optimal” baseline and proportion of resulting circuits requiring exceptions for the 2032 convention

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

69% / 76% 48% / 55% 31% / 37% 10% / 15% 56% / 63% 39% / 46% 26% / 31% 7% / 12% 41% / 48% 31% / 36% 19% / 25% 3% / 8% 28% / 34% 21% / 26% 12% / 17% – /5% Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation given various changes in circuit minimums, relative to optimal (556 circuits) / (ital.) 2023 actual (532 circuits)

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

49% 58% 63% 68% 40% 48% 59% 66% 31% 45% 53% 62% 23% 36% 47% 57% Proportion of “optimally formed” circuits likely to require exceptions after another 3 years

(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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The interaction of congregation confirmed membership sizes, counts, and geographical factors, and their peculiar combinations in the different districts and regions mean that variation of parameters does not have a uniform effect across the Synod. Figure 7 shows the potential for relative increase in the number of electoral circuits as estimated by the Max-P algorithm, configured to form circuits with sufficient excess confirmed members today to survive a continued 8–9% triennial decline until the 2029 convention, for (a) a variety of parameter combinations, by region; and (b) for circuits with a minimum 6 congregations and 1,200 members, by district. In (a), variation in the confirmed membership requirement is along the x-axis; variation in the congregation count requirement is indicated by the different line styles. Variation in the latter requirement has a more pronounced effect in the regions with a greater proportion of relatively larger congregations. ESE and WSW regions struggle to add circuits at a rate similar to other regions (of course, their “baseline” includes a greater proportion of exceptional circuits already, so they have more “negative inertia” to overcome). Perhaps paradoxically, though, lowered requirements would allow other regions (especially in the GP region, but for reasonable parameters also in the GL and CEN regions) to add circuits at a higher rate than these could.

Taking one example of moderate change to parameters in Figure 7(b), with 6 congregations and 1,200 members required, one can see a great variety in the ability of districts to add new circuits, ranging from increases at or below 10% (AT, SO, NJ, SW Districts and all of the WSW Region except for RM District) to over 50% (NEB, NW, SD). 20 Such potential swings in representation are neither “right” nor “wrong,” but are significant to note and perhaps of broader variance than might be expected, even in districts that are not among the smallest. Note also that these figures include no exceptional circuits, for which some provision (even if limited, either with empirical rationales, hard ratios, or spatial or numerical limits) might presumably continue to be made.

6. Alternate Requirements for Electoral Circuit Formation

Percentages 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, 13% 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.

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”).

It must at the same time be asked, however, if districts were to take advantage of changed circuit requirements to realign circuits to optimize for representation, how significant the change in proportional representation or in the total convention size would be. A significant increase in convention size might have undesirable budgetary and logistical complications, and a significant potential for districts to increase their proportion of representation, potentially at the cost of visitation or other “working” aspects of current circuits may also raise appropriate concern. The previously described Max-P algorithm was used to “optimally” form electoral circuits under a wide range of parameters, based on SY2022 data. Table 3 shows, for a range of congregation and confirmed membership requirements, the theoretical potential increase in the size of the national convention (left), 19 if all districts redistricted “optimally,” and the percentage of optimally formed circuits that would require exceptions after the elapse of three years (right).

Congregations

1 2

would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums, district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact circuits that have for other reasons a low ratio of installed pastors to congregations. These results can be detailed for the task force at some point if there is interest.

7. Codependent Bounds for Electoral Circuit Formation (“Relieved Model” )

At least one overture has proposed codependent bounds on electoral circuit size, allowing a circuit with a surplus of confirmed members to exist with a deficit of congregations. The inverse, to allow a circuit with a surplus of congregations to exist with a deficit of confirmed members, has more potential to address the bulk of current exceptions. Suppose one such model (of many possible) is defined as follows:

1 2 3

7 8 9

5 6 7 8 9

1,500 ≤7 1,450 8 1,400 9 1,350

1,300

1,250

confirmed 1,200

members congregations 1,150

if it has 1,100

1,050

1,000

≥ 20

While far more complicated than the “rectangular” rule we have today, this “relieved rule” has the benefit of allowing regular “relieving” of the membership relieving for circuits well in excess of the number of congregations and, conversely, in the congregation parameter for circuits well in excess of the required number of confirmed members. Figure 8 shows graphically the range of circuits (here, formed using Max-P), targeting 2029 compliance, as described above. This is a mathematically more detailed version of an eminently reasonable specification of electoral circuits of ages past, that “Large congregations shall form small circuits, and small congregations shall form large circuits” (1960 Bylaw 1.51), allowing the relatively larger circuits, in terms of either congregations or confirmed members, to be relatively smaller in the other

dimension. Recall Figure 4, which shows how many of the 2023 exceptions (and potential 2026 and 2029 exceptions, if nothing is done) fall within the “relieved wings” opened by the relaxed model. This approach has the benefit of not moving the “lower left” corner of the “acceptable domain” (which remains at 7 congregations and 1,500 confirmed members). Note that different regions use the “space” differently. Only 78% of 2023 circuits are likely to meet present confirmed membership requirements for the 2026 convention, and 69% for 2029 and 59% for 2032 (see Table 2). Were current requirements to be replaced with the “relieved” model (applying the same model of annual change used in Table 2), 88% of 2023 circuits would meet requirements in 2026, 21 80% in 2029 (64% non-geographic, 71% ESE, 74% WSW, 83% CEN and GL, 87% GP), and 71% in 2032 (57% WSW, 64% non-geographic, 64% ESE, 72% CEN, 77% GL, 85% GP). Considering Max-P formed circuits optimized to deliver maximum representation but targeting compliance in 2029 (compare Table 4), the relieved model could be used to form an approximate maximum of 593 electoral circuits, an increase of 7% relative to those formed “ideally” using current metrics and of 11% relative to actual 2023 circuits. Of these circuits, 90% would likely remain compliant for 2032 (78% of non geographic, 82% ESE, 87% WSW, 88% CEN, 94% GP, 96% GL). The “relieved” model thus has a lower potential for convention growth than any of the alternative models considered in Table 4 except for the not very useful 6 congregation/1500 confirmed member model and a much more stable “ideal,” with a much greater proportion of circuits remaining compliant for the next convention. By offering to accommodate the (numerically) most “reasonable” of the current exceptions for at least the next few conventions, while avoiding the potential for explosive representation growth, this model—complicated though it may be to explain, relative to what we have today—may show some promise. A concise statement of the “relieved” rule using a piecewise function would be as follows (m being the number of confirmed members and c being the number of congregations: 1500 + 1500(7 − 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) if 4 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 < 7 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 4 and 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚 � 1500 − 50(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 7) if 7 ≤ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐 20

if 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 > 20

8. Basic Contextual Data on the Member Congregations and Pastors in the Circuits of the Synod

Geographic factors are significant when considering the reason ability of circuit formation. Figure 9 shows, for 2023 visitation and electoral circuits, the distribution, by district, of electoral circuit radii, expressed in

and

3 4

A valid electoral circuit shall consist of no fewer than:

4 congregations ≥ 6000 confirmed if it has 5 ≥ 4500 members 6 ≥ 3000 7 congregations otherwise

1 2

Figure 8: 2023 electoral circuits compared to (left), and Max-P electoral circuits formed using (right), “relieved” model, targeting 2029 compliance, by region.

It is not possible, of course, to apply the relaxed model rule as early as for the 2026 convention, though it could be used as 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

These data highlight, especially in those districts and regions where congregations are more geographically dispersed, the significant difference between visitation circuit expanse (these having no minimum parameters except common sense) and electoral circuit expanse, which may render visitation, gathering for regular Winkels and circuit forums, convocations, or other functions much more difficult or even impractical. Presently, there is pressure to increase the size of visitation circuits to maximize representation, rather than combining adjacent visitation circuit, generally “inefficiently,” into combined electoral circuits and “losing” representation. However, the value of the visitation circuit as such may be greater—if it is working well— than the incremental value of greater Synod convention representation. This may be increasingly true as pressures (vacancy and MDiv “droughts,” cultural, demographic, and economic pressures—as well as potential for new planting and revitalization opportunities) can only increase the need for visitation and for circuits to work meaningfully and regularly together.

1 2

at present) the task force will want to be sure that the non-electoral functions of the circuits are not negatively impacted.

9. Concluding Thoughts

This white paper intends to provide useful, baseline background for the task force as it undertakes its work. It is certainly not thought to be exhaustive of the information the task force may want or need to consider. The Office of the Secretary and Department of Rosters, Statistics, and Research Services stands at the ready to provide further analytical and/or survey work needed. This paper has also been shared with the Council of Presidents at its September 2024 meeting, with the request that any input for the task force be shared with the Office of the Secretary for distribution to the task force.

5 6 7 8 9

This paper is not intended to and does not identify a particular solution (though it does survey and extend on a variety of proposals previously suggested). Neither does it definitively identify the numerical or philosophical questions that will identify or refine whatever solution (if any modification is, in fact warranted) the task force will ultimately recommend. It is hoped that the paper will, however, support the task force in rapidly identifying such questions and the means necessary to work through them to identify a well reasoned recommendation or recommendations.

Figure 10: Number of eligible (non-SMP) installed pastors (left) and total installed pastor FTEs (right) per visitation circuit

Another important aspect of visitation circuit formation (in addition to electoral circuit formation) is the having “critical mass” available to elect a circuit visitor and a pastoral delegate and alternate for the Synod convention. Figure 10 shows the distribution of installed, non-SMP pastors per visitation circuit (left) and the number of installed pastor FTEs per circuit (right), as reported on the Parochial Service Report (the shadow on the right indicates the installed total plus the number of FTEs currently reported as being called). (Note that emeriti pastors are eligible to serve as circuit visitors, but not as delegates/alternates; nonetheless, they are not included in the counts above.) In the West-Southwest Region and in a number of other districts, a quarter or more of visitation circuits have six or fewer non-SMP installed pastors and a similar number of total FTEs. A handful of circuits have fewer than four or even two. Such circuits are highly pressured to identify eligible pastors to serve as visitor and delegate, and probably have lack “critical mass” to support winkels, forums, and convocations in a fulsome way. (It is possible, at the same time, that extreme geographic isolation, for example, may be a reason the circuits are as they are.) As the task force looks at adjusting electoral and (to some extent) visitation circuit parameters (the latter are not specified numerically

Due to issues with projection, the radius of circuits involving Hawaii and the Church of All Nations in Hong Kong are inaccurate.

miles 22 (these are displayed on a logarithmic scale due to the great variation in the geographic size of electoral circuits). Northern Illinois and South Wisconsin (and the Great Lakes Region, in general) have the most compact visitation circuits, with a median radius below 10 miles. Among geographical districts, Montana and Wyoming have the highest median radii at ~80 and ~50 miles, respectively (these increase to ~110 and ~85 miles for electoral circuits, when combination is taken into account); Great Plains and West Southwest regions are similarly challenged with relatively large visitation circuits that tend to combine into significantly larger electoral circuits (this is, of course, even more the case with the non geographic districts).

R59.2

2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters

White paper II

John W. Sias, Secretary February 13, 2026

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Electoral and Visitation Circuits Today, Statistically and Historically Considered

Had no circuits been realigned or recombined from their 2023 configurations, 22% of electoral circuits would have required exceptions for the 2026 convention (confirming pre-convention estimates, White paper I, Table 2). Significant realignment, however, by several districts and a disciplined approach, by the Office of the President, to granting exceptions, has resulted in only a 7% exception rate for 2026. This reflects the general impression of the task force that a reduction in convention size is reasonable, and reasonably achievable, within essentially the current framework of requirements.

8 9

7 8 9

Comparing lines to bars in Figure 1, the voting size of the convention 2 has only recently begun to trend moderately downward in response to slight decline in the number of member congregations (5,672 in 2026 vs. 6,033 in 2004) and significant decline in confirmed membership (1.29M in 2026 vs. 1.95M in 1998). There were 497 electoral circuits in 2026 compared to a 2004 high of 628, a decline of 21% in a period that saw a 32% decline in confirmed membership and a 6% decline in the number of member congregations. There is a stable, regional non-uniformity. Figure 2 shows, for each region, in 2010 and 2026, the proportion of confirmed members and congregations, plus the number of exceptions, all of which contribute to the number of electoral circuits, and the number of non-SMP parish pastors. Exceptions tend to be granted disproportionately in the ESE and WSW regions, offsetting a relatively lower number of confirmed members in those regions and a commensurate challenge forming compliant electoral circuits—a long-term pattern, as the comparative data from 2010 indicate. 3

The 2026 convention will comprise delegates from 497 electoral circuits, 461 meeting the requirements and 34 having “underage” exceptions. These 497 electoral circuits represent 5,672 member congregations and 1,291,318 confirmed members. Figure 1 updates White paper I, Figure 1, to include also the 2026 convention. The line graphs indicate the number of confirmed members in the Synod divided by 1,500 (the lower bound for electoral circuit formation; for comparison, in 1968, this figure would have been 1,252, slightly below 1998’s 1,301) and the number of member congregations divided by 7 (again, the lower bound; for comparison, the 1968 figure was 783). The heights of solid bars in Figure 1 (excluding the slashed portion at the top, which reflects visitation circuits “combined away” into others to reach electoral circuit requirements—an increasingly prominent category) represent the number of electoral circuits formed for each convention, the green (lower) bar, those meeting

Figure 2: Proportion of Electoral and Visitation Circuits, Congregations, Confirmed Members, Non-SMP Pastors, and Exceptions per Region, 2010 and 2026

2. Characterization of Current Visitation and Electoral Circuits

The Office of the President approved 497 electoral circuits for representation at the 2026 convention. Of these, 375 were visitation circuits that satisfied the minimum requirements in their own right, 76 were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits (11 of which had more than 20 congregations), and 12 were triples of adjacent visitation circuits (8 of which had more than 20 congregations). 34 (7%) were under requirements and received exceptions: 3, having fewer than 7 congregations; 31, having fewer than 1,500 members (4 of which were pairs of adjacent visitation circuits); and none, having both fewer than 7 congregations and fewer than

Regular Except < C Congs/7

Except ? Except < C < M Conf Mbrs/1500

Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2026 Conventions

Except < M Combined w/ Adjacent(s)

Such averages are useful for general comparison over time of representation rates but obscure wide variance among actual circuits. See details in White paper I, note 2. In 2026, many fewer exceptions were requested and granted in CEN, GL, and GP regions; the 2023 distribution of exceptions granted was very similar to that for 2010.

2 3

Circuits and Congregations / 7 and Confirmed Members / 1500

Throughout the period of Figure 1, in comparison to the circumstances of 1969, when the present system was put into use, the Synod has had, on average, fewer and increasingly fewer confirmed members in an “average” electoral circuit than in 1969; it has also had fewer congregations per electoral circuit, although this ratio has rebounded, in 2026, to near the 1969 level. In 1969, there were 11.5 member congregations and 3,928 confirmed members, on average, per electoral circuit; in 1998, there were 10 and 3,247; in 2023, 10.9 and 2,622; in 2026, 11.4 and 2,602. 1

This white paper provides a supplemental update, subsequent to circuit alignment for the 2026 convention based on Statistical Year (SY) 2024 data, to the statistical and historical data provided in White paper I. Due to significant realignment in a number of districts, projections based on current state have changed somewhat. A preliminary form of the data presented in this paper was available to the task force as it assembled its proposal; it is hoped to be useful for the floor committee and convention as they consider the task force proposal and any alternatives.

the requirements and the red, yellow, and orange bars representing exceptions granted by the Office of the President to those that did not.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1,500 members. Of the 34 “underage” exceptions, as noted above, 11 were granted to geographical districts in the WSW region and 16 in the ESE region. Figure 3 shows, on a logarithmic axis, box plot 4 histograms indicating the distribution of the confirmed member sizes of the circuits in each district (the width of each box reflecting the number of circuits in each district). The dark vertical line indicates the lower bound of 1,500 confirmed members; the two lighter vertical lines are at 1,613 members and 1,734 members, the confirmed member sizes (all other things being equal) a circuit would need to have in 2029 to meet the requirement of 1,500 members, after a typical 7% triennial decline, and in 2032, respectively. The darker red dots to the left of the vertical lines represent electoral circuits that received exceptions in 2026; the lighter red dots, those that may require exceptions or realignment or combination of ad�acent �is it ation circuits, all other things being equal, for 2029 (77 circuits) and 2032 (an additional 45 circuits). The task force, in recommending elimination of exceptions, does so aware that where these threshold lines move well into the “box” of the two center quartiles (and even to or beyond the median for districts like SELC, MDS, AT, NJ, SE, and NOW), realignment of visitation circuits or combination of visitation circuits into increasingly large electoral circuits will be necessary.

Figure 4: Confirmed Membership and Congregations of 2026 Electoral Circuits by Region (SY2024 data; confirmed membership thresholds at 1,��, 1,613, and 1,734; see explanation of Figure 3 in text), �ndi cat ing Combined Circuits

3. Characterization of Confirmed Membership Change

The rate of confirmed membership change over time is a factor in the “stability” of circuit designations, electoral circuit combinations, and the rate of requests for exceptions. Electoral circuit qualification is based on the statistics gathered in the year prior to the convention (i.e., the 2026 convention relied on SY2024 confirmed membership data as of December 31, 2024, gathered by May 2025; the 2029 convention will rely on SY2027 data). District alignment of visitation regions, usually done at district conventions in the year

3 4 5 6

Figure 4 adds another dimension of the 2026 convention circuit apportionment, indicating on the vertical axis the number of congregations involved in each electoral circuit as well as (by the color of the dot) the number of visitation circuits included in each combined electoral circuit. Confirmed member thresholds are indicated as in Figure 3. The figure also distinguishes by color those electoral circuits formed of two or three adjacent visitation circuits. See White paper I for analysis, which is generally unchanged. Relative to Figure 4 in White paper I, it may be observed that a significant reduction in exceptions was achieved by formation of more circuits with more than 20 congregations each, beyond the upper bound set in existing bylaws. The task force recommends removing these upper bounds (20 congregations and 10,000 confirmed members), as smaller congregations will mean the size of circuits will likely continue to increase, particularly within the WSW and ESE regions.

Figure 5: Triennial Rate of Reported Confirmed Member Gain / Loss by District / Region, 1994–2024

Figure 3: Distribution, Confirmed Membership of 2026 Electoral Circuits (SY2024 data; thresholds at 1,500, 1,613, and 1,734; see text)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Through the period 1994–2024, the confirmed membership of the Synod has been decreasing at a generally accelerating rate, with some regional variation. Figure 5 shows the triennial rate of confirmed membership change throughout the period for each district and region (these data are presented to show the trend using LOESS, or “locally-weighted scatter plot smoothing”). The confirmed membership of the Synod as a whole was experiencing 2% triennial loss in 2003, 4% in 2011, 6% in 2016, 8% in 2020, and 7% in 2024. These rates fluctuate regionally; in 2019 and 2020, the WSW region experienced 11% triennial loss rates; presently it has dropped to 6% (but with increasing lag in reporting, which can render the rate artificially low); at present, all regions have triennial loss rates between 5.5% and 7.6%. At a triennial loss rate of 7%, an electoral circuit of 1,613 confirmed members at the time of one convention’s electoral circuit qualification will likely have, all other things being equal, 1,500 for the next, and 1,395 for the one thereafter. Put another way, a circuit would need 1,613 members today to have 1,500 in three years, and 1,734 today to have 1,500 in six years. (It should be noted that the upturn in the small buckets of districts and the non-geographical category may not be as significant, in fact, as they appear.)

Of course, these changes are not uniform across the districts or within a given district. Figure 6 shows the distribution (in box-plot form, with the colored portion of the box reflecting the two inner quartiles, or half the circuits) of recent rates of confirmed membership change across the districts—a reminder that “all other things” are rarely equal. A considerable number of circuits reported confirmed membership losses, over the past three years, of more than 10%, with some districts having half or more of their circuits in this range. At the same time, there are districts reporting as many as a quarter of their circuits having net gains in the past three years. In this sense, the vertical lines indicated in Figures 3 and 4 to show threats to circuit stability may here and there—and more frequently in the WSW region—underestimate the challenge at hand, or, in fewer places, overstate it. Comparing to the same figure in White paper I, note the change in scale; some of the losses reported in years no longer part of the window were extreme. In a few districts, more circuits are reporting gains; in others, reported losses are more pronounced. Nonetheless, the general analysis holds.

�ection � o� �hitepaper � is historical in nature and re�uires no update�

5. Analysis of Potential Change due to Variation of Electoral Circuit Formation Parameters

White paper I explored the question of the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes to representational balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7 member congregations and 1,500 confirmed members). The set of heuristic Max-P experiments described in White paper I was repeated with SY2024 data and to reflect some of the choices made in the task force’s later work. �or details on the Ma�-P e�periments, see �hitepaper �, �ection ��

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

�able �� ercent (%) of 2026 con�ention circuits �assuming no realignment or recombination of visitation circuits, and a 7% triennial drop in confirmed membership� that would re�uire e�ce pt ions or realignment/combination for 2029–2035 conventions

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.8% 1.6% 3.6% 15.5%5 �� pro�� con�ention�

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 1.0% 1.6% 4.6% 24.6% �� pro�� con�ention�

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 1.4% 2.6% 7.2% 33.0% �� pro�� con�ention�

Table 2 shows, for a variety of combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and minimum confirmed members) the estimated proportion of 2026 circuits (assuming a 7% triennial drop in confirmed membership and no congregation closures or mergers) that would likely have fallen below the indicated minimum congregation and confirmed membership requirements by the time to align for the 2029, 2032, and 2035 conventions. As indicated previously, 15.5% of existing 2026 electoral circuits would require exceptions (if allowed; otherwise, adjustment or combination) for 2029, 24.6% for 2032, and 33.0% for 2035. If the confirmed member requirement were reduced to 1200, the exception rate could be held to 3.6% for the 2029 convention (but would likely rise to 4.6% and 7.2%, respectively, for 2032 and 2035). 6 Of course, it is not realistic to expect that with the bar lowered that at least some districts would not restructure to increase representation, potentially increasing the size of the convention, possibly dramatically. It should be noted that in the “congregation requirement” dimension, closures, mergers, and charters are not modeled.

These are not evenly distributed: 20.0% of non-geographical circuits, 20.4% of those in the WSW region, and 30.1% of those in the ESE region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2026 circuits in 2029, with 6.2–11.1% requiring them in other regions. If the 7/1500 requirement is held, in three triennia’s time, 33.0% of circuits would have to be revised, as indicated: 46.7% of non geographical circuits, 50.6% of those in ESE, 46.2% of those in WSW, and 19.3–27.5% of those in the other regions. 6 These projected exception rates are much lower than those in the first paper, partially because realignment for the 2026 convention—primarily at district initiative and partially because of a reduced number of exceptions granted—significantly reduced the number of circuits within a few triennial drops of (or already below) the confirmed membership line. They are also reduced by the adjustment of projected 8–9% triennial drops to 7% due to incorporation of 2023–24 reporting. A reduction to 1,200 members helps only so much; 13.3% of non-geographical, 19.3% of those in ESE, and 11.8% of those in WSW would be exceptional in three triennia.

Figure 6: �is tri but ion o� �is it ation-Circuit-Level Reported Confirmed Membership Change, 2021–24

Noting that 7% of 2026 circuits are exceptional relative to SY2024 data, and that the Max-P model admits of no exceptions, the number of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2024 data for a given district varied from 100% to 167% of those aligned for the 2026 convention, with a median of 121% (standard deviation 16%). Some districts (e.g., CNH, EA, NE, NJ, MDS, MI, SELC, SW, TX) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize representation (Max-P forms no more than 10% more circuits); others (CI, EN, IW, MNN, MNS, MT, ND, NEB, NI, NW, OH, OK, SD, SI, WY) are farther from such (Max-P forms 20–67% more circuits), possibly reflecting other alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long-term rather than continually realign to maximize representation.prior to the Synod convention, generally relies on the previous statistical year, so districts have to predict circuits likely to drop below requirements in the intervening year of data reporting.

Congregations

1 2

�able �� otential for increase in number of electoral circuits relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ce pt ions after a �-year inter�al (present data; no accounting for future change�

3 4 5 6 7 8

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members in SY2024 (present) Confirmed Members in SY2027

66% / 97% 47% / 74% 32% / 56% 14% / 35% 26% 32% 35% 46% 52% / 80% 38% / 63% 26% / 49% 9% / 29% 19% 25% 36% 42% 37% / 62% 27% / 50% 18% / 40% 4% / 24% 17% 23% 30% 39% 23% / 48% 17% / 38% 10% / 33% – / 18% 12% 19% 24% 35% Potential increase in convention voting delegation �ro portion of �optimally formed� circuits gi�en �arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to li�ely to fall below minimums after 3 optimal (588 circ�� (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circ�) years (7% conf� membership decline�

For example, if the bylaw bounds were to be adjusted to require 1200 confirmed members and five congregations instead of 1500 and 7, the number of delegates could be increased by as much as 49% relative to current alignment (or by 26%, if we imagine a theoretical maximum number of delegates at present). 36% of the circuits formed, however, at that “optimal alignment” would likely fall below the new bar within one triennium. To reduce to five congregations and 800 members could result in a voting delegation 80% larger.

Table 3 reflects formation of circuits based on present statistics, a definite upper bound on increases. Given that 2029 is the first convention for which changed requirements would take effect, and given that districts tend to desire some stability in circuit formation, Table 4 shows the change in number of circuits relative to optimal formation at current parameters and relative to 2026 counts, for a variety of parameters, assuming districts figure on a 7% triennial confirmed membership decline to form circuits that will li�ely be �alid in 2032. For more conservative parameter changes (e.g., to 6 congregations and 1,200 members) this likely better estimates the “upper bound” on convention size impact relative to 2026.

�able �� otential for increase in number of 2029 electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of a 7% triennial membership decline) relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ce pt ions for the 2032 convention

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

68% / 88% 48% / 47% 31% / 47% 12% / 25% 55% / 74% 39% / 41% 26% / 41% 8% / 22% 41% / 58% 30% / 34% 20% / 34% 5% / 18% 28% / 43% 19% / 25% 11% / 25% – /12% Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation given �arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to optimal (�57 circuits� � (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circuits)

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

23% 28% 36% 41% 20% 25% 33% 42% 14% 22% 30% 34% 12% 18% 24% 33% �ro portion of �optimally formed� circuits li�ely to fall below minimums after another � years

(a) �ith a �ariety of parameters, regionally

(b� �ith � congs� and �200 conf� mbrs�, by district

Figure 7: �hange in electoral circuits, relati�e to 2026 actual, using Max-P and forming for 2029 with the assumption of continued 7% triennial confirmed membership decline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The interaction of congregation confirmed membership sizes, counts, and geographical factors, and their peculiar combinations in the different districts and regions mean that variation of parameters does not have a uniform effect across the Synod. Figure 7 shows the potential for relative increase in the number of electoral circuits as estimated by the Max-P algorithm, configured to form circuits with sufficient excess confirmed members today to survive a continued 7% triennial decline until the 2029 convention, for (a) a variety of parameter combinations, by region; and (b) for circuits with a minimum 6 congregations and 1,200 members, by district. In (a), variation in the confirmed membership requirement is along the x-axis; variation in the congregation count requirement is indicated by the different line styles. Variation in the latter requirement has a more pronounced effect in the regions with a greater proportion of relatively larger congregations. ESE and WSW regions struggle to add circuits at a rate similar to other regions (of course, their “baseline” includes a greater proportion of exceptional circuits already, so they have more “negative inertia” to overcome). Perhaps paradoxically, though, lowered requirements would allow other regions (especially in the GP region, but for reasonable parameters also in the GL and CEN regions) to add circuits at a higher rate than these could.

Taking one example of moderate change to parameters in Figure 7(b), with 6 congregations and 1,200 members required, one can see a great variety in the ability of districts to add new circuits, ranging from increases at or below 25% (SELC, MDS, KS, IE, SW, MI, TX, and most of the ESE region) to over 60% (MT, NW, WY, SD, NI). 8 Such potential swings in representation are neither “right” nor “wrong,” but are significant to note and perhaps of broader variance than might be expected, even in districts that are not among the smallest. Note also that these figures include no exceptional circuits (the task force is proposing eliminating them).

6. Alternate Requirements for Electoral Circuit Formation

Similar circuit formation experiments were performed with alternative requirements for electoral circuit formation, including requiring 4, 5, 6, or 7 parishes instead of congregations, or requiring 2, 3, or 4 installed pastors in addition to the existing requirements for congregations and confirmed members. The former would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums, district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact

District-level rates of potential representation change range from 1.00 to 2.00, with a mean of 1.36 and standard deviation of 0.20. Comparing “optimal” circuits of 7 congregations and 1,500 members to those of 6 congregations and 1,200 members (using the “optimal” instead of 2026 actual as baseline), district-level rates of potential representation change range from 1.14 to 1.50, with a mean of 1.21 and standard deviation of 0.066. 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”).

Congregations

It must at the same time be asked, however, if districts were to take advantage of changed circuit requirements to realign circuits to optimize for representation, how significant the change in proportional representation or in the total convention size would be. A significant increase in convention size might have undesirable budgetary and logistical complications, and a significant potential for districts to increase their proportion of representation, potentially at the cost of visitation or other “working” aspects of current circuits may also raise appropriate concern. The previously described Max-P algorithm was used to “optimally” form electoral circuits under a wide range of parameters, based on SY2024 data. Table 3 shows, for a range of congregation and confirmed membership requirements, the theoretical potential increase in the size of the national convention (left table), 7 if all districts redistricted “optimally,” and the percentage of optimally formed circuits that would require exceptions after the elapse of three years (right table).

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

circuits that have for other reasons a low ratio of installed pastors to congregations. These results were not presented in White paper I but became relevant later in the task force’s work. This update will present data on parish-based formation, which is an idea the task force is recommending as bringing circuit formation into line with other Pfarrgemeinde-based processes (see 2023 Res. 9-12 regarding this concept), in which, from the very early days of the Synod, the sum of congregations served by one pastor received, together, one pastor and one lay vote (see also Bylaw 2.5.5).

�able 5: Percent of 2026 con�ention circuits (assuming no realignment or recombination of �is it ation circuits� and a 7% triennial drop in con�rmed membership� that �ould re�uire e�ce pt ions or realignment/combination for the 2029–2035 conventions

Parishes

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members 800 1000

0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 1.2% 2.0% 4.0% 15.7% 7.4% 8.2% 10.3% 21.1%9 ��202� pro�� (202� con�ention�

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 1.4% 2.0% 5.0% 24.5% 7.6% 8.2% 11.1% 29.2% ��20�0 pro�� (20�2 con�ention�

�able 6� �otential for increase in number of 202� electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of a 7% triennial membership decline) relative to 2026 actual and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ce pt ions for the 20�2 con�ention

Parishes

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

23% 25% 35% 41% 16% 21% 30% 35% 14% 16% 24% 34% 9% 13% 20% 28% �ro portion of �optimally formed� circuits li�ely to fall belo� minimums after another � years

Table 6 shows, similar to Table 4 as based on congregation counts, the potential increase in voting delegation size if a variety of parish-based metrics were to be adopted and if districts were to form optimal circuits based on SY2027 projections for the 2029 convention (a realignment far more extensive than dealing with fraction of circuits that would have become exceptional by that time, left sub-table of Table 5 above). Adopting a standard of 6 parishes and 1,500 members would allow a theoretical ma�imum increase in the 2029 voting convention delegation, relative to 2026, of 13% (17–18% in CEN, GL, and GP regions and 4–6% in WSW and

8. Basic Contextual Data on the Member Congregations and Pastors in the Circuits of the Synod

Geographic factors are significant when considering the reason ability of circuit formation. Figure 9 shows, for 2026 visitation and electoral circuits, the distribution, by district, of electoral circuit radii, expressed in

Figure 9: �inimum radius (miles� of 2023 visitation (left� and electoral circuits (right�� by district and region�

�ee general comments and data (changed but not dramatically since the �rst presentation� and commentary on eligible installed pastors and pastoral full-time e�ui�alents in �hitepaper �� ection ��

9. Concluding Thoughts

This white paper updates selected portions of the data presented to the task force in support of its work, focusing especially on changes due to 2025–26 circuit realignments and adding data on parish-based circuit requirements. The changes proposed by the task force will provide, for most circuits, a stable transition between 2026 and 2029 conventions. This document attempts to provide a rough numerical framework for evaluating the task force’s conservative change—which will over time reduce the size of the convention by keeping representational proportions consistent with the post-1969 historical norm—in the context of many

miles 10 (these are displayed on a logarithmic scale due to the great variation in the geographic size of electoral circuits). South Wisconsin and Northern Illinois (and the Great Lakes Region, in general) have the most compact visitation circuits, with a median radius below 12 miles (mi.). Among geographical districts, Wyoming and Montana have the highest median radii at 70 and 88 mi., respectively (these increase to 132 and 163 mi. for electoral circuits, when combination is taken into account); Great Plains and West-Southwest regions are similarly challenged with relatively large visitation circuits that tend to combine into significantly larger electoral circuits (WSW has a mean radius of 46 mi. for visitation and 61 mi. for electoral; ESE, 37/45 mi.; GP 34/36 mi.; CEN 27/31 mi.; GL 17/18 mi.; this is, of course, even more the case with the non geographic districts, at 111/222 mi.).

�he tas� force determined not to pursue this model further� so updated data is not presented here�

�ue to issues with projection, the radius of circuits involving �awaii and the Church of All Nations in Hong Kong are inaccurate.

4 5 6 7

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

81% 62% 46% 24% 62% 49% 38% 19% 46% 36% 28% 13% 30% 24% 18% 7% Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation gi�en �arious changes in circuit minimums� relative to 2026 actual (497 circuits)

7. Codependent Bounds for Electoral Circuit Formation (“Relieved Model” )

Confirmed Members 800 1000

0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 1.8% 3.0% 7.6% 32.8% 8.0% 9.3% 13.7% 37.0% ��20�� pro�� (20�� con�ention�

Table 5 shows the percent of 2026 convention electoral circuits requiring realignment or recombination for a variety of parish-based requirement models over the next three conventions. As indicated in the leftmost sub-table, if the bylaw is amended to require at least six parishes in an electoral circuit and the current 1,500 confirmed members, 15.7% of current circuits are estimated to require adjustment before 2029, with an additional 8.8% requiring attention by 2030 and 8.3% by 2033.

3 4

Considering electoral circuits formed for the 2026 convention, if seven parishes were to be required, rather than seven congregations, an additional 6.5% of present circuits would be rendered exceptional (as elsewhere, these are not evenly distributed, striking districts making more use of multi-congregation parishes and having fewer very small congregations: 1.1% additional in WSW, 8.3% in GP, 3.0% in CEN, 17.6% in GL, and 1.2% in ESE Regions). Reducing the requirement to six parishes from seven congregations renders 1% or fewer more circuits exceptional at present and in the next three triennial projections. This is the recommendation of the task force.

7 8

ESE regions due to relatively fewer circuits with large parishes and relatively less importance at present of the multi-congregation parish model; it must be remembered, of course, that the WSW and ESE regions also are starting off with a “baseline” exception rate much higher than the other regions. With exceptions forbidden the model, they are “playing catchup” with regions that have already adjusted to larger circuits made up of smaller congregations).

1 2

other possibilities, such as reducing the number of confirmed members or congregations (parishes) required to form an electoral circuit in order to preserve the same geographical units of representation with which we are familiar, but at a much higher proportional representation. Such an approach would come with a significant risk of engendering widespread re circuiting. Setting the limits low enough to avoid all exceptions for current circuits for multiple triennia could dramatically increase the size of the convention and create circuits that ultimately are lacking in strength for other purposes (selection of a visitor, strength of ministerium, etc.) This updated white paper and its still-useful forebear are hoped to be helpful to the floor committee and convention in considering not only the floor committee’s proposal but also various alternatives.

Task Force on Electoral Circuit Parameters (2023 Res. 9-06A)

Candor

Specificity

Confessional

Accountability

Mission

Direction

Report text

Change the Bylaw 3.1.2 standard from congregations to parishes;

R59.1

White paper I

Regular

Except ?

Except < M

Except < C

Except < C < M

Combined w/ Adjacent(s)

Congs/7

Conf Mbrs/1500

Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2023 Conventions

Ov. 9-12

Ov. 9-14

To lower confirmed membership requirement to 1,250

Ov. 9-15

Ov. 9-16

Ov. 9-17

Ov. 9-06, 07

Ov. 9-08

Ov. 9-09

Ov. 9-11

See 2013 Ov. 7-15

Ov. 11-38

Ov. 11-39

Ov. 7-03

Ov. 7-08

To study definition of electoral circuits

Ov. 7-14, 24

Ov. 9-01, 13

Ov. 8-28–29, 31–32

Ov. 8-43

Ov. 8-56

BRTFSSG Ov. 8-44

Confirmed Members

Congregations

Res. 8-05B (referred)

Congregations

Confirmed Members in SY2022 (present)

Confirmed Members in SY2025

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

Congregations

R59.2

White paper II

John W. Sias, Secretary February 13, 2026

Regular Except < C Congs/7

Except ? Except < C < M Conf Mbrs/1500

Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2026 Conventions

Except < M Combined w/ Adjacent(s)

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

Congregations

Confirmed Members in SY2024 (present) Confirmed Members in SY2027

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

Congregations

Congregations

Parishes

Confirmed Members 800 1000

Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200

Parishes

Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.)

Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.)

Confirmed Members 800 1000