After 200 years, D.C. residents may get a vote in Congress

[Judi Lynn]

Jan. 2, 2007, 2:38AM
After 200 years, D.C. residents may get a vote in Congress

By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in the nation's wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington residents are close to getting a full-fledged representative in the House.

The turning point in this long battle for enfranchisement may be an unlikely partnership with the people of Utah.

The new Democratic majority, in the first months of the new Congress, is expected to take up a bill that would increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah, a Republican stronghold, and the District of Columbia, dominated by Democrats.

The bill is backed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will be responsible for moving it.

Prospects are also good in the Senate. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who calls himself an independent Democrat, will chair the committee of jurisdiction there. Lieberman is a leading supporter of the measure, and Utah's two Republican senators have endorsed it as well.
(snp/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4438470.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Well I never !

Being an english thicko I'd never even wondered what on earth "DC" stood for. Now I know ! So - thank you. :)

[Kolesar]

2. Constitutional amendment is "not necessary"

Most — but by no means all — scholars say an amendment is unnecessary. The Constitution says that the House shall be composed of members chosen by "the people of the several states." But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted by some to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights.

Republicans, after capturing the majority in 1995, were naturally cool to the idea of giving Democrats another sure vote in the House, but it was a Republican, Rep. Tom Davis of Washington's northern Virginia suburbs, who several years ago came up with the link between Utah and the District.

Utah insists that the 2000 census undercounted the state's population because so many of the state's young Mormon men were out of state or out of the country doing missionary work. Utahans said a proper count would have entitled the state to an additional representative, up from the current three.

...

Davis said he plans to reintroduce his bill at the beginning of the new Congress in January. In the meantime, Norton, a delegate since 1990, is also pressing her Democratic colleagues to back a change in House rules so she can vote on amendments to legislation, but not final passage.

Note that I have met Utah Mormons who said they would vote in Ohio in 2004.

[ktlyon]

3. not sure the census could be too far off

Family members that live with them (their parents) would be filling out the form, most Mormon missionaries are children. I would imagine the homeless and illegals would be far more of an under reporting problem.

DC should get the vote because it is right.

[melm00se]

4. i disagree...an amendment

is necessary.

Please note the comment: But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted by some to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights.

yes, and if they can give DC voting rights, but they can also, if they so choose, take them away...(I am not saying that they would just that the option is, legally, there). An amendment would pretty much settle the issue once and for all.

[Kolesar]

5. An amendment needs a super-majority of states to approve it

Which means its chances are about nil. We need the easiest path to real representation for DC.
(when does our colony of Baghdad get a non-voting representative like Guam?)

[melm00se]

6. the easiest path

may not be the right (or permanent) path.

the right of representation should not be left to the whim (or the expediency) of politicians, regardless of party.

[qwlauren35]

7. Now this is just plain sad...

and probably true. We cannot get a majority of states to advocate for DC for TWO reasons. One, because the city is still predominantly black and two, because it's predominantly Republican.

I wonder if this would change in DC became a Republican strong-hold...

What a Catch-22. If a majority of DC residents were to attempt to switch parties, they might lose congressional representation...

Sounds like there needs to be something stronger in place.

[Hard_Work]

8. I'm sure you mean't

predominantly Democratic.

But I agree.

[MountainLaurel]

10. True that.

I believe more than 90 percent of DCers went for Kerry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. This will likely give an extra electoral vote the Republicans

Utah will get an extra vote, while DC's will stay the same as they already have three.

[SoCalDem]

12. Why does Utah "need" another one?

Population figures are supposed to be the rationale, and surely every good Mormon steps forth to be counted :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. They don't "need" an extra one

Of course, Republicans in the Senate don't "need" vote for cloture of the bill. And Bush doesn't "need" to let the bill pass without vetoing it.

Now that we have divided government, compromise will be necessary if we want to get what we want. Otherwise, it will simply be gridlock.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

11. Long overdue...

It's about time the District was represented in Congress. :thumbsup:

I hope Dumbyass doesn't veto it.

[The Sushi Bandit]

14. How about a new SENATOR!

that would break "Tie" votes!