Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

DC-AL? UT-AL? UT-04? DC Voting Rights Bill Clears Cloture

by: DavidNYC

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM EST


A fascinating - and long overdue - development today:

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act overcame a major hurdle Tuesday, passing a Senate cloture vote by 62-34. ...

The bill would give the Democratic-heavy District a voting Representative in the House and Republican-leaning Utah an extra seat that it just barely missed adding in the 2000 census. ...

If the House and Senate versions pass each chamber as is, the bill would have to go to conference in order to iron out some differences - mainly, the fact that the Senate bill gives Utah a new district seat, while the House gives the state an at-large seat.

In practical terms, if this bill passes and survives constitutional scrutiny, DC will undoubtedly elect a Democrat. As for the Utah "sweetener" (necessary to ensure Republican votes), the question is whether the state legislature would use the opportunity to screw Jim Matheson out of his seat. The House solution neatly avoids this problem and would be my preferred outcome. Note that while no state with more than one representative utilizes at-large districts, there's nothing forbidding it, and many states have done so in the past.

In any event, an at-large seat would probably only be temporary, as Utah is almost assured of gaining a new seat after the 2010 census. The enlargement of the House to 437 seats, however, would be permanent. And, bizarrely enough, this would mean the likely end of potential ties in the electoral college:

[T]he Constitution says that each state gets the same number of electoral votes as it has seats in Congress (in both the House and the Senate). So, you'd think that two more members of Congress would mean two more electoral votes, increasing the Electoral College from 538 members to 540.

However, the 23th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which granted the District voting rights in presidential elections, stipulates that the District only gets as many electoral votes as the state with the fewest. Even if this legislation is enacted (and upheld by the courts), Washington, D.C. will still only have three electoral votes.

As a result, the Electoral College will only increase by one vote, not two. That means that the Electoral College's members would add up to 539, which, tragically, is an odd number. When you have an odd number of voters, it's always tricky to end up with a tie vote. Unless a third-party candidate took some electoral votes, one candidate would have a majority.

Incidentally, Election Data Services' latest study (PDF, p. 14) variously shows CA, NC, OR, and WA in the 436th and 437th slots, meaning one of those states would likely pick up an extra seat (or in the case of California, not lose a seat) in 2012.

UPDATE: A CRS report (PDF) suggests that Congress might have outlawed at-large districts - but because Congress has the power to set such rules (under the Constitution), it can do as it pleases vis-a-vis Utah. The same report also says that such a district would not violate one person, one vote jurisprudence.
DavidNYC :: DC-AL? UT-AL? UT-04? DC Voting Rights Bill Clears Cloture
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
DC-AL? UT-AL? UT-04? DC Voting Rights Bill Clears Cloture | 113 comments
Fantastic
I support statehood myself, but this is a step in the right direction.

So, by the at-large solution, Utahans would each vote for two Congressman (one from their already in place district, and one from the at-large district)?  How does that fit in with Wesberry v. Sanders and the principle of one man, one vote?

I support statehood, too
As for your question, I don't see how this violates one person, one vote. The modern (Veith) interpretation of that just says that districts have to be of equal size. An at-large seat doesn't raise any questions of district size, since the exact same number of people will all have two elected officials representing them in the House.
[ Parent ]
True
Every Utahan would have two votes for Congress. But the law has to apply, at a certain level, across state lines, right?  Every Utahan votes twice--why not every New Yorker? Something's off with this idea. Didn't states used to allow one district elect two Congressmen for a while until that precedent was struck down?
[ Parent ]
I dont think the problem
Is that they'd be voting for 2 different Congresscritters but rather, they will have 2 Congresscritters voting for them!  That's bullshit.  I dont get 2 members in the House looking out for my interests.

I really hope the conference committee doesn't make it an at-large district.

[ Parent ]
It all works out
It all works out the same if Utah's population really deserves four reps, whether there are three districts and one at large or four districts.  OTOH, Utahns votes are diluted because they there are a lot more people in each of their three districts than in yours.  OTOH, they get a small say in electing a second rep.  It all balances out such that they are not electing more representatives per person than anywhere else.
[ Parent ]
Yeah
but they'd still have 2 representatives in the House, that's bullshit.  I dont care how representative it is now or would be but more so the fact they get 2 people on committees and pushing legislation and pork towards them.  Bullshit.
[ Parent ]
If Utah gets an at-large district
Wouldn't that set a bad precedent?  If that happens couldn't say, Texas just demand their new 2012 districts also be at-large?  Or any other state getting new districts for that matter?  What am I missing here?
[ Parent ]
While I haven't looked at the legislation
It's my understanding that the at-large seat will be removed after the 2010 cycle (assuming that this version prevails in conference) -- at which point Utah will be given a fourth seat anyway in re-apportionment, which will be drawn the old-fashioned way.
[ Parent ]
No
because the at-large seat is only temporary until after the next census, then it will be redistrubted as a 4th district.


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
What's the problem?
So what if Texas decided to make its districts at large? Other states have done it in the past, among them Connecticut and New York.

I'd actually like to see more multimember districts, with some sort of voting system that provided more proportional representation so that a party that had 40% or 45% support could get a seat, rather than being totally ignored as it is now.

[ Parent ]
So then
I suppose you'd be ok with Texas having an entirely republicans delegation of 32 seats and California having all 53 seats be Dems?  Because that's effectively what happens if you go down that road in electing house members statewide.  The result would be even worse than anything gerrymandering could create.
[ Parent ]
Yup, that's why it's illegal
Imagine if Georgia elected all of its reps at large.  
[ Parent ]
And the body would look like the Senate
Mostly white guys, few if any AA's.  Might as well tear up the VRA.
[ Parent ]
Yup
By chance, they'd probably elect a John Barrow or two, but I wouldn't count on it.  
[ Parent ]
That depends
That depends on how the voting works. Certainly it would defeat the whole purpose of multimember districts if the members were elected by a plain winner-take-all vote with N candidates from each party running for N seats. People who want to increase minority representation in Congress have suggested multimember districts with some sort of proportional representation or ranked-choice voting so that groups with substantial but not majority support could get some seats. Depending on the area, those could be African Americans, Indians, libertarians, progressives, atheists, or members of other groups.
[ Parent ]
Proportional representation
stinks. It would be especially unworkable in a country like ours with a strong executive. Multi-member districts I could go for, however, if they were able to comply with the VRA.
[ Parent ]
Re: Proportional representation
I'm not talking about a parliamentary system, or even having proportional representation overall in the House -- just having something resembling proportional representation in electing the members in multimember districts. A candidate would still have to have substantial support to get a seat, so we should have any more real wackos than the nonzero number we have currently.
[ Parent ]
Isn't it only the 436th seat that's relevant
Since one of the new seats has to stick with DC?
You are right
I wasn't quite clear at the end of my post. I'm figuring that the states which the various mdoels show in the two closest slots are likeliest to wind up with seat #436. But I suppose any "close" state could be in the running. Check out p. 14 of that PDF for the whole list.
[ Parent ]
Yes, only relevant till 2012
After that we'd still have our solidly Dem seat while the 437th district would go to whichever seat is last above the cutoff.
[ Parent ]
Actually,
At large seats for states with more than one district do violate current statute, but Congress can easily amend the statute (which I'm too lazy to look up).
Anyone do a PVI estimate for DC-AL yet?
It would have to be among the most democratic PVI's of any house seat in the nation.  At least D+35 I'd imagine.
DC PVI
I don't know what the new PVI would be, but the old PVI (according to wikipedia) is D+39.
[ Parent ]
I got it
at D+40.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Darn!!
I always wanted to experience a tie in my lifetime!!  A small price to pay for DC voting rights I guess.
DC joining Maryland would be the easiest solution.
make DC MD-09
Or
VA-12

Would be more helpful in statewide elections for VA than MD. ;-)

[ Parent ]
Yes it would.
But DC is on the Maryland side of the Potomac River. It's bad enough to gerrymander congressional districts; now we're gerrymandering whole states! Another thing, adding DC to MD makes it likely that MD will elect a black Senator.
[ Parent ]
Steele's Revenge?

[ Parent ]
If DC were part of MD in 2006
I suspect someone like Mfume or Holmes would have won the Senate race.
[ Parent ]
DC doesn't have THAT many people, does it?
Last I checked (earlier today) the 2007 estimate was something like 57???? people, or over half a million.  Maryland has eight districts, which means it has about 5.6 million.  So it'd have 6 million if DC became part of MD.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
[ Parent ]
Yes but Mfume lost the primary very narrowly
44% - 41%, so voters from DC certainly could have pushed him over the top, which would have avoid all the strum und drang about Burris being the Only Black Senatortm.
[ Parent ]
Correct
But like 85%+ are registered Democrats, the vast majority of them AA.  In a primary matchup between Ben Cardin and an AA candidate like Mfume those new DC voters would cause a BIG swing for the AA candidate.
[ Parent ]
Cardin got a fair amount of AA support IIRC
The 3rd district seems to produce all of Maryland's Senators.  
[ Parent ]
For sure
Cardin won the primary in 2006 by 19,000 votes over Mfume.  DC would have povided more than that and Mfume probably would have won the General Election.
[ Parent ]
For everyone except MD, who would be
stuck with a huge tax drain.

Remember, the founders didn't want the capital in a state for a reason.  It's shouldn't be subject to a particular state government's whims.

[ Parent ]
One Solution
Make DC part of Maryland for purposes of Federal Representation only.

This may have constitutional problems, but would resolve the other issues.

[ Parent ]
Ridiculous
The Maryland House of Delegates does this sort of thing with at-large, but at least they make it somewhat more uniform across constituencies. This, however, is a half-measure of dubious Constitutionality that will set a bad precedent - what will stop some other state that narrowly falls short of the population threshold from demanding an at-large seat after the next census? Frankly, with Washingtonians have gone a whole lot longer than 10 years without representation, and with congressional Republicans' negotiating leverage reduced to nil, this Utah business strikes me as utterly laughable.

In two years we could very well have the margin we need in the Senate for full statehood, and Utah will get its rightful 4th CD in 2012.

D.C. isn't getting statehood anytime soon
Doesn't 2/3rds of all state legislatures have to approve D.C. statehood for this to happen?  Why on earth would you think that many state legislatures would pass such a bill effectively giving Democrats a guaranteed 2 extra Senate seats forever?  We wouldn't even come remotely close to getting enough legislatures to go along with that.
[ Parent ]
Not necessarily so
Under Article Four, Section Three of the Constitution, it could probably be done through an act of Congress, possibly with the consent of the Maryland legislature.
[ Parent ]
I'm not familiar with that
How does Maryland play a factor here?  Is it because part of D.C. was once part of Maryland?  And if that's the case then wouldn't they need Virginia's permission too since I believe part of D.C. was once part of Virginia as well?
[ Parent ]
Its a little unclear
The provision requires the permission of "concerned states", of which Maryland is today arguably the only one.
[ Parent ]
Yup
They tried this in the early 90s and got about 150 votes in the House. I'd love to try again, though.
[ Parent ]
See
here.
[ Parent ]
Heh
Gilchrest was the only repub to vote in favor.  I suspect it would fare far better in the house today.  A large number of southern DINOS voted against it back then.  Today we have far fewer DINOS and a much bigger bloc of northeast and west coast liberals.
[ Parent ]
That's the ticket
It'd probably get through provided we have a fairly strong filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Getting it passed in the Maryland legislature's pretty much a foregone conclusion. Virginia I'm unsure about, but I don't think they have a say at this point since DC consists now entirely of land carved out of Maryland.  And sure, there would be court challenges aplenty over it, but probably no more than would be the case with the current proposal.
[ Parent ]
Interesting
I'd always assumed DC was roughly half MD land and half VA land.  Good to hear that it's all MD land.
[ Parent ]
Yep
In the lead up to the Civil War, the portion of DC south of the Potomac retroceded to Virginia - today it's Arlington County and part of northern Alexandria.
[ Parent ]
VA
I definitely cant see DC ever going into VA. If VA ever attempted that I think youd likely see entire parts of VA try to secede from the state ;). Cough cough SW VA ;).
[ Parent ]
Ah
"Real Virginia".
[ Parent ]
It should be on the list
for 2011 or 2013, when we expand our majorities in Congress, especially the Senate.  Add another 4-6 senators in 2010, and this becomes a serious possibility.

Also immigration reform.  These two acts will help cement a Democratic majority for decades.

[ Parent ]
It has second term lame duck priority written all over it

[ Parent ]
It wont truly be a permanent majority
I just cant see that happening. It may be in a technical term, but with a vast majority comes vast ideological differences within the majority party. And if its looking like the Democratic Party truly is a permanent majority, in Congress, then the moderates/conservatives, within the party, as well as the far left wing, will be less likely to be subservient to the leaders. As theyll just think to themselves, 'we wont be risking our party losing power anytime soon, and there has to be some kind of real debate within Congress, so lets how completely how we want'. And I'll stress this will also include the far left wing. The Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Dennis Kucinich types. I guess theres always the chance of not seeing this happen. But only if they can find a Tom DeLay like 'hammer' figure to keep em all in line. Rahm Emanuel was their best bet, it seems, and hes gone. Who knows if he'll even come back. Maybe he'll even run for Pres. or VP someday, if Obama is popular at the end of Rahm's tenure and he remains a highly visible Chief of Staff (ala Leo in the West Wing). I might like to see a Pres. Emanuel someday ;).
[ Parent ]
When I talk about "permanent majority"
I'm talking something similar to the New Deal majority that the Dems had from 1932-1968 (and one can argue that the majority lasted until 1994).  The Republicans did gain Congress in 1946 and 1952, and the Presidency in 1952 and 1956, but the Democrats dominated both the politics and the policy in that period.  Eisenhower was New Deal-lite on many issues.

I think it is coming if Obama is perceived to be a success. 2010 is a crucial year, if the Dems pick up the 4-7 seats in the Senate that they are poised to do so right now and Obama wins a landslide in 2012, the Republicans will be in the minority for at least a generation.  And when they finally get the majority, the Repubs will be about where the Blue Dog Democrats are today on the ideological scale.

[ Parent ]
I agree with you there
We should see one more big year in the Senate in 2010.  Since all House seats are up for re-election every 2 years a re-alignment in that chamber can and apparently has (2006 and 2008) in one or two cycles.  But since the Senate has three classes it takes three consecutive elections to see the full effect of the re-alignment.  

Right about the Ike years too.  He's seen basically as having been New Deal-lite.  Quite a few of his programs, the interstate highway system especially, paid off very well for the country in the long-run.

[ Parent ]
The GOP
The GOP has got to wake up and realize that the only way they can regain majority status (or to even be competitive in Congress) is to go back to their moderate roots. Not just socially, either. But particularly on economic policy. They cannot be a fiscally conservative party. They have to be a fiscally centrist one. They can call their economic ideology whatever they want (even most fiscally centrist Repubs call themselves fiscal conservatives it seems) but theyve got to be economically moderate. That includes health care, college education, trade, labor, and the general role of govt. The GOP is dreaming if they think 2010 or 2012 can be a return to 1994. America is a different country today than then. Not just socially but on economics as well. In 1994 universal health care was seemingly anathema. Even in 2004 almost no Dem Pres. contenders supported it. Today even a majority of Republicans support it according to some polls. Times change and the GOP needs to, as well. Until they do then you are absolutely right, IHateBush, the GOP will not be in the majority. Maybe theyll win a Pres. race here and there, since those races are often individual vs. individual rather than party vs. party and alot obviously depends on the nominee (ahem Mondale and Goldwater), but they wont see much gains in Congress.
[ Parent ]
As far as conservative Dems in the House
there aren't enough of them to disrupt the majority.  The old Southern Boll Weevil wing is much much reduced.  There is a reason why Obama's stimulus passed the House easily, while Clinton's 1993 budget passed by one vote.

The far left is also not big enough to disrupt the majority on its own.  Perhaps if the conservative Dems and the far left get together, maybe together they can block the Dem majority, but that isn't happening.

There will be programs that will piss off the conservative Dems, and those that piss off the liberals/far left.  For example, environmentalism and possibly universal health care will turn off some moderate Dems (not enough to block it, though).  And entitlement reform will piss the hell out of the far left and probably a good deal of liberals too.  But Obama will get enough Repub votes to compensate for the loss of 90-125 liberal Democratic votes in the House

[ Parent ]
Ya, it was a great trade off
As Larry Sabato's recent analysis showed, the Democratic majority today in both House and Senate is almost identical in numbers to the 1993 Dem majority Clinton had.  The big difference is that we lost roughly 30-something southern and midwestern house seats and pickup up 30-something in the northeast and west.  Those southern seats were held by some pretty sorry Dems to begin with and of course we lost them in the re-alignment.  But the vast majority of these northeast and western seats won since 1994, especially in 2006 and 2008 probably won't be lost for a very long time.

Also, you have to take into account that due to redistricting and the VRA quite a few of the conservative democratic seats have been traded for much more liberal AA majority districts, which further makes the Dem caucus more liberal.  

[ Parent ]
2012
The Dems can make some serious gains in big states like CA if they can just wise up and realize that more-even congressional districts are better for the Democratic Party as a whole. Sure they might lose 1 or 2 incumbents who are in safe districts right now but they could very well gain 5-10 in one year alone. This is assuming theres not a purging of 'Obama Republicans' in 2010..in that case there wouldnt be very many Republicans to pick off even after redistricting ;). Theres only so much you can do to some of those very red districts. But many in the L.A. area, for example, can be made more even.  
[ Parent ]
Referring to CA
In my examples. And I dont think its likely that my scenerio will play out. As theyll probably just follow the status quo of having nearly every district be safe.  
[ Parent ]
Soc. Security
It was interesting to hear Obama mention Soc. Security during the speech. I wonder what he meant by all that but i guess time will tell. Im 99.9% sure it wont include any kind of privatization, though. I use to be in favor of private accounts but now i just dont trust the market at all.
[ Parent ]
My guess is that it will include
benefit cuts for those that are well off, payroll tax increases as Obama mentioned during the campaign on those who make more than 250K (wealthy people are going to get really screwed by this new Democratic majority in the next generation), and means testing for Social Security in the future.  There may even be an understanding that Social Security will be considered a welfare program in the future than an entitlement program.
[ Parent ]
It should be a welfare program
I liek Social Security, but it should have been a welfare program all along.  It should be a progressive payroll deduction just like income taxes.  
[ Parent ]
A DeLay type would be helpful
A strong fist to bring the party members in line would be great.  Unfortunately I don't see anyone of the sort out there.  Not saying I liked DeLay and some of the illegal maneuvers he made, but his tactics were very effective in getting things done.  The "big tent" idea will only go so far.  DeLay's "majority of the majority" line of thinking is what gets things like universal healthcare passed.
[ Parent ]
Or a huge majority
Democrats needed around 290 or more House seats and 60-65 Senaste seats to get things done in the past (we should have gotten something substantial from Jimmy Carter and 1977-79 but came up very empty).  The Senate seats are a possibility but even a good cycle would likely leave Democrats more around the 275 range.  Possibly the smaller number of conservative Democrats would let something happen.

Most of the progressive legisation dates to either the 1930s or a few years in the mid 1960s.  Back in the 1930s the Republicans may have come close to extinction.  Their total House members were 117 following the 1932 election and declined from there to 103 (1934) and 88 (1936).

The Federalists died with similar percentages but it took 20 years.  If it wasn't for the Southern Democrats pushing Roosevelt to cut back on the New Deal it might have happened.

The 1938 election nearly doubled Republican seats in the House from 88 to 169 and they were back in business as a respectably sized minority party.

[ Parent ]
Well slimmer majorities are all we need
Between the 30's and 70's when the New Deal coalition was at it's height Dems always had fractured majorities.

These days even on somewhat bills where the parties are sharply divides such as the stimulus we only lose about a dozen Dems whereas in the old Democratic majorities would have seen far more defections.

[ Parent ]
I would like to go much farther than even Delay
I really would like to see the Democratic administration treat these Repubs and their organizations (conservative groups, right-wing churches) for what they are, anti-American traitors, and thus use the powers of the gov't, Patriot Act, warrentless wiretapping, etc against them.  Because in an emergency like this one, its what gets things done.

If I were the Democratic political strategist, I would call for an approach that made Rove and Delay look like wusses.

As I've said before, I'm a left-authoritarian and quite proud of it.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely
There are plenty of avenues that can be explored for consolidating power at this point.  A few I'd suggest are.

1. As you say, the Patriot Act can be used as a strong tool in fighting the right.  This however requires ferreting out and firing right-wingers in the intelligence community and replacing them with leftists.

2. Identify anti-American groups such as the LDS who spent church funds to attack prop 8 in California.  Gather enough information on them so that their tax exempt status can be eliminated.

3. Forget about the fairness doctrine nonsense.  A better route would be simply targetting and removing far-right hatemongers from the radio and TV.  

[ Parent ]
In all fairness..
Would you also include 'African-American' churches in the list of groups who spent church funds to attack Prop 8? I dont know if they did or not but I know many black churches were front and center in the Prop 8 debate...on the conservative side. I do think its rather hypocritical for many on the left to go and protest LDS and evangelical churches but be silent towards the black churches that also were activists in the debate. They, i think, were scared of being accused as racists. Its an understandable fear...but its still hypocrisy. But, just so no one gets the wrong idea, im not bigoted in any sense, so my argument here doesnt have a bigoted slant. I just am fed up with the hypocrisy (not saying anyone on here is guilty of that). Im very pro-gay marriage and its just not right that the only groups getting attacked are the traditionally conservative Republican ones. Although the Catholic Church has also been attacked, too, in gay marriage debates, and they dont really love the GOP due to economic issues, pacifism, etc. But other than them...
[ Parent ]
Though...
I dont personally support removing any churches' tax exempt statuses unless its proven they broke tax exempt rules.
[ Parent ]
No
The LDS "church" is one big contralized network while AA churches are not.  As far as I'm aware there was no coordinated effort by AA churches against prop 8 whereas there was by the LDS "church."
[ Parent ]
LDS
To Gov. Huntsman's credit i have heard he came out in favor of same sex civil unions. I hope he hasnt been lambasted for those views in UT.  
[ Parent ]
There are rumors
that Huntsman is basically a moderate independent, but ran as a Repub because that was the only way he could get elected in Utah in 2004.
[ Parent ]
That's not all
He came out very strongly against those republican Governors who have opposed accepting part of the stimulus money, more or less calling them partisan hacks.  Huntsman is easily one of the better republican Governor's in the country.  My uncle who lives in SLC and is a staunch Democrat really likes him.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be surprised
if Hunstman voted for Obama in the privacy of the voting booth.
[ Parent ]
He may have cause for concern
Utah decides whom to place on the ballot for their party primaries at a state convention.  In 2004 they elected not to place the then-current Governor Olene Walker on the ballot and killing her hopes of getting elected.  Though in all fairness she never won the job, she became Governor when Leavitt lwft the office for EPA Secretary.

Still, it's not out of the question that he could be excluded from the ballot if he pisses off the party sufficiently.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely not
The AA churches have nothing to prove as far as their loyalties to the county, regardless of what they say on gay marriage.  They have supported Democrats through and through.

I would support going after AA churches who support Repubs and oppose Obama's economic agenda, however.

[ Parent ]
Agreed
The African-American community are among our strongest supporters.  Going after such strong allies would make no sense.  Do I like the fact that so many of them are opposed to gay rights?  No.  But the AA community, unlike white evangelicals and other right-wing demagogues has shown promise on the issue.  Most AA's I know are very supportive of gay rights.

[ Parent ]
Not worried about Matheson
after seeing the massive margin he racked up in the rural counties last time, it's basically impossible for them to carve four unwinnable districts out of Utah.  If they try to take out even more of Salt Lake City, he will just run in the new district that contains SLC.

They can't keep diluting the power of the largest county in the state, one that Obama happened to win.

This bill gets my blood boiling.
I dont outright oppose a voting House member for DC. I actually think giving the non-states a single voting member in the House (no matter their size and none in the Senate) is an idea to look into. But I believe the way this is being brought about is clearly unconsitutional and Im excited about the prospects that the courts will strike it down.

This should be tried though a consitutional amendment. I know its harder, but it is the right thing to do. Not ignore the fact that only states can having voting rights in the US House. I know some people try to justify it by saying the consitution gives the Congress power over DC, but I doubt that when that was written, it was intended to give the Congress power to even override the consitution in what they want with DC. They should have thw power over the District, with the restrictions the government has to deal with the rest of the nation.

Its actually a scary logic when one thinks about it that the Congress can do whatever they want to in DC.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

Agreed on the lack of Constitutional veracity
But see the discussion above re: the proposed Constitutional amendment. The fact is, it almost certainly wouldn't pass given the politics of the situation, and it seems to me that there's need for immediate redress - while the oh so rare opportunity exists - to make up for literally centuries of Washingtonians having their right to equal representation trampled upon. And I for one doubt that the framers ever conceived such a polarized national political dynamic wherein a population could be denied statehood purely because of its partisan makeup.

[ Parent ]
I'm inclined to agree with Kyle here
I'm in favor of giving each of DC, Guam, US VI, Puerto Rico, and Samoa each a voting Representative (though not Senators, or possibly just one Senator, or two Senators representing all of them together, though that raises issues of DC or (more likely) Puerto Rico dominating a single at-large vote).

My justification is that people who live in these territories are U.S. citizens and are thus also helped and hurt by U.S. federal policies.  Thus, they should have a say in what the country does, even if a small say.

I would totally support a Constitutional amendment to add representation to DC, in at least the House, as well as amendments to give Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories their own Representatives.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
How about this:
Give proportional (minimum 1) representation in the House to territories.  I think DC still only gets 1 (more population than Wyoming, heck), but Puerto Rico has about 4 million people and would thus get five or six Representatives, and give each of the other territories either one common Representative or each their own (though you'd have massive over-representation of, say, American Samoa, which has about a tenth of the population of DC).

However, the Senate only represents territories that have reached full statehood.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
DC residents pay U.S. taxes
Anythign less that 2 Senators and 1 Rep is taxation without representation.  That's part of the reason we had a revolution and formed the damn country to begin with.

The other territories like Puerto Rico don't pay taxes, so that's a different story.  If they want to pay taxes and share the reponsibilities of statehood I'm all for it.

[ Parent ]
Oh, I wasn't aware of the taxes issue.
In that case, I'm most inclined to support full statehood for DC, or make it part of Maryland or something.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
[ Parent ]
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.
Puerto Rico should have the option of statehood with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.  If they do not want to go the statehood route, then they should not receive representation in Congress.

The other overseas territories are a little trickier.  They're too small for statehood.  Even giving a House Rep would be unfair since their populations are so small.  Independence may be the way to go if they wanted it.

[ Parent ]
Somewhat true
Puerto Ricans dont pay federal income taxes, but I do think they pay federal payroll taxes.

Last time PR voted on the statehood issue it barely failed if I recall (I was only like 10 or 11 so I might be wrong). It would be interesting to see what such an election would result in now, esp with their new pro-statehood Republican aligned governor.

A cat can have kittens in an oven but that doesn't make them biscuits.

[ Parent ]
PR statehood
I'm a little worried about Puerto Rican statehood by plebiscite because it's an irreversible step. Suppose they have another vote and 52% vote for statehood. Is that really enough, when it could be 48% the next year? It seems like it should have supermajority support to take that step.
[ Parent ]
1998
Looked it up on the internet.  The last national referendum on statehood failed with 46.7% voting for statehood and the rest split with about 39% in favor of independence from the U.S. and the rest for the status quo.
[ Parent ]
In somewhat agreement
I am fully in favor of DC and now that you mention it, for the other territories as well.

But, while I support doing it in this manner, I think there absolutely should be a court challenge to determine its constitutionality.  If it is ruled unconstitutional, then it'd be time to do it the correct way.

Also, no statehood, no Senators.  That isnt what DC was meant to be, if the founding fathers had wanted it to be a state, they would've made it one.  Also, I think by making it a state, to me it lessens its national importance as I think it not being a state makes it unique and different.  And simply put, I do no want the federal government in a state, as that state is then immediatly above and beyond all the other 50 of them as being more important.  

No, I like it how it is now, minus the not getting a real vote in the House.

[ Parent ]
I'd Also Vote No
I don't think this is constitutional.  Rule of law is a more important issue to me than just about anything else.  One reason I despised the Bush administration was their cavalier attitude toward the law.  Democrats should do better.  I support doing it the legal way--an amendment to Constitution to give DC a Representative in the House.  
[ Parent ]
Seeing a right-winger like you here
spewing wingnut talking points gets my blood boiling.
[ Parent ]
You may want to revise your opinion.
Kyle is actually a (gasp!) sane Republican.

And don't tell me that I'm being weak on Democratic defense; if you do, you haven't seen me flame Republicans before.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
Get a grip man
Those are far from right-wing talking points.  Quite a few Democrats hold views on this issue similar to his.  The status of representation for D.C. and other U.S. territories is a hotly contested subject with a wide variety of views.  You've made some really nasty comments lately around here that really cross the line.  If you have a problem with Kyle's comments why don't you just give your opinion as to why you think he's wrong?  
[ Parent ]
I have no use for wingnuts and Rethugs whatsoever
And I just can't help but be very nasty towards any of them. I really hate those guys.  
[ Parent ]
2/3rd of states
I doubt 2/3rds of states would vote for it, either. And this doesnt just include states with a GOP majority, but many southern/border states with a Dem or half-Dem majority. Do people really think a white, conservative, yellow Dog Dem from a state like Alabama or Louisiana will vote to give DC statehood or a voting right? Im just saying all that in the case the courts do rule this has to go to the states to decide. Though im guessing theyd just rule that for statehood.
this is a compromise
one could well argue that a) DC should not have congressional representation because that's what the constitution says or b) Utah should wait it's damn turn for another seat.

i support this because DC deserves representation and if the constitution says that this huge group of people (Americans with the same inalienable rights as the rest of us) shouldn't have fair representation, it's just BS.  utah should wait its turn but if this makes it easier to get the DC camel's nose under the tent, then i'm all for it.

Utah waiting its turn
Many people may not like DC getting a vote becuase they feel Utah doesnt deserve a 4th seat. But many people here in Utah feel like Utah deserved its 4th seat after the 2000 census because Utah lost the last seat by 857 people. However they do not count Mormon missionaries for apportionment and there is about 14,000 missionaries from Utah.
[ Parent ]
Brain dead politics
There isn't even a pretense of logic to this.

DC certainly does not deserve and should not have statehood anymore than San Francisco should so that is a non-starter.

The logical and easiest conclusion is to to have DC vote with Maryland on a Federal level, but not state.  So Maryland gets one more congressional district, and becomes even more solidly Democratic for Senate... while we lose two votes in the Electoral College.  It's a fair tradeoff to get equal representation to the citizens of Washington.

It does not deserve statehood
or Congressional representation any less than Wyoming or Vermont.  
[ Parent ]
Those are states
It's completely idiotic to argue that Dc should be a state anymore than San Francisco or Detroit.

It's simply idiotic twaddle to suggest this city should have two Senators when bigger cities don't.

They deserve a Congressperson and to be able to vote for Senators.  The idea that they are special and should have two Senators and Baltimore and Richmond and Wichita should not is delusional in the extreme.

One Congressmember, no Senators and remain a District is a sane alternative, but sadly the lunatic statehood talk prevents that.

[ Parent ]
You understand that you're making
a circular argument right? It shouldn't be a state because it isn't a state (now).

What gives you the right to say that states should be frozen in stone, even if it means that certain people should have deficient Federal representation?

It seems to me that if one day Baltimore or San Francisco or Philadelphia (etc.) were able to popularly determine that they were not part of their respective states for some reason or another, they should have the right to become states themselves. There is a price to pay for being part of a large state, and also some advantages, but Washington D.C. gets none of these, and unless Virginia or Maryland is somehow forced to absorb it (they shouldn't be), their next best option is to become a state themselves.  

[ Parent ]
I didn't make a circular arguement
but you just made a circular rationalization.

It's not a state by legality, but that isn't the point.

It's a freaking city.  Hello?  Making it a state is both stupid and hopelessly unfair.  

If Baltimore or San Francisco or Philadelphia wanted to be a state, they should not be allowed to be one either.

Is the State of Dixville Notch next?  Then we could have 3 electoral votes allocated just after midnight.

Just because a city wants to be a state doesn't suddenly make that anything other than an idiotic notion.

[ Parent ]
A city with more people than Wyoming or Alaska I believe
So what's your point?
[ Parent ]
I make that point directly
and he didn't address it. Some politically defined regions are apparently more important than others. That's the essence of his argument.  
[ Parent ]
Why does it not derserve representation?
Once again, my biggest gripe is taxation without representation.  All tax-paying U.S. citizens deserve to be representated by 2 Senators and 1 Rep in Congress.  Your Maryland solution sounds reasonable to me, but I still think statehood is a better option.

We all know deep down what the real reason for DC not getting equal representation a long time ago is - race.  

[ Parent ]
If the Republicans hadn't controlled Congress
in recent years, I would have suggested tacking on the New Columbia admissions act onto the VRA reauthorization.
[ Parent ]
Kinda hard to separate race and partisanship when they're so intertwined, too
Also, in response to whoever said that Puerto Rico pays federal payroll taxes but not federal income taxes: how about giving them Representatives but not Senators.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...
[ Parent ]
Also, about taxes
Since those other territories don't pay either federal income or federal payroll taxes, as someone implied somewhere in this thread, they all get represented by just one person in the House.

So, that adds about seven or eight new Representatives: one representing DC-AL, five or six PR-01 through PR-05/06, and one TR-AL (TeRritories).  And then two new Senators, both representing DC.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
Nobody said it doesn't deserve representation
It doesn't deserve over representation just like it doesn't deserve under-representation.

If this wasn't the USA, land of the corrput nincompoop poltician, a law would pass giving DC a member of Congress in 2012 when redistricting takes place, but sadly the concept of equal representation is lost on all sides with this issue.

[ Parent ]
Maryland doesn't want to DC.
   Do you really think that Maryland would suddenly allow DC retrocession?!  It's a total non-starter.  The bill that just got through cloture is the only politically tenable way to give DC a voice in the House.  There will always people who make excuses for why one of the most black cities in the country shouldn't have representation.  It's a huge embarrassment.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Pish posh
It is an embarrassment DC doesn't have a Congressmember, but this crackpot tradeoff is not a sensible solution.

[ Parent ]
Just gonna say
a lot of comments in this thread were a bit too radical for my taste.  I respect that opinion but I just want to say it's a little Kos/OpenLeft'ish.  But maybe more so in a different taste.
DC-AL? UT-AL? UT-04? DC Voting Rights Bill Clears Cloture | 113 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

SSP on Facebook

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox