September 19, 2006
Voting Rights...Delayed
Last week's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives seemed to go swimmingly. Mayor-to-be Adrian Fenty and outgoing mayor Anthony Williams played nice among the 200-person crowd, no one on the committee chimed in to argue against the legislation -- all seemed to be moving forward.
Almost.
Committee chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner has apparently expressed displeasure with a provision of the legislation that would grant Utah an additional at-large seat in the House, arguing that it would mean that Utah residents would all have more than one representative in the 435-seat chamber. In most cases, the offending provision could simply be amended out, but in this case, it is the very provision that has secured the Republicans' tepid support for the legislation. If it goes, so goes the very Republican backers that are needed to see the legislation through.
As a consequence of the news, the folks at D.C. Vote -- the legislation's main pushers -- have cancelled their annual Congress Day (set to take place this Thursday), and will instead focus on salvaging what they can in the wake of Sensenbrenner's announcement. The group's executive director, Ilir Zherka, had this to say:
We are working with our allies to develop a bipartisan compromise. We are encouraged by the strong and unanimous agreement from last week's historic hearing that DC's continued denial of democracy is wrong and is a problem that must be addressed. We are further encouraged by Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman's pledge to make the creation of a new 4-seat district map a 'fair and objective' process. We remain hopeful for swift action from both parties that builds upon the bipartisan spirit that brought this civil rights issue to the forefront.Let's hope they pull something off. We feel the voting rights just teasing us, calling to us, offering us their sweet promise of democracy fulfilled...
Picture snapped by andertho
|
I've always wondered whether the at-large congressman idea was constitutional. It seems like it should be, but since it does end up giving each Utah citizen two voices in the House, it's still a little odd. Is there any jurisprudence on that?
As someone who was at the hearing, it's my opinion that this bill will ultimately fail on constitutional grounds.
When has this Congress ever cared about the Consitution, and why start today?
Also, what state is it that will have to give its rep up to DC in 2010? As proposed, Utah and DC would get an extra rep, but then in 2010, it would go back down to 435. Since Utah is likely owed another rep come 2010 (actually I guess they wouldn't actually be owed it until after the census) they would take it from a declining state. But DC would also be taking from a declining state. Anyone know which one? Wouldn't that state be inclined against this plan?
Wasn't the idea to change it to 437? I know, it's going to be a problem for obsessive compulsive people like me who like their numbers in multiples of five, but that's the price you pay for this sort of thing.
Reid, as I understand it the current proposal permanently expands the House to 427 seats, so no state would lose a representative as a result of DC's addition. Originally the idea wss to go back to 435 after 2010, but that was changed for the reason you raise. We can't know for sure which states would have been affected until we see the numbers for the 2010 census, since sometimes (as in the case of Utah last time) things can be close.
Also, there have been at-large seats for states with multiple representatives in the past. There's no constitutional bar to it, as long as the total number of representatives for the state is correctly determined. I think the constitutional problem with this bill is related to the District's seat (and possibly to the Congress requiring the Utah seat to be at large, which seems to be usurping the state's control of redistricting).
Martin, the at-large-ness of the Utah seat was for the benefit of Democrats, not Republicans. I'm sure Republicans would be perfectly happy to have an additional normal seat in Utah, giving them the opportunity to redistrict and eliminate the one Democrat representing the state. Preventing the redistricting was the reason for making it at large.
To long time residents of DC, my question for y'all: what exactly is keeping DC from having a permanent representation in the house and the senate. I'd prefer a non-partisan answer.
The Constitution.
Members of the House and Senate are elected by each "state," and the seat of government is not one.
This whole idea is a silly gimmick.
Just have the federal office builings, capitol and white house, etc. as "Washington."
Retrocede the other residential neighborhoods back to Maryland and be done with this.
The federal goverment has no collective interest in serving justice and equality to the residents of the District of Columbia. If they did, we would be looking at this issue from the rear view mirror. A solution to this mess can be had, if only there was a motivation for it. Obviously, democracy for all under the Constitution of the United States of America is not a good enough motivator to craft a solution at this time. Partisanship rules the day, again! Democracy should prevail, not partisan politics.
How long will the citizens of the United States let this charade continue?
To me, it seems that the seat of the US government could encompass the Federal Triangle, the White House, the Capitol building and environs, and the Supreme Court. The rest of the land in DC would become a new state.
And yes, I support becoming a new state and not retrocession to Maryland. As of the 21st centuy, It is a different culture here in DC, you know! Of course this action requires the approval of the majority of States. Sadly, most of the citizens in the United States don't even know that residents of Washington, DC don't have the same Constitutional rights as them - and don't care!
Well of course they don't care. What does the average Joe or Mary in Indiana know about DC electoral politics? Marion Barry.
You think anyone out there wants to give us statehood if we're going to send the likes of him to the U.S. Senate (I'm not saying we would, but we're dealing in perceptions).
That's why I think retrocession would be more likely. MD gets another House seat to represent "Washington, Maryland" or whatever you want to call it.
And our plates and driver's licenses would be instant vintage!