March 19, 2007
Republican Expresses Support for D.C. Voting Rights
When legislation granting the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives came before the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday, all but two Republicans voted against it. One, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Ut.), would see his state gain an additional seat, so his support was a given. The second, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), was the surprise.
Pence has always been a conservative's conservative, a former leader of the Republican Study Committee (a conservative caucus within the Republican Party) who once described himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Given the Republican Party's tendency to oppose District voting rights -- save legislation co-sponsor Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), few Republicans have signed on to grant District residents a vote in the House -- it came as something of a surprise that a firebrand conservative who had said little on the issue would suddenly come out in favor. So why did he? In an op-ed published on Saturday by Human Events, a conservative journal, Pence explained his vote:
The fact that more than half a million Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be addressed...The demands of history in favor of representation for the Americans living in Washington, D.C. is compelling. In establishing the republic, the single over-arching principle of the American founding was that laws should be based upon the consent of the governed. The first generation of Americans threw tea in Boston harbor because they were denied a voting representative in the national legislature in England. Given their fealty to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a throng of Americans in perpetuity.But what of the claim that the legislation is unconstitutional, an opinion echoed by the White House late last week? Nonsense, noted Pence:
In this regard, I believe that the legislation moving through the Congress is constitutional...Opponents of D.C. Voting understandably cite the plain language of Article I that the House of Representatives be comprised of representatives elected by "the people of the several states." If this were the only reference to the powers associated with the federal city, it would be most persuasive. But it is not. Article I, Section 8, Cl. 17 provides, "The Congress shall have power...to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia.In closing, Pence stated that his decision was based on the principles of humility, equality and justice:
The old book tells us what is required, "do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God." I believe that justice demands we right this historic wrong...The American people should have representation in the people's house. I believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all Americans regardless of race or political creed. And I believe humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent with our constitution, laws and traditions.We may not agree with you on much else, Rep. Pence, but we appreciate the support on this one.
|
I just e-mailed Rep. Pence to thank him for his vote, and I'd encourage others to do the same.
Agree.. Pence has broken with the party and done the right thing in this case-- politicians need to know we support this type of behavior..
Better yet, write a letter of thanks to his local papers. Or ask Adrian to do it.
Rep. Pence is a good guy, and he understands that the continued disenfranchisment of Washingtonians is unjust, and that Republican opposition is politically bad and looks bad. But despite his Indiana University JD, his interpretation of the Constitution defies logic (while making political sense). He acknowledges the "plain language" of "the several states" in Article I, but his interpretation of what "exclusive legislation . . . over such District" is antithetical to the plain reading of that clause -- which simply means that Congress may legislate without regard to the whims of the States -- not that it may legislate without regard to the rest of the Constitution.
Under Rep. Pence's reading, Congress would be equally empowered to ignore D.C.'s rights to free speech under the First Amendment, to pass bills of attainder with respect to D.C. residents, or to revoke trial by jury within the District.
In my view, Congress lacks those powers -- and lacks the ability, barring statehood or a constitutional amendment, to give D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.
Nonetheless, as I mentioned in my comment yesterday, Rep. Pence has an obligation to interpret the Constitution and vote accordingly. Given his interpretation, he should vote "yes" on the D.C. voting rights bill.
Why don't we just do what Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands did. Declare our independence from the USA and then turn around and enter into a partnership with the USA with all the perks PR and the USVI get which in fact is a lot more $$$ per person than DC gets if anybody knows those sweet deals!
I also thanked him, since i'm from his district and now am unrepresented here.
Who'd have thought...
We could start by emulating what those Boston patriots did, and dump our 1040's in the Reflecting Pool. It's the right time of year...
Martin - You may agree with Rep. Pence more than you think. Pence is the primary GOP sponsor of the House bill to create a federal shield law for journalists.