March 21, 2007
Republicans Line Up Against Voting Rights Bill
President George Bush has issued the orders, and now his loyal adherents will carry them out.
Yesterday Bush declared that he would veto legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives, calling the proposal unconstitutional. Today the Post reports that Republican leaders in the House are pushing members to vote against the legislation (originally scheduled for a vote today, but pushed off until as late as next week), going so far as to offer incentives to secure that Republicans don't cross party lines or vote for something -- gasp! -- on principle. From the article:
But House GOP leaders are making clear that they will fight the bill's passage. Davis said they were trying to bring party members in line, a process known as "whipping," which involves offering incentives such as committee appointments.Of course, the Constitution isn't the only issue some Republicans are concerned about, according to the article:"They're taking names on this. It's very disappointing," [Rep. Tom] Davis said.
Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said the party wants "to make the strongest showing possible" against a bill it considers unconstitutional.
"We hope this bill meets the same fate as all of the other bills Democrats have brought forward to date -- which is a slow but certain death in the Senate," he said.
Some Republicans, though, have said openly that they fear the bill could benefit Democrats politically by providing a precedent that could be used to add two Senate seats for the District.We never much thought the legislation's constitutionality was the reason for the uproar. After all, how many Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) can honestly say they run every bill they vote for by a team of constitutional scholars and lawyers? Not many. Thankfully, principled Republicans do exist -- yes, Rep. Pence, we mean you -- and we're hoping they might bring some likeminded legislators along with them.
|
Principled Republicans or whomever agrees with DCist. Either way the results are the same.
I would not worry much about the House Republicans. They don't have a majored which means they have no power anymore. The problem is the Senate side. What is the opinion in that chamber? I have no clue, but I would guess there are at least 40 bodies opposed to holding a vote on the issue. I could be wrong.
majored=majority
I agree that that lack of congressional voting rights for DC is a travesty and needs to be fixed, but this bill is a very poor attempt at solution. Aside from the constitutional question of whether non-states are permitted a vote in Congress, the provision that would grant the people of Utah double-representation in the House for the next 6 years is also troublesome (Utah's current congressional districts would remain intact, but the state would also get a new at-large House member until 2012).
Plus, the bill LIMITS DC to only one representative in the House, even if in the future its population were to increase to the point where the reapportionment process would otherwise award the District an additional member. And of course, it doesn't do anything about Senate representation.
Hopefully this flawed bill will be dispatched with soon so that attention can be refocused on a constitutional amendment that will solve all these problems. Another benefit of that approach is that members of Congress wont be able to use their constitutional concerns as an excuse to oppose it. But the downside is that DC will have to persuade 38 state legislatures do ratify it, which didn't happen in 1978.
Redstater,
I do agree with you. I think it'd still be a tactical victory if this was shot down, because then the constitutional amendment would be next on the table. Once presented, Republicans wouldn't have the constitutional question to hide behind. But it's up to you, Redstater, to convince them that the possibility of two Democratic senators from D.C. is worth the principle that's at stake. Good luck.
you can disagree with this bill and still be a principled republican
It's over for this bill, whether it dies in the House or it is suffocated in the Senate or is vetoed by Bush.
And a constitutional amendment is a non-starter because it won't go anywhere because of the politics involved and it would require a significant re-writing of the Constitution's District provisions (not to mention Maryland and Virginia won't allow it b/c DC would then be allowed to impose a commuter tax).
Bottom line: DC is not going to be getting full congressional voting rights any time soon.
Which means Eleanor should start pushing for no federal taxation for DC until it has full federal representation. We could easily be like Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, and the other US terroritoris: tax-free jurisdictions with delegates in the Congress.
Absolutely, the possibility of one more Dem in the House and two in the Senate would be a tough pill for a lot of GOPers in Congress to swallow, especially given how closely each chamber is divided. But I'm inclined to think that enough Republicans in each chamber would pull a Pence on principle to give an amendment its 2/3 majority. Especially since there would be no veto threat or constitutional questions to hide behind.
But then the real challenge would be ratifying the amendment, which would necessitate the DC Vote community reaching out beyond the District and, frankly, convincing 38 state legislatures that they should vote to dilute their own state's power in Congress, even if just by a bit. I think it can be done, but it will be tough.
I really hope this bill dies a merciful and quick death. Then we can work on the only Constitutionally-sound solution. And I don't mean RETROcession, but complete SEcession from the Union. By establishing the Sovreign Nation of Latte City, we can appeal to the UN for recognition, and levy confiscatory taxes on all commuters. Our new currency will be based on the halfsmoke and Starbucks frappucino. As Lord Exchequer of the Department of Fantasy Surface Transportation, dcist Ryan can begin his Reign of Terror with the destruction of all privately-owned vehicles and freeways and creation of a light rail system that runs down every street in DC, 24-hours-a-day. Best of all, the new ecologically-sound, zero-carbon-emission transport system will will be powered completely by the passengers' sense of self-satisfaction.
Problem is we need to create a cult of personality around some benevolent dictator to rally the masses. I nominate Cool "Disco" Dan, who's Huey Longesque slogan shall be "Every Condo a a Kingdom, and Every Mid-Level Consultant a Pimp Daddy!" Look out, Hong Kong and Cayman Islands! There's a new kid in town ready for your untaxable international investment and offshore holding companies!
Whoa, monkey, did you just get codeine from the dentist or something?
Ivy City Antwayne's a dentist, too? I'll need to have him work on this lower crown next time I buy an 8-ball from the man.
Just seems to me DC's running out of freaking options. Every way you turn, the solution's either unconstitutional or politically unworkable or DC/MD reps won't let it happen or it's profoundly retarded.
I wish we would devote half the time and energy we spend on this issue to the other issues we have in this city that affect my daily life ... high taxes, crime, crater sized pot-holes, lousy libraries/schools, vagrancy/homelessness, prostitution, etc.
Would any of the above mentioned be fixed if we got some reps in the senate/house? Or would we just have more offices for politicians to run for (from which to make more promises)?
Logan - I'm not saying that legalizing handguns in DC would solve all those problems you mentioned, but it would certainly make dealing with those problems a lot more entertaining.
Particularly after happy hour at Recessions.
. . . will be powered completely by the passengers' sense of self-satisfaction.
Stealing lines from the Simpson's now?
"it would require a significant re-writing of the Constitution's District provisions"
Nah. "The District of Columbia shall be considered a State for the purposes of Article I, Sec. 2 and 3." Ta-da.
Monkey - guns would be a great start!
Hill Rat - Notice you never see dcist ryan and Ed Begley Junior in the same place at the same time.
I've noticed, but I didn't put it together until just now.
Simpsons? I thought of it more as a riff on the South Park smug episode, but whatevs.
Monkey, I'll give you my hemp pants if you admit that you secretly think I'm right about everything. And if you don't admit it, you'll be first against the wall when my reign begins.
Simpsons? I thought of it more as a riff on the South Park smug episode, but whatevs.
Nope, check it out: www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF09
Ryan - Of course you're right about improving Metro service to the downtown core and expanding service volume. Where we disagree is in how that is accomplished. You want to tax commuters to fund the expansion and I want to instigate an armed insurrection and summary execution of incompetent bureaucrats (or, Enemies of the Revolution, as I like to call them). Like Mao said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." But since DC residents sold their 2nd Amendment birthright for a mess of pottage years ago, I guess we're stuck with your more expensive and less entertaining solution. Funny how Mao also said, "Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency."
I wonder if he ever visited DC?
Let's hold off on the conspiracy theories here.
For those readers who, apparently like this Post reporter, don't have a commanding grasp of how Congress works:
First, "whipping" just means counting votes. It often, but not always, includes deals being made among members to sway votes.
Second, I sincerely doubt that this bill is of such high importance to the House Republican leadership that they're reshuffling their committee assignments. This is particularly likely because, as other commenters have noted, the Senate will probably let this bill die and if they don't, the president will veto it.
What's up with Ed Begley Jr. this week? I just got the DVD of the first season of Maude, and he makes a cameo in the first episode of the series.
Jesus christ, when he was in his early 20s, he was fucking HOT!!!!
an interesting take
Ed Begley Jr.? Wow that was 25 years ago.
www.everestcoatings.com/spflibrary/edbjr.jpg
I don't usually go for blondes, but... not bad.
Actually, the first episode of Maude came out 35 years ago - 1972.
Man, those were some brown kitchens....
Hello? Taxation without representation!... Focus my ADD friends, focus.
While I hate that the Republicans are squashing a simple attempt to feel represented in our government, I honestly have opposed this bill from the beginning based on principle. If I cannot have the same equal treatment in Congress and representation as any American living in a state, I don't want some half-hearted attempt that gives Utah more voting power in Congress. Forget it. Plus then I'd have to turn in my old "Taxation without Representation" plates with ones that say "Taxation with 30% Representation." I think if Bush wants to stand up and say that we do not get representation in Congress because we are not a state, then he should have to admit that we should not be taxed like a state either. It's reprehensible that those who are taxed the highest between federal and DC taxes have zero representation from a Congress that has to approve even our local budgets and laws. I agree with whoever above said we should fight to eliminate the federal taxation of DC residents if we cannot have representation. To stand up and say that it is unconstitutional for us to have voting power yet allow us to be taxed by a government in which we have no say is anti-American and reprehensible. Why DC residents aren't striking and refusing to go to work in our federal government offices is beyond me. If every DC resident refused to go to work until we are treated fairly, people might start to take notice since their tax returns might not get to them so quickly this year. What if the federal government's employees, the secretaries and janitors who work in Congress refused to come to work because they have no voice in the very place they work each day? If Boehner's trash overflowed because his janitor refused to come to work he might think twice about disenfranchising DC residents. It'll never happen but the fact DC residents aren't dumping the proverbial tea in the harbor over this is a shame.
Just a question, from someone who hasn't lived in DC all that long:
Does anyone think DC would still be in this situation if it were majority-white?
Or would everyone continue to not care because so many of the people who live in DC are transient and don't set down roots, so it doesn't really matter to them anyway?
Jason - DC was majority white for most of the 19th Century. It became majority black after the Civil War.
Most longtime residents and new transplants look at the problems in their neighborhood and have a difficult time seeing how another layer of bureaucracy is going to fix the abandoned house nextdoor or stop that guy from peeing in your flowering arbutus.
Most residents and transplants want a voice in their federal government regardless of the conditions of the house next door. And I think the fact DC has a black majority has nothing to do with voting rights except for the fact that blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, particularly in DC. I think that is the hang-up more than anything. I'd be okay with no voting representation in Congress so long as that Congress is not allowed to tax my income to pay for programs I am unable to voice an opinion on through a vote.