May 10, 2006

Is This Constitutional?

After all, the Constitution certainly appears to limit actual voting representation to states. How can this legislation meet that challenge?

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is teaming up with U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) to introduce a bill that would for the first time give the District a full vote in Congress, a sign of bipartisan cooperation that advocates of D.C. voting rights hailed as a breakthrough.

The legislation, set to be unveiled at a news conference today, would expand the House from 435 to 437 seats, giving a vote to the District as well as a fourth seat to Utah, the state next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation based on the 2000 Census.

Davis first introduced a version of the bill two years ago, but he struggled to persuade Norton and House Democrats to support it. Through a spokeswoman, Norton declined yesterday to discuss her change of heart, promising to explain all at today's news conference.

"We have an agreement in principle with our Democrats, and that's a significant development," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "It's no secret that legislation to give the District a vote wasn't going to go too far without Eleanor Holmes Norton on board."

Given that the District is all territory carved from the state of Maryland, I would prefer to see the city lumped in with Maryland for representation purposes. It would finesse the issue of giving representation to anything other than states. Look for a challenge to the first law on which the DC delegate casts the deciding vote.

And then there is the Utah question, which raises another Constitutional issue in my book.

The first would address Democratic concerns by making Utah's new seat a statewide position, rather than creating another congressional district. Utah now has three House members, including one Democrat, Jim Matheson. House Democrats had worried that Utah Republicans, who control the statehouse, would use the extra seat to reconfigure the congressional districts and push Matheson out of his job. By making the fourth seat an at-large position, the three existing districts would remain intact.

Now hold on here -- once seats are apportioned among the states, it is the business of the state legislatures to take care of districting issues. This provision seems to usurp the function of the state legislature. As such it seems certain to meet a stiff Constitutional challenge.

Also, does the "at-large" mandate disappear after the 2010 census?

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

1 So you would advocate continuing taxation without representation for the 500,000 people who live in the District? Why? Because 60% of them are black? Just throwing out possibilities. Don't you believe in democracy? Do you even understand what not having Congressional representation has meant for DC? Don't worry, you got the hicks in Utah to balance the extra Democratic seat, so the Dems aren't being handed a free seat.

God, I can't wait to take back the house from you unthinking types.

Posted by: Rightiesareafraidofeverything at Thu May 11 00:54:08 2006 (Ls10O)

2 I love the way that stupid leftists with nothing substantive to contribute to the discussion plop down the race card as teh weapon of first choice, hoping to trump the entire discussion by claiming some sort of anti-racist superiority.

Let's look at what I said, as it answers all this guy's points.

the Constitution certainly appears to limit actual voting representation to states.

Tat would be article I, Section 2, as I recall, which repeatedly refers to representatives as coming from states -- not the federal district established in Washington City, which was placed under the direct governance of Congress with no vote granted. There are three options available, as I see it -- ignore the Constitution (the above commenter's choice), grant DC statehood (which has Constitutional issues of its own, given that it was ceded by Maryland only for purposes of establishing a federal district, not creating a new state), or the solution I and many others do believe solves the problem:

Given that the District is all territory carved from the state of Maryland, I would prefer to see the city lumped in with Maryland for representation purposes. It would finesse the issue of giving representation to anything other than states.

Washington would then have representation exactly like every other CITY in the USA. Problem solved, without a Constitutional crisis or huge amounts of litigation.

Similarly, my objection to the Utah seat is again based upon the Constitution.

once seats are apportioned among the states, it is the business of the state legislatures to take care of districting issues. This provision seems to usurp the function of the state legislature.

It isn't about race or party or religion or anything else -- it is about federalism.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 11 12:55:49 2006 (3Oi5k)

3 The problem for D.C. is that they are screwed because of Baltimore. Baltimore politicians are already mad enough that their stranglehold over the state has been loosened by suburban Marylanders . . . there is NO WAY they are going to let another bigger (or at least similarly sized) city enter the state unless their influence wanes sufficiently for DC to be let in, which isn't going to be anytime soon.

Posted by: B. Minich, PI at Fri May 12 10:47:19 2006 (akC1h)

4 I don't know that the Maryland politicians would necessarily be able to prevent such a move --the District IS Maryland territory. Ceding any or all of it back would require only Congressional action, not state action.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri May 12 10:50:10 2006 (akC1h)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
10kb generated in CPU 0.0088, elapsed 0.0165 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0115 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]