May 3, 2005
D.C. Council To Visit Congress Today
Hot off the presses, DCist has received word that the D.C. City Council will adjourn today at 12:30 p.m. to attend the introduction of the "D.C. Fairness in Representation Act of 2005," which will take place at 1 p.m. in Room 2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
The legislation, also known as the D.C. FAIR Act, seeks to grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives by increasing the size the chamber by two seats -- the second most likely going to Utah. The addition of the two seats would last until 2012, when the normal process of reapportionment would revert the House back to its standard 435 members. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), was applauded today by an editorial in the Post and by the voting rights activists over at D.C. Vote, which happily noted that
Tom Davis' proposal, together with other Republican co-sponsors, represents a new chapter in Republican support for DC voting rights and provides an opening for a bi-partisan bill to be enacted by this Congress.While the legislation makes no mention of adding Senate representation for the District, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton recently introduced legislation in both the House and the Senate that would grant the District full voting representation. That legislation, the "No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2005," currently has 27 co-sponsors in the House and 12 co-sponsors in the Senate.
Davis will be joined by members of the City Council, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, Council Chair Linda Cropp (D-At Large), former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Jack Kemp, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Ut.), Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Ut.), and U.S. Shadow Representative Ray Browne (D-D.C.).
If anyone has the chance to attend, please let us know how it was in the comments section.
|
So, DCist'ers, which bill should we all get behind, the Holmes-Norton/Lieberman bill proposing senators, as well, or the Davis bill, only proposing a voting House seat? I like Dems and I like the idea of having senators, but I have to say that I think it's worth pushing the Davis bill, because I think it's got more of a chance. Thoughts?
Are they mutually exclusive? Could we not support both?
Both can be supported. The D.C. Fair Act is seen as a temporary fix that can attract more bi-partisan support and hopefully pass congressional muster. The other bill is much more ambitious -- and from what I understand, it is introduced on a yearly basis more as a form of protest than a legitimate legislative project.
Well, isn't the Davis proposal to give the House 537 seats? One is to be added to Utah and one to DC. Thay way, the theory goes, the party balance would remain unchanged. Bastards! Or at least that's what was introduced last session, don't know if the bill has changed (although knowing Davis, I'd doubt if he was willing to give DC a vote without adding an R). And besides, an odd number of seats makes for less chance of a tie.
The Davis proposal does not give the House 537 seats. That's the Anschutz proposal.