D.C. Voting Rights Passed by Senate Committee

[kpete]

Source: Washington Post

D.C. Voting Rights Passed by Senate Committee
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 11, 2009; 11:49 AM

A Senate committee approved a bill today that would give the District its first full seat in the House of Representatives, setting up a crucial vote by the full chamber sometime in the coming months.

The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the legislation 11 to 1 at its first business meeting in the new Congress. The lone "no" vote was cast by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

It's not clear when the legislation will reach the Senate floor for what is likely to be the key vote on the measure. In 2007, a similar bill died in the Senate after falling three votes short of the 60 needed to head off a filibuster. But proponents believe they are now in better shape thanks to Democratic gains in the last election.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021101486.html

[babylonsister]

1. Great! nt

[ezgoingrl]

2. What the hell

is wrong with John McCain?

[qb]

6. Republican Party first, country second

[lynnertic]

15. What's wrong with McCain? He's a loser.

[Sydnie]

16. He was just being "mavericky"

just because he could. :rofl:

[ezgoingrl]

19. That's what my Mom said when I told her about this.

Gawd what an idiot.

[No Elephants]

24. Not a McCain fan, but maybe he thinks Article I of the U.S. Constitution should mean something?

[Ian David]

25. How long you got?

[liberalmuse]

3. Why would anyone vote 'No' on that?

And FINALLY! Yes!

[EFerrari]

4. Because the seat will add a Democrat? n/t

[elleng]

20. Yes, but I believe the legislation

provides that Utah gets another congressmember, to 'make up' for DC's vote.

[wordpix]

34. you're kidding, right?

[karynnj]

5. Because it's a sure liberal Democratic vote

so much for he always thinks of his country first McCain - this is a blatantly political vote.

[TygrBright]

8. It's the ol' "camel's nose" fear...

Eleanor Holmes Norton is a Democrat. Give her an official vote and you have one more guaranteed on the Dem side of the ledger. Then the people of DC (whose license plate motto is "Taxation Without Representation," BTW) might start deluding themselves that they are entitled to a SENATOR.

ohnoes!!!!

A Senator to represent 600,000 people? (What was the population of Wyoming, again? How many Senators do they have?)

the horror!!!

Because the good peeps of DC would almost certainly bump Eleanor up to that spot, if she was willing...

And that would put ANOTHER GUARANTEED DEM SEAT in the Senate! ZOMG!!! END OF THE WORLD TIME!!!!!

And then...

MOST HORRIBLE OF ALL!!!

Those irresponsible DC peeps would elect MARION BARRY to replace Eleanor in the House! Can you IMAGINE? Someone like THAT, in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? Someone with scandal piled on scandal in their past?

::sigh::

they really think like that, you know.

wearily,
Bright

[Politicalboi]

9. She's great I like her

I saw her on the Colbert Report and she is a smart woman who doesn't seem to take any shit from anybody.

[TygrBright]

11. She is one of the smartest, most experienced people there.

And yep, she takes s*** from nobody. Nobody at all.

She's one of my heroes, big time.

admiringly,
Bright

[VaYallaDawg]

12. Truly great news! But won't they get 2 senators (not just 1?)

[TygrBright]

14. Good question. As this stands, they get NO Senators.

It applies only to House representation. It's NOT statehood, it's yet another iteration of the quasi-citizenship that is the price of living in the District. An improvement, yes. But not a solution.

However, motion of ANY kind in that direction tends to scare the knickers offa the GOPpies who are easily skeered by the notion of DC homies getting full citizenship.

cynically,
Bright

[VaYallaDawg]

26. Right - I now see the context. n/t

[wordpix]

35. Go back to your 10 houses, McShame!

[TheWraith]

18. Well if they preferred, we could simply annex DC into Virginia.

That means another, oh, 400,000 hard-core Democratic votes in Virginia, pushing it onto the blue side of the ledger for good, and making it almost impossible for any Republican to win the presidency without sweeping the table.

[tekisui]

7. This should be good.

Some question the constitutionality of giving DC a seat in the House. And, is DC eligible for Senators, without being a state? Can we move to make DC a state?

Good stuff, I hope it passes.

[DebbieCDC]

10. I want to know if Obama put the "taxation" tags back on the official gov't vehcicles

When shrubshit took office, the first thing he did was take off the "taxation without representation" DC plates from all gov't vehicles and had them replaced with the "Nation's Capital" version. I want to know if Obama's going to change them back. Big Dog had the "taxation" plates put on all gov't vehicles when it was created under his admin.

The people who actually live in DC have been shit upon by the fed gov't since Day 1. I lived there for 20 years and have seen this first hand over and over and over again. When shrubshit was running in 2000, a DC newsman (local NBC affiliate) asked him if he favored voting representation for DC citizens in Congress. Shrubshit's one-word answer: "No". When asked how he could so casually disenfranchise 250,000 people, shrubshit smirked and said "let them move somewhere else". That's the attitude DC has gotten from almost every administration, Repuke or Dem.

Eleanor is a fighter and a tough gal and she deserves a REAL vote (which she sort of briefly had under Big Dog, but which shrubshit promptly took back).

[tritsofme]

13. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

This law is likely unconstitutional.

We need a constitutional amendment to do this the right way.

[elleng]

21. and we won't hold our breaths for that.

I moved to MD (after DC for 20+ years) and 'incidentally' have 2 senators and a real progressive representative! Its GREAT! I write to them, they write back!!! I LOVE it!

[Ocracoker16]

17. Excellent, Eleanor Holmes Norton should have a vote

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Only states should have voting representation...

I'd have no problems with DC and/or Puerto Rico becoming a state.

I do however disagree with giving votes to non-states.

[Phillycat]

31. I agree, tho' I very much want DC to have voting rights. This needs to be an amendment.

[No Elephants]

23. Wasn't the entire point of D.C. that it would be run by Congress and

would NOT be a state? Heck, they could not even vote for President until the Sixties! From wiki:

Article One of the United States Constitution provides for a federal district, distinct from the states, to serve as the permanent national capital. The centers of all three branches of the federal government of the United States are located in the District, as are many of the nation's monuments and museums. Washington, D.C., hosts 173 foreign embassies as well as the headquarters of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization of American States (OAS), the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The headquarters of other institutions such as trade unions, lobbying groups, and professional associations are also located in the District.

The United States Congress has supreme authority over Washington, D.C.; residents of the city therefore have less self-governance than residents of the states. The District has a non-voting at-large Congressional delegate, but no senators. D.C. residents could not vote in presidential elections until the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1961.

[DebbieCDC]

27. What everyone forgets is that DC residents - unlike the terriorities -

Have to pay federal income tax. Puerto Rico, Guam, et al -- all the territories have non-voting reps BUT THEY PAY NO FED INCOME TAX.

DC residents have non-voting rep but STILL have to pay Fed. income tax

Plus DC has to shoulder all of the responsibilities of a state gov't (roads, schools, etc.) without being a state.

DC can't tax more than half of the property because it's either owned by the fed gov't or foreign embassies.

The pittance they get each year from Congress never covers enough of the costs of not being a state, but have to spend like a state.

I gave up after 20 years and left.

[DCKit]

28. Could you imagine the insane real estate rush that would result from nixing DC's fed taxes?

Manhattan's housing prices would look like Detroit's in comparison and, not only would DC make a killing off property taxes, the monetary penalties for abuse would easily double their coffers. Are you listening Ann Coulter?

[No Elephants]

30. People don't forget they pay taxes., "Taxation without representation" was

on the license plate. But, money is a separate issue from voting Representatives or Senators. Congress certainly has the power to subsidize the operating expenses of D.C. without a Constitutional Amendment, and probably should. giving it. The Constitution does not contemplate representation in Congress for federal districts, however. Give it more money, make it a state, amend the Constitution, or whatever, but don't mess with the Constituton.

[liberalpragmatist]

29. So?

A) Several constitutional scholars, including, of all people, Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, believe that it is within the rights of Congress to grant DC voting rights in Congress (even the Senate). They point out that the courts already count DC as a "state" for other constitutional provisions, such as the provision that says residents of the "states" shall have the right to sue in federal court.

B) When the Constitution was written, the constitutional supremacy of the Federal Govt. was not clearly established. By now, there is absolutely no way that a state government could exert supremacy over the federal government.

C) It's not even clear that the Constitution requires a "federal district." The Constitution simply says Congress "may" exert authority over a federal district "not exceeding ten square miles." The U.S. functioned without a "federal district" for over a decade under the Constitution when the Capital was New York, then Philadelphia (both, incidentally, parts of other states, not under the direct control of the federal government.)

Personally, I think they ought to simply give DC Statehood. It's the most straightforward way of granting DC representation in Congress and providing its residents with self-government. Retrocession to Maryland would be fine with me, but its wanted by neither Maryland nor DC.

[No Elephants]

32. Forgive me for differing with Ken Starr, nothing in the Constitution says a "federal district" gets

representation in Congress. If we want to try to amend the Constitution to provide for that, that is another story. Or, if we want to grant statehood to D.C., that is another story. But, let's not start re-writing the Constitution via Act of Congress.

[liberalpragmatist]

33. Nothing in the Constitution says residents of the "federal district" can sue in federal courts

That right is reserved for residents of "the states" - yet that right was legislated for DC and the court upheld that right.

That being said, I think statehood would be most effective way to accomplish all this and it's arguably less of a constitutional dispute than giving voting rights to the federal district. I think there's a solid case that the "federal district" can have congressional representation, but I concede that it's ambiguous.