February 27, 2007
Snag in D.C. Legislation (DCist Slams Head on Desk)
It was just two weeks ago that hundreds of District residents gathered to lobby Congress into passing legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House. There seemed to be some momentum; all that was missing was for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to schedule a vote. But as is often the case with the District's uphill quest for enfranchisement, the legislation has his a snag.
Roll Call, via FreeRide, is reporting today that D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton might have to re-write a key provision of the legislation, thus throwing into question when and if it will ever pass. Central to the legislation was a provision that would grant Utah, a comfortably Republican state, an additional seat, thus mollifying partisan conservatives who would never dream of giving Democrats an extra safe vote. Norton and Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) initially created an at-large seat for Utah, opting thereafter for a traditional new district instead. Now Norton has announced that they may revert back to the at-large option, one fraught with risk in the form of additional constitutional questions. No reason has been given for the change.
We're keeping the faith here, but this is all a bit frustrating.
|
Fuck Utah!*
*If you do fuck Utah, know it is the worst lay ever.
Why is it not surprising that Norton screwed this up? She's gotta be one of the most useless local politician - and yet is highly revered in local circles. Exactly what does she do all day?
And another thing: giving Utahans (is that even a word?) a House member from their district, plus a statewide at-large member violates the one person-one representative rule of the Constitution.
Norton teaches Con Law at G'Town Law School, right? I'd love to see what her lectures are like.
Move to VA or MD
When are you people going to realize that giving DC a voting Representative in the House violates the Constitution's underpinning.
This is as silly as all the people who think the 'Popular Vote' in the Presidential election matters. People don't vote for President, States do. People don't get Representatives in Congress, States do.
Does no one teach American Government in High School anymore?
"a statewide at-large member violates the one person-one representative rule of the Constitution."
Please point to that rule, either literally or in spirit.
At large seats are reserved for states that have only 1 House representative (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming). Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any tradition allowing residents of a state to vote for two House members to represent them. That's the rule in spirit.
"a statewide at-large member violates the one person-one representative rule of the Constitution."
"Please point to that rule, either literally or in spirit."
Baker v. Carr, 39 US 136.
"a statewide at-large member violates the one person-one representative rule of the Constitution."
"Please point to that rule, either literally or in spirit."
Baker v. Carr 369 US 186.
I haven't read that or similar decisions in full, but I think the decisive factor would be whether districts ought to be equal within a state (which balance would not be upset by an an at-large representative) or across states (to the extent permissible, given that, with the number currently capped at 435, some rounding errors inevitably occur). If it's the former, then the issue ceases to be a constitutional (i.e., equal protection) problem, and becomes merely a legislative one, as at-large districts are permitted by the U.S. Code (2 U.S.C. 2a), and do in fact exist in those states with only one representative (Delaware, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and Alaska). As it now reads, the only states permitted to have at-large districts are those that did as of the 91st Congress (1969-71), which would, I believe, take Utah out of the running until the law is changed. So yeah, depending on how broadly the Court ruled, the constitutional problem with the proposed legislation may belong to DC and DC alone.
Thanks!
In the first sentence of my last post I used "districts" as a stand-in for "representation," not appreciating their very different meanings. Anyway, representation is what I was getting at.
When are you people going to realize that giving DC a voting Representative in the House violates the Constitution's underpinning.
Cmon man, this administration is all about violating the Constitution in ways far worse than this. Furthermore, I think I'd really like the 879987987987 percent I pay in taxes to actually get me something....
There was an NPR story on this-- the dems don't want to give Utah another vote in the electoral college. Maybe this is a way to try to avoid that?
on NPR: Prospects for D.C. Voting Rights Take a Hit (aired on February 12, 2007)
Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Simms, and Wesberry v. Sanders establish (pretty clearly as I read them) that each person in the US should be treated equally on matters related to legislative representation and apportionment. I think it can be rather easily argued that giving each resident of Utah the opportunity to vote for 2 representatives when residents of no other state have such an opportunity violates this rule.
Now, one could argue, I suppose, that the "one man, one vote" principles should also apply to US citizens that live outside of states (such as us in DC or people in Guam, etc). However, the rule establishing that only states may have representation in Congress is written not into law, but into the Constitution itself and, by definition, the Supreme Court can not rule a provision of the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
The only way get voting representation in Congress for DC is to amend the Constitution.
I think this passage supports the idea that, as the methods by which apportionment is determined are applied equally to all states (Utah would beg to differ, but whatever), that this holding is actually addressing representation within the states, not across states.
"We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. It would be extraordinary to suggest that in such statewide elections the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia's thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta." Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8.
This of course leads to a debate on the semantics of "as a group." Does that mean a state may only have at-large delegates if all its delegates are elected on that basis (as is the case with the aforementioned states), or does a mixed delegation of district reps and at-large reps meet this standard?