DCist: How Will the New Senate Vote on D.C. Voting Rights?

cminus

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:03:51 -0500

Congressional approval. But there aren't enough votes to prevent a Filibuster. Not so sure about that either. There were 57 votes to cut off debate last time (two Democrats opposed the voting rights bill, but eight Republicans supported it). The only Democrat who voted in favor who will not return to the Senate in 2009 is Barack Obama; I think it's reasonable to assume that his replacement will support DC voting rights. The only Republican who voted in favor last time who may not return in 2009 is Norm Coleman; whoever wins the recount, it's reasonable to assume that he'll vote in favor. So you'll probably still have the 57 from last time, unless the Utah delegation gets cold feet. Then, there were votes to sustain the filibuster from John Warner, Gordon Smith, Wayne Allard, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici and John Sununu, all of whom have been replaced by Democrats. If you can get just half of their replacements to support closing debate, you're in. If you can get five of them, you don't need Utah's Republicans anymore. And that's before we consider the unresolved Senate elections in Georgia and Alaska.

cminus

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:44:47 -0500

Congress would have the power to create the hybrid "state" IF the Supreme Court let it. The present Supremene Court (and any court in the near future) would not. I'm not so sure about that. The Supreme Court has so far indicated its preference to defer to Congress on this issue, and even with the current court there's likely to be five votes to uphold Congressional action. Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg make for four obvious "yes" votes, of course. Then there's (of all people) Scalia, who has said that the history of the Organic Act indicates that the Founders thought that the District Clause gave Congress the power to extend voting rights to the District. If Scalia hews to his originalist convictions, that makes five.

IMGoph

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:48:25 -0500

If you really want to vote, move to an actual state.i guess your answer to women and blacks before they had the right to vote would have followed along the same lines, eh? lead, follow, or get out of the way, says i.

juanfe

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:05:13 -0500

Congress would have the power to create the hybrid "state" IF the Supreme Court let it. Didn't the Supreme Court refuse to hear a voting rights case a few years ago arguing that it was purely a political matter, not a matter for the court to decide?

registeringsucks

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:00:55 -0500

Congressional approval. But there aren't enough votes to prevent a Filibuster.

registeringsucks

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:56:55 -0500

For the record, I'm not a republican, just a constitutional lawyer. After reading Starr's comments, I will qualify my response. Congress would have the power to create the hybrid "state" IF the Supreme Court let it. The present Supremene Court (and any court in the near future) would not. If Obama gets the chance to pack it with liberal judges, that could change things. Until then, it's either full statehood or amendment.

juanfe

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:56:41 -0500

What would it take to get statehood?

cminus

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:48:04 -0500

It's fairly obvious that it's going to take a constitutional amendment and that isn't ever going to happen. Kenneth Starr doesn't agree with your conclusion that a constitutional amendment is necessary. Neither does Viet Dinh, primary author of the Patriot Act. While it's nice that you Republicans are finally coming around to admitting that neither Starr nor Dinh has the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to the Constitution, we really woulld have been better off had you guys come around sooner.

registeringsucks

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:29:30 -0500

Find out whether an amendment is the only hope? The Constitution does not give Congress the power to create some hybrid state with 1 rep and no senators. It is either full statehood, or a Constitutional amendment - such as the 23rd amendment which gave the district the right to appoint electors in the electoral college even though we don't have congressional representation.

HCE

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:27:18 -0500

Who cares? It's fairly obvious that it's going to take a constitutional amendment and that isn't ever going to happen. If you really want to vote, move to an actual state.

IMGoph

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:53:01 -0500

i hope we can somehow get this voted on quickly and get the court challenge handled quickly so we can find out whether an amendment will be our only hope. the holding pattern we're stuck in now is just crazy.

HCE

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:48:58 -0500

The Dems in congress might say they care about D.C. statehood, but whether they'll admit it or not, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on their priority list. I would agree that if you're holding your breath for voting rights within the next decade, you're going to turn blue. It's going to take a constitutional amendment. No more, no less.

MandarinZazz

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:43:51 -0500

Vote in the House? I think we should set our sights a little higher, how about 2 senate positions! Our shadow senators are ready to go.