Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Car Pushed Into Anacostia River By Train
While some D.C. voting rights activists are debating whether to seek one voting seat in the House of Representatives or to go for full statehood, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is pushing full-steam ahead for a solution by early February.
As D.C. Wire reported on Friday, the District's non-voting representative has asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fast-track legislation that would grant D.C. a voting seat in the House by February 12, the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. The same legislation narrowly died in the Senate last year.
Beyond the symbolism of such a move, Norton knows that anything but immediate action will likely doom the voting rights movement to a long wait as Congress works its way through bailing the country out of a recession and implementing President-elect Obama's ambitious agenda. It's not impossible, though — the House could quickly pass the legislation, and as we recently wrote, the numbers are finally there in the Senate.
Of course, opposition still exists to the measure. Jason Chaffetz, for one, thinks the whole thing is unconstitutional. Wait; who? Chaffetz is representative-elect for Utah's Third District, a seat formerly held by Rep. Chris Cannon. Where Cannon was a co-sponsor of the legislation (it would also grant Utah an additional seat in the House until the 2010 re-apportionment of seats), Chaffetz has long opposed the move. In a statement released today (PDF), Chaffetz, who has yet to be sworn into office, echoed what many House and Senate Republicans have argued -- granting the District a voting seat is unconstitutional and the only lasting solution is retrocession to Maryland. Hopefully the strength of Chaffetz's convictions will keep him warm while he sleeps on a cot in his office.
At the end of the day, a freshman congressman's complaints aren't likely to sway the Democratic majority in the House. This legislation has the numbers to pass, the question is really more when. Norton wants sooner rather than later; Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have to make the final call.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think it's a moot point. Maryland doesn't want DC and Norton doesn't want to have to commute to Annapolis. But can the Feds force retrocession on Maryland? Like an eminent domain kinda thing?
Has anyone seen her birth certificate?
The definition of INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
Monkey: That's a good question. I doubt they can force retrocession, but they can say "You either get voting representation as part of MD; or you stay your own independent jurisdiction but without voting rights." Forced retrocession isn't likely, since the Ds wouldn't push it.
But the real worry is the indefinite holds (mentioned in the article) and vote changers. People tend to reverse their votes when they see the situation is about to change. It's easy to vote for something you don't agree with when you know it will losel; it's much harder to cast that vote when your's could help the measure succeed. Don't be surprised if this fails by a vote or two (sadly).
Oh, and they should go for full statehood; these type of numbers in Congress aren't going to come around again. And voting rights expand only when the party in power will benefit; that happened with black enfranchisement, women's suffrage, and 18 yr old voting.
wtf is the deal with all these nutters, left and right, who declare with all the righteousness of a newly minted preacher that the legislation is unconstitutional.
we've gone back and forth on this for years, and until the law actually gets passed so that a court can review it, there's no point in making that argument.
jesus, let the process work, you maroons! if it is fated to be deemed unconstitutional, let's let that happen so we know for certain and don't have to rely on the opinions of so many blowhards.
There is an easier solution:
Give DC a voting seat in the House, and allow DC residents to vote for MD senators. MD is already Democratic and it would assuage GOP fears that DC might fight for senate seats. It would also be historically in line with the fact that the remaining land in the District came from MD.
Martin, the PDF you linked to today is dated March 14th, 2007 and shows that he's been against the bill since before it was voted on last. His rationale is the same as mine (only states should have representatives), with the exception of advocating for retrocession. Anyways, as mentioned last week on the Kojo show, DC Vote is already expecting a constitutional challenge if the bill were to pass in both houses of Congress and this will only further delay equality for DC residents. So the real question is: why are DC Vote & Norton going down this path when there are better routes to seeking equality than through 1/3 representation. Congress has changed, so why not change the strategy as well?
IMGoph: All Congressmen and Senators (and the President as well) take an oath to, among other things, "protect and defend the Constitution."
The commands of the Constitution exist regardless of whether a court has so said. Just because you don't know what the law is doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. If a congressman doesn't think that a law is constitutional, he should not vote for it.
For example: suppose someone in Congress proposed a law which would require every home to be open to the quartering of soldiers. To my knowledge, no court has ever issued an opinion on quartering of soldiers (because it hasn't come up). The fact that no court has spoken on the matter doesn't make the law any less unconstitutional. A defense of "let's pass this law so the courts can review it" would be laughed out of the conversation.
The difference, it seems to me, between my example and the DC Voting bill, is that you probably want the DC Voting bill to pass, so you're unconcerned with the constitutional implications.
there is nothing either constitutional or unconstitutional, but scalia makes it so. -- the bard
norefill: no, the difference between your example and the DC voting bill is that there is an amendment to the constitution that very specifically outlaws what you (hypothetically) propose, and you can't say that about the DC voting bill.
you can claim the part about reps come from the states, and DC is not a state, but i can counter with all the laws that are deemed constitutional (like interstate commerce, etc.) that apply to the district in the same way they apply to states.
i never said anything about wanting or not wanting the DC voting bill, so i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't stuff words in my mouth, sir/ma'am. all i want is for a bill that whose constitutionality is legitimately questioned by people on both sides of the aisle (see viet dinh or kenneth starr) to get an actual chance on the floor, instead of being shouted down by people like you who refuse to acknowledge that the process should be allowed to work.
All I know is that I don't want to be part of Maryland ;-)
Give the land back to Maryland! Forget statehood. If D.C. doesn't like that, then forget 'em!
Screw MD. Give DC back to the Piscataway Indian Nation. You'll get tax-exempt status, casino gambling, kickass moccasins, free marijuana and mescalin for "tribal rituals," and they'll manage the finances way the hell better than Bullethead, the Cannibal, and Grahamzilla the Fireman Fetishist. Straight UP.
Don't forget cheap gas and fireworks.
Why wouldn't a 59-seat Democratic majority in the Senate try to push for an additional two Senators for a jurisdiction that votes 95% Democratic?
Are we sure there isn't ONE senator from the dark side who can be convinced this is the way to go purely out of fairness?
Or is pushing for the middle-of-the-road alternative really just Eleanor's way of keeping herself as the only game in town?
JF