It looks like Senate Republicans really don't want today's scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to happen as planned. DCVote spokesperson Kevin Kiger tells us that Republicans have tried to invoke the 2-hour Rule, which would cut off committee action two hours after the Senate started work for the day. We've got our browsers set to the live webcast of the hearing, set to begin at 1:30 p.m., at which point we'll know whether Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) confirms that the rule has been invoked. DCVote remains optimistic that the hearing will go forward as scheduled. Stay tuned.

1:33 p.m.: OK, the hearing has begun, but was introduced with the understanding that it would have to be adjourned periodically to allow Senators to attend several votes. Sen. Feingold is now introducing S. 1257, the D.C. Voting Rights Act to hearing attendees.

1:46 p.m.: Sen. Feingold spoke eloquently in favor of the bill. He said: "The other fundamental document of our founding, the Declaration of Independence, laid out a list of grievances against the King of Great Britain, including the following: 'He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.' Those who rely on constitutional arguments to oppose this bill should ask themselves not only what the Framers thought at the time, but what they would think today, if they were faced with the question of whether their handiwork should be used to prevent Congress from granting over a half million people the most basic right in a democracy – the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. I think the answer to that question is obvious."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) then also spoke in favor in the bill. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) is now testifying, in what can only be described as a breathless pace. He's certainly in favor of the Voting Rights Act, given that it would grant an extra seat to his home state, but it's honestly tough to make out what he's saying. Apparently Cannon needs to be in two places at once right now and is in a hurry to finish up to tend to business in the House.

1:56 p.m.: Sen. Orin Hatch spoke briefly with comments fairly similar to what he said in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee last week, and now D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is up. Best part so far: while thanking Hatch she accidentally first referred to him as a "senior citizen" instead of a "senior Senator" -- Hatch gracefully agreed that she was right the first time.

2:21 p.m. Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General of the State of Utah, is now testifying in favor of the bill's constitutionality. He invokes Martin Luther King Jr. by saying that injustice in D.C. in injustice anywhere.

2:26 p.m. Aaaand, here's John Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for DOJ, arguing that the bill is unconstitutional. Elwood says a constitutional amendment has been held to be necessary by the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court, and notes that the previous attempts to ratify such an amendment failed. He's also suggesting that if this bill is enacted, it would mean Congress could theoretically also grant a voting member to U.S. territories like Guam and Puerto Rico. Elwood finishes by reminding everyone that Bush's advisors will recommend he vetos this bill if it passes the Senate.

Sen. Feingold has adjourned the hearing briefly so that he and other senators may attend a vote.

3:20 p.m. OK, I missed a bit of the testimony since the hearing resumed, notably from Patricia Wald, a Former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (she no doubt argued in favor of the bill), and most of Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University Law School professor who also testified at last week's hearing. I'll say that Turley sounded quite a bit more convincing (at least during what I saw) this time around that he genuinely believes this bill is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, even going so far as to admit that in his heart, he agrees with its sentiment.

3:28 p.m. Charles J. Ogletree, Harvard Law School professor also testified earlier but I missed it -- will do my best to go back and listen when the hearing is over, but if you caught it, feel free to add your thoughts to the comments. Now Richard Bress, an attorney at Latham & Watkins, the final person set to testify, is speaking. He says after intense study of the texts and precendents, he can't agree that the framers intentionally disenfranchized the District of Columbia. Bress gives the impression of what these hearings have lacked somewhat -- an unbiased analyst of the law.

3:48 p.m. Prepared testimony is now over, and Sen. Hatch and Sen. Feingold are now asking questions of some members of the panel. Hatch just kidded with Turley that if this bill passes and the courts uphold it, Turley will have wonder "how in the hell he could be so stupid." Feingold is now asking Elwood whether the administration has indicated support for either statehood or a constitutional amendment. Elwood admits that he does not believe they have advocated for any version of represention for the District.

Photo by FrogMiller