The Manhattan Project
Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
When a measure that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives fell three votes short of making it through the Senate, voting rights advocates were both frustrated and hopeful. Frustrated because the Senate's arcane rules of procedure allowed three senators to hold up legislation that had overwhelmingly passed the House; hopeful because whether through intense cajoling or electoral victories, three new votes aren't impossible to come by.
With the recent Democratic gains in the Senate, will we be able to get those three last votes we need to pass the legislation and finally gain a voting seat in the House? It looks like it.
The Democrats picked up five new seats: Mark Udall in Colorado, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Tom Udall in New Mexico, Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Mark Warner in Virginia. Assuming they stick to the party line, that's a net gain of five votes. News today finds that Oregon's Gordon Smith has conceded to his Democratic challenger, so that's one more vote for the cause -- six in all.
Photo by fiction-parade
Joe Biden and Barack Obama will be replaced by Democrats, so we'll hold steady there. Whether or not Minnesota's Norm Coleman beats challenger Al Franken is irrelevant to the final tally; Coleman voted for the legislation.
The unknowns are Alaska and Georgia. In Alaska, a Ted Stevens victory and eventual resignation/expulsion would keep the seat in Republican hands and likely a "No" vote. For Georgia, a likely runoff might see Democrat Jim Martin defeat incumbent Saxby Chambliss. If that's the case, one more for us; if not, an unchanged vote against.
If the same number of Republicans that supported the legislation in 2007 support it in 2009, we're looking at a potential for 63 votes in favor, enough to head off a filibuster. (From three votes down to three votes up -- that's good karma.) Of course, the Senate is never that easy -- any senator could place an indefinite hold on the legislation if they so chose. But even if the Washington Post editorial board is urging us to lower our expectations, it's at least encouraging to know that the votes are there.
None of this answers the question of when the legislation will be brought up, how quickly it will be ushered through the the House and Senate, or if court challenges will delay its implementation if it passes and is signed by President-elect Obama. But the votes seem to be there for the legislation, and that is something of a victory itself.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What would it take to get statehood?
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.
Congressional approval. But there aren't enough votes to prevent a Filibuster.
lead, follow, or get out of the way, says i.
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.
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.