Giving DC a Vote (The Nation)

[marmar]

BLOG | Posted 03/09/2007 @ 3:22pm
Giving DC a Vote

Ari Berman

Imagine you lived in the most powerful city in the world. Imagine elected officials from all across the country came there to debate the nation's future. Imagine you paid taxes and fought in wars. Now imagine that only you didn't have an elected representative, or a say in how the country chooses its president.

By now, you obviously know I'm talking about Washington, DC, which since its inception has been disenfranchised. That could be changing, finally, and not a minute too soon. "The House of Representatives will vote on a bill to give the people of Washington, DC full representation in the People's House by the end of the month," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced this week. "The people of the District have waited too long to have a voice in the House."

This is an important first step. But, as Sam Schramski reported last summer, the real goal for DC residents is statehood, which the House bill does not address. The motto should be: "No Taxation without full Representation."

UPDATE: Posters in the comments section are already saying that this is a ploy to get Dems an extra seat in the House. Not so. The bill would add another seat in the red state of Utah, enlarging the House to 437 members and offsetting a likely Dem in DC with a likely Republican in Utah.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15

[MountainLaurel]

1. Thank you for posting.

As a former DC resident, it enrages me that American citizens cannot see the injustice and the irony of the nation's capital not having representation in Congress.

[iamjoy]

2. Bigger Win for Republicans

Not only would they get an extra seat in Congress, but an extra electoral vote.

And, since 1963, Washington DC has been able to vote for President. The 23rd ammendment, I believe.

[MADem]

4. That seat, that VOTING seat, would go to Eleanor Holmes Norton. NT

Why in the world would you think this benefits the GOP?

It's not the Presidential elections that are at issue, these people have NO representation on issues like the war, taxes, appropriations, anything. They don't have the representative and two senators that ten assholes and a herd of sheep have out in Wyoming. It's patently unfair.


23rd Amendment
The District of Columbia has been a unique city since its founding in 1800 as the seat of the new government. When first established, it was a town of 5000, and it was assumed that it would be the center of government, and not a population center. But by 1900, over a quarter of a million people lived within its bounds. Since it is a federal district, however, and not a state, the inhabitants not only had no real local government, they had no vote in the federal government either. By 1960, when 760,000 people lived in Washington, D.C., it seemed odd that people from a dozen states, with lower populations, had more voting rights than residents of the District. As citizens, they were required to pay taxes and to serve in the military, but a vote in the Presidential election was available only to the states.

It is important to note that the 23rd Amendment does not make Washington, D.C., a state; it just confers upon its citizens the number of electors that it would have if it were a state. It also did not provide full representation in Congress for the District. The Congress passed the amendment on June 17, 1960; the amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 (285 days).

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am23

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

[iamjoy]

7. Here Is How They Gain

Washington DC gets 3 electoral votes for President. this is even though they don't really have any elected representatives in Congress. IF you gave Ms. Norton the right to vote, or even granted DC full statehood, they would still only have 3 electoral votes.

Utah, in contrast, has 3 Congressional representatives. Coupled with their 2 senators, they get 5 electoral votes. Give them an extra Congress person and the balance in Congress does not change, since presumably DC would elect a Democrat and Utah a Republican. Even Steven. However, in the electoral college, Utah now has 6 electoral votes.

That's how Republicans gain.

Anyway, I was referencing this line in the article:
Now imagine that only you didn't have an elected representative, or a say in how the country chooses its president.

Washington DC does get to vote for president.

As for not being able to vote for representatives, on paper that is a huge injustice. In practical terms, not so much. Even in states where we get to vote for our representatives to Congress, our legislatures have so gerrymandered safe seats for their parties, that the election is usually decided long before anyone actually votes. Our elected officials are so busy courting the special interests, that they really don't give a hoot what their constituents feel, especially those in the minority for their district.

[Recursion]

9. But Utah only keeps the seat for 3 years

It will get reapportioned, probably to Massachussetts, after the 2010 census.

That's why we need to move on this now, because Utah won't be very interested in a seat for just 2 years.

[MADem]

10. But I'm not talking about the Presidential elections. I'm talking about

the right of DC residents to vote, through their representatives, on issues ranging from taxation to the war. They have NO voice now, save the 'moral' voice of Eleanor. Even if seats are gerrymandered, they aren't so gerrymandered that we didn't take back the House, now, are they? And if we prosecute a strong agenda over the next two years, we can expect to see even more gains, safe seats be damned.

I have to disagree with you, I think that not having a voting representative in Congress IS a huge injustice.

[iamjoy]

12. The Article Mentioned The President

that's why I referenced that.

And of course it's a huge injustice that DC doesn't have a voting rep in Congress, but don't expect that getting one will suddenly change everything for the better.

[MADem]

13. No, it's not a panacea, but it's simply the right thing to do. NT

[Recursion]

5. Only for three more years; MA probably will get the seat after 2010

The seat is only guaranteed to Utah until the next census.

[MADem]

3. I have always thought they should shrink DC down to JUST the federal buildings

And give the rest of the area to VA and MD, depending on proximity. Any residence or business would be classified as in one state or the other. The "District" would ONLY be the federal buildings.

That way, you really COULD shrink the size of the federal government. Already the MD and VA cops know how to work with the DC police, it would just make that whole aspect simpler. You'd have a small cadre of federal cops to do what they do at Federal buildings, and then you would have the Capitol Police. If they needed backups they could get assistance from VA or MD assets (many of whom would be former DC cops transferred to those states).

Of course, that would result in two additional seats, most likely, given the populations involved, and I doubt either one of them would be GOP!!!!!

[Recursion]

6. The VA part of that happened 150 years ago

Arlington County and the City of Alexandria were both part of DC until the Compromise of 18-whatever. The slave trade (but not slavery itself) were ended in DC and Arlington and Alexandria were receded to Virginia.

Now, conceivably, the rest of the District outside of the literal federal buildings could recede to Maryland formally, or could recede for purposes of representation, or what have you. I'm even open to the argument that DC shouldn't get Senators since Senators represent the states, which DC Constitutionally is not. But the House represents the people, which we Constitutionally are, and if Waxman keeps holding up this bill I'm going to lose my frigging mind.

[MADem]

8. The old "Arlington Military District"

I'm betting that some of the rich bastards in DC might want their neighborhoods in VA, but I could be wrong.

In any event, no matter what state gets the goods, I think they deserve representation in both Houses. I always have. If the only way to do that is to toss them to MD, so be it. Like I said, it's amazing to me that ten assholes and a herd of sheep get the full Monty in WY, yet all of those hardworking DC residents pay taxes out the ass and get nothing but a vote every four years for their trouble. It ain't right.

And we know what the "elephant" in the room is -- if all of those DC citizens were pasty Republicans, hell, Reagan would have given them whatever they wanted on a silver plate.

If Waxman is holding the bill, it might not hurt to call and find out why. Is it a nose-counting issue, or is it something else?

[primavera]

11. A lot of people have suggested that

... as the most workable solution. Efforts to seek relief from the courts have invariably dead-ended with the courts holding that the District's lack of statehood constrains what the courts can do and they refer the matter to Congress for a Constitutional Amendment. Of course, since the District is 85% registered Dems, getting a Congress with any Repukes at all in it to agree to granting District residents voting representation has been difficult to say the least. But back when the District was formed, District residents had been Maryland residents and they were disenfranchised without due process. This has been probably the most persuasive argument as far as the courts have been concerned, which have generally agreed that, by stripping residents of the District who had previously enjoyed voting representation as Maryland residents, a legal harm was done to those residents. The historical record bears out that residents at the time were given no opportunity to lobby against the move, they received no hearings or day in court - in other words, a harm was done them and they were denied due process. So the District regression scheme has the benefit of bypassing the whole Constitutional Amendment/statehood issue, and could arguably be done as a remedy to a long-standing injustice.

[Solon]

14. A step in the right direction, but only a step...

To be honest, we would need to rethink how our Representatives are chosen. I have a question though, is the change to 437 members going to be permanent, or is it going to revert back to 435 in 4 years? Some said Utah would lose a seat, but Mass. would gain a seat, so I'm just asking. The last time this increase happened, when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted as states, it was reverted back down to 435 members for the next election.

The 435 member rule was instituted in 1911, as of now, our country has admitted 4 states and the population has more than tripled since that time. Due to gerrymandering and other shenanigans, most Representatives are completely secure in there seats until they decide to leave on their own.

To be honest, I would like to see the limit abolished, and districting abolished as well. The only Constitutional requirement is that the ration for representation doesn't exceed 1:30,000. Congress kept on increasing this ration to keep up with population growth till 1911. Today, I say we should fix the ration to let's say 1:500,000, and abolish districts entirely, allowing states to choose representatives through at large systems, like party list or candidate list systems. Given a system like that would increase house representation to about 600 Representatives.

D.C. and other Territories should be allowed Representatives based on the same criteria, however, they shouldn't be given Senators unless admitted as states themselves.

ON EDIT: In addition to this, D.C. should be allowed to have some "Home Rule" similar to how some of our other unincorporated territories deal with "domestic" issues. Congress should NOT have the power to clamp down on there local sovereignty at will.