Senate Passes D.C. Voting Rights Bill, 61-37

[ProSense]

February 26, 2009, 5:13 pm

Senate Passes D.C. Voting Rights Bill, 61-37

By Kate Phillips

By a vote of 61-37, the Senate passed a bill providing full voting representation for the nation’s capital in the House of Representatives, nearly ensuring that the measure will become law this time around. While advocates were declaring victory already, a court fight almost definitely looms over the constitutionality of giving the District of Columbia voting privileges in the House that are akin to those of the 50 states.

The measure, if it became law, would increase the size of the House of Representatives to 437 from 435, adding not only a seat from the District of Columbia but also one from Utah. The Western seat was added in a compromise deal a few years back, to help attract Republican support and because officials contended that the state was deprived of an additional congressional district because of an undercount in the 2000 Census. (Also Utah’s Republican lean would also help balance out the normally Democratic tilt of the district.)

The House has yet to take up the measure this session, but is certain to repeat its passage of the bill in previous years. (Representative Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, indicated that his chamber would take up a similar measure next week.) And President Obama has indicated his support for giving the district representation.

The Senate bill plainly states that the measure does not give the district representation in the Senate, but Republican opponents have argued that this law could allow that to happen at some point later on.

more

Roll call

[babylonsister]

1. Excellent! nt

[bigwillq]

2. Nice!

:bounce:

[blueclown]

3. Fuck the pukes.

Why do we have to add another seat to the Utah delegation?

[politicasista]

4. Kick

:kick: :patriot:

[tekisui]

5. Very good. I say get them 2 Senators and a star on the flag, too.

[derby378]

6. Might be going a bit too far...

...but I definitely support DC having a voice in the House!

[Mass]

7. Good. About time. Sad to see that Byrd cannot see a reason to change things on this, but

at least he is consistent.

But what was Baucus answers.

And thanks to DeMint to make sure that that FCC is not going to reinstate the fairness doctrine. There was really a risk. :sarcasm:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00071

[Mass]

9. Atatched to this bill come the interdiction of the Fairness Doctrine, and

the reestablishment of 2nd amendment rights to DC, both voted overwhelmingly by GOPers (obviously the first one is an emergency), and sadly by many Democrats.

[nc4bo]

8. And all I hear from the "right" is that this is such a HUGH Dem stronghold

yak-yak-yak. Not fair blah-blah. Unconstitutional yak-yak.

YEA!!!

Those are their only talking points. :eyeroll:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. Not just the right. Jonathan Turley is against this too.

I was really disheartened about that.

[Mass]

11. As is Byrd.

[ProSense]

13. Remembered this from 2006

UN rights body urges D.C. vote in Congress

full article

[jberryhill]

15. Right or Wrong, Not Everyone's Analysis Is The Result Of Wishful Thinking

Hey, a lot of people live there and of course they *should* have representation.

It just seems to some, and I haven't studied it, that the Constitutional notion was that the District was to be some sort of federal enclave that wasn't a state.

Just some bits and pieces:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State


Now, the implication, and no I haven't studied any relevant case law, of the 23rd amendment seems to be that DC isn't entitled to a Senator or Representative because it isn't a state - by noting it would be entitled to them if it was a state.

Whether that negative implication acts as a bar, or whether there is some other mechanism for "entitling" an area to a representative if it is not a state is, I guess, where the argument is. But I don't see a whole lot of clarity there.

What about Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianas, and so on... You can't say "Oh, but they aren't states" because DC isn't one either.

And, finally, let me ask this - Did DC just get another electoral vote? Why or why not? The 23rd amendment gives them three - for three "hypothetical" people. So, do they now have four - i.e. three from the 23rd amendment, and now an additional one for the actual rep?

Common sense doesn't guide legal conclusions, so that's not a facetious question.

[damntexdem]

12. "Republican opponents have argued that this law could allow that to happen at some point later on"?

So a law shouldn't be passed because a different, unconstitutional law might be passed later?

I guess I shouldn't wonder at the inanity of GOP arguments.

[Still Sensible]

14. I think it is clear that the Constitution framers did not

see the District as a population center. If you read the text closely, it is almost as if they envisioned this District "not exceeding ten Miles square" as somewhere that Congress and the Court and the various departments met and worked but not necessarily lived.

Both sides of the D.C. question have a solid Constitutional argument. And it took the 23rd Amendment just to get the District Electoral College representation. It was good that the amendment did not incorporate any language that is problematic to this legislation.

In the end, it seems to me that the argument against the constitutionality of this measure that may ultimately strike it down is not the D.C. argument, but rather that one state--Utah--is getting an extra seat through a means not mandated by the Constitution.

I hope it gets through, but there is probably a better than 60% chance it will be struck down. And getting a constitutional amendment ratified in 38 states on this issue would be beyond hard IMO.

[jberryhill]

16. The 23rd Amendment does include "problematic language"

The 23rd Amendment refers to senators or representatives to which DC "would be entitled if it were a state".

The implication seems clearer to some than others - and reasonable minds can differ - that DC is "not entitled" because it is "not a state".

Otherwise, what is the purpose served by referring to what it "would be entitled if it were a state"?

So maybe one can argue that the Constitution suggests that DC is not "entitled" to a representative, but perhaps the language is permissive of granting it one anyway by legislation.

Okay, fine.

Now, so if we can legislatively grant it a representative, then we can legislatively grant it two senators by the same reasoning.

And if the point is some sort of representational "fairness", then what is the rationale for giving them a rep, but no senators?