We District residents, long used to getting our hopes up a little only to end up with the shaft, need to weather a little more rain on our voting rights parade. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report yesterday last week that says that legislation to give the District a vote in the House of Representatives is probably unconstitutional. But the actual wording in the report’s conclusion is peculiarly vague and couched in the sort of conditional phrasing employed by tentative college freshmen essay writers: “Although not beyond question, it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District.” Not exactly the hammer of finality on the matter, but the Research Service’s opinion is also not one to be taken lightly. Let the bet hedging begin.
For their part, the bill’s sponsors, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), remain optimistic about the constitutionality of the legislation. From the Post’s story:
A spokesman for Davis noted that some legal experts , including Kenneth W. Starr, a former federal appellate judge and onetime independent counsel, and Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general, had analyzed the measure and found it constitutional.
“We are still satisfied that it’s legal,” the spokesman, Brian McNichols, said.
Norton said she was not concerned about the measure failing on constitutional grounds. “An unprecedented bill always raises constitutional issues,” she said.
Over at his blog, Marc Fisher has more today on the legal opinions of Starr and Dinh, two men whom he points out are pretty good choices to be making the argument that this bill is both good and legal to congressional Republicans.
One other thing to keep in mind is that this report, while only released yesterday last week, isn’t actually new. As the original Post story points out, Davis read an earlier version that was prepared confidentially several years ago, and sought additional legal opinions at that time — meaning the current bill was vetted with this conclusion in mind. Not exactly good news on the voting rights front today, but also not anything nearly as dire as the report “would appear likely” to suggest.
