March 8, 2007
Voting Rights Legislation Vote to Happen in March
Pardon us while we celebrate:
"I am pleased to announce that the House of Representatives will vote on a bill to give the people of Washington, DC full representation in the People's House by the end of the month. The people of the District have waited too long to have a voice in the House. Democrats promised to move this legislation in the first months of the new Congress and that is what we are doing."Thank you, Rep. Hoyer.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
I had heard that it's the Senate that is the biggest roadblock to DC Voting rights.. Is there any chance it will get passed in the Senate?
If the bill still allows Utah to create an at-large House seat, then the courts will knock it down as unconstitutional. I'm a big proponent of DC voting rights, but there's just no way any court would allow Utah citizens to get two votes in the U.S. House of Representatives.
If the bill still allows Utah to create an at-large House seat, then the courts will knock it down as unconstitutional.
Thanks for your legal brief on this, judge jerkwad.
Well, Utah already has 3 representatives in the House. This bill would add a 4th.
Is there really a multi-ethnic group of dorks who are all THAT excited for DC to move closer to having a real House member?
Ummm, didn't anyone here notice the Red Line disaster? Do the people jumping up and down think a House member will improve our city's basic needs? I don't know anyone who honestly does. The nine people who are obsessed with this issue are mainly concerned with the "principle" of full-representation.
Before moving into weighty Constitutional issues, I'll just insist on local politicians and city employees who aren't complete ingrates. Because that's all we've had over the last, i dunno, 40 years.
But I'm sure our House member would cosponsor a bill renaming the post office at 7th and penn SE. Hooray.
How much of the opposition has to do with the fact that DC leans way to the left? The difference between majority and minority in both House and Senate can be razor thin (especially in the senate); isn't all of this talk about constitutionality really just another way of saying "We don't want any more dems in the house"?
Not trying to start stuff here. I just always see politics in light of the partisan issues.
OK, things are moving. This is great news. What we need now is to have pressure put on Representatives and Senators from their constituents to support this bill.
How do you do this? Simple go to:
www(dot)FreeAndEqualDC(dot)com
(sorry no links allowed here)
From this page you can send a message to your U.S. Reps and Senators (if you have them) is support of H.R. 328. If you live in DC you can use the site to tell friends who live outside the District to take action.
It takes two minutes and will make a big difference! Please do it right now.
Before moving into weighty Constitutional issues, I'll just insist on local politicians and city employees who aren't complete ingrates. Because that's all we've had over the last, i dunno, 40 years.
Yes, because citizens of Philadelphia had to first prove that each and evert city employee was competant before they got voting rights.
I would be thrilled, except this new Utah rep will effectively cancel out all the votes of EHN. So nothing gained, really.
No that's not the point.
I know this whole issue has been "debated" endlessly here and I'm done with arguing about how only whiny transplants care about this...it's a matter of fairness...we're full citizens...if you don't like it, leave yada yada yada.
I'm just wonder who these people are who jump up and down at news like this? And where can I meet the chick in red?
I posted this last week, but it bears repeating:
"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.
That was in response to Martin's 2/27 post about snags that this legislation has faced and commenters' subsequent doubts that the Utah compromise is even constitutional. Anyway, I think what it comes down to is that, Utah is in the clear per the Consitution (depending on how you define "as a group"), and only needs a change in the law that governs at-large reps (2 U.S.C. 2a), but DC is not and will not be a state until the Constitution is amended (good luck!), so how that whomping roadblock is being handled remains an utter mystery to me.
Great that the House will vote and likely pass this.
Sucks that this is DOA in the Senate.
Further, I will don my legal scholar cap and declare that if the bill were to pass and Utah did get an at-large Representative, courts would be quick to strike it down as a violation of the equal protection clause since Utahans (is that a word?) would all have 2 House members - their district member and an at-large member. They would be the only state in the country with that system (states that have an at-large member don't have any other House members, so that's constitutionally ok). And the Supremes aren't likely to be keen on that sort of a setup.
my bad, I misread Cranky's post about the number of House members.
Utahns
You-ta-ns
DOA in the Senate, DOA in the courts. End of story.
"Ummm, didn't anyone here notice the Red Line disaster?"
lol.. disaster? Did a train burst into flames while I wasn't looking? Oh.. you're talking about that minor delay this morning.. yeah, what a disaster.. and fuck those people with principles.
Christine: The fact that DC isn't a state can, according to some, be overruled by the Art I Sec 5 power of Congress to self-regulate. Courts have almost always deferred to this power. I'm not so sure it'll happen in this case, though.
So nothing gained, really.
For the next year, anyway, or through the next census. After which DC will still have a voting representative, and Utah may or may not keep the extra Republican.
If you interpret this as a short-term victory or loss for Democrats or Republicans, it's a wash. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? It's not supposed to be about Democrats or Republicans. It's supposed to be a (partial) solution to the long-term problem of DC voting rights. And in that sense, it's a (minor) victory.
Also--I'm no big city lawyer, but--for the courts to knock this down, doesn't it have to be challenged by someone? Who would challenge it?
"Also--I'm no big city lawyer, but--for the courts to knock this down, doesn't it have to be challenged by someone? Who would challenge it?"
A Republican! It is so nice to hear the reasons why this should or should not pass. Why do the citizens of the United States of America keep letting their elected officials use partisan politics to deny a segment of the Amerian population a right to full representation in Congress? Every argument I've hard from people who oppose it is that it is unconstitutional. So, why don't these same people critizing it come up with a solution instead of just saying its unconstitutional, try again later? Every single elected official in the House and Senate should be working to come up with a fair solution. But, no.... they don't. They just use partisan politics as an excuse for why they don't support it. These same people would have been very comfortable with keeping segregation, keeping women out of the military and all the other ills of our society just because the constitution says so! The constitution was made to be amended people!
A Republican!
So you think the slim chance that Utah would drop a Republican in 2008 or that a blue state would gain an extra seat in 2010 would make it worth the time and effort of some Republican legal body to mount a court challenge? Against the remote possibility of one extra Democrat at some point in the future? Because they have nothing to gain, otherwise. Maybe they'd be better served by diverting all that time and energy toward flipping EHN's seat over to a liberal(esque) Republican.
Ironic that Shadow Rep. Mike Panetta is supporting this bill. Word is that the bill will DISSOLVE his elected seat. Why support something so constitutionally dubious that it gives DC 1/3 representation and makes your elected position go bye-bye? Moreover, his elected position is to promote STATEHOOD not a mere vote in the House.
"Also--I'm no big city lawyer, but--for the courts to knock this down, doesn't it have to be challenged by someone? Who would challenge it?"
Um, well, how about anyone who is a citizen of any state who is unhappy that they only have one representative in house, while Utahans get to have 2 representatives? How about leveling the playing field and give every state an at large seat, you know, so as to not be unfair to the nearly 300 million americans who don't live in either Utah or D.C. that would be affected negatively by the passing of this legislation?
Gah. I wish D.C. citizens would stop being required to pay federal income taxes, allowing the city to double their taxes and allow the rest of the country to be done with this nonsense. Without the tax issue, I am a definately a member of the "move five miles" club.
Basic democracy is 'nonsense'? Really? That's supposedly what DC citizens are in Iraq fighting for.
What is the 'move file miles club'?
Um, well, how about anyone who is a citizen of any state who is unhappy that they only have one representative in house, while Utahans get to have 2 representatives?
Sure, because twelve or twenty-four months of asymmetrical House representation is something that Americans in, say, Des Moines would spend a lot of time thinking about. That sounds like a likely source of agitation. Are these the same earnest, thoughtful citizens that can't manage to muster up the energy to care about or even understand DC's lack of voting representation in the first place?
vor,
There are countless advocacy groups and legal foundations that would line up to fight this. Because that's just what they do. It won't be just some aggrieved dude in Iowa with cash to burn. This will go to the Supreme Court before it is finally settled.
And t-bone, I don't think the Constitution ever said anything about keeping women out of the military. Further, there was never anything in there mandating segregation. In both cases the fact is that the constitution (as it was read) merely didn't prohibit keeping women out of the military or segregation. That's a lot different than this situation in which the constitution makes it clear exactly how the District is to be treated.
It's worth noting that for both segregation and the prohibition of women in the military*, it didn't take a constitutional amendment to get rid of them.
*Were women ever really prohibited from being in the military? I suppose what you really mean is that they were prohibited from serving in combat roles, because they've certainly served in the military in support roles (i.e. nurses, clerical, etc.) for a very long time.
Because that's just what they do.
You may be right. But I don't think that justifies the dismissive tone you see in this thread. Many of the negative comments can be summed up as: it'll probably be struck down, so don't bother. Even if it were likely to be challenged and struck down, I don't think that makes it a worthless endeavor. Should we only support legislative issues that have a 100% chance of surviving all challenges and obstacles? That are absolutely in the best interest of our favored party? That's a little too realpolitik for me.
I agree. Anyone who says "it'll definitely get thrown out" or "it'll definitely be approved" are wrong. It won't definitely be anything. It's a total crapshoot. For that reason I think it is worth passing on the chance that it comes up seven.
“What is the 'move file miles club'?”
One of those who feel that the Constitutional issues of these band-aid solutions to the issue are so overwhelming and dubious that I would rather those who live in D.C. who want representation move 5 miles in any direction and receive representation via Maryland or Virginia. In theory, I’m not opposed to the concept of D.C. statehood or even Maryland retrocession (as long a the majority of Marylanders supported such a solution), although admittedly, the former is unlikely unless a right wing territory pops up out of the blue and applies for statehood or our two party system breaks down, and the latter is unlikely as I don’t think it is what Washingtonians or Marylanders want, never mind the fiscal issues which I’m admittedly unfamiliar with (would this be a tax burden or tax benefit to Maryland? I don’t know.) Either of these unlikely solutions would certainly be Constitutional. But, any of these solutions involving giving Utah an extra representative are completely unacceptable to me. I was opposed to the concept of giving Utah another legislative district, as I’m opposed to the idea of any state’s representation being calculated by anything other than population. That’s unfair to all Americans who are not Utahans or Washingtonians. This at-large solution is even more unacceptable, more unfair and at the very least, Constitutionally dubious. I am not supportive of turning the Constitution on its ear to give Washingtonians representation in a district that by definition has not had any sort of representation since 1801. Taxation without representation is certainly wrong and contrary to our formation as a nation, and I think that should be fixed, but not in a way that is unfair to nearly 300 million Americans, and this Utah nonsense is unfair -- more unfair even than expecting the citizens of D.C. who want representation to move 1 mile, 3 miles, 5 miles and take a bus or train into work. And no, I don’t think that fair at all, but it is a lesser evil than screwing over 300 million Americans, as actually living in D.C. is not a necessity for anybody. As an American who is not a citizen of Utah or D.C., please work towards a solution that doesn’t screw me over.
Guh, there's nothing in the Constitution saying we have to have 435 representatives. It's an arbitrary number. The Congress can decide tomorrow, for whatever reason, that 436 is a better number. Ok? Next, to what state do they give this new rep? Well, how about the state that came the closest to gaining one rep in the last reapportionment? That's Utah.
That's not unfair to anyone. It might not be advantageous to everyone, but it's not "unfair" because it's following the rules of apportionment. In fact, it would only be unfair if the extra rep went to anyone but Utah.
Reid, I would like to continue to argue on this point, but I just looked up the matter to understand it more fully, and der, I hate to admit it, but I understand now what you are saying and see how I was wrong. If the number goes up to 436, than that puts Utah over the top and they would get a 4th rep. Okay, that was the missing variable (admittedly, due to my own ignorance) that was confusing me over this entire issue. I thought for some reason, that Utah going to get a seat based on a projection of the 2010 Census.
Now, if only someone who understands this whole at-large thing could please explain that to me, I promise to shut up forever.