D.C.'s taxes, tenacity could pay off with full House seat

[Judi Lynn]

June 4, 2006, 2:06AM
D.C.'s taxes, tenacity could pay off with full House seat
After years of voting rights activism, special jurisdiction finally may get a say

By SUSAN MILLIGAN
Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia is making historic and startling progress in its effort to gain full voting rights in the House of Representatives, as a compromise between Democrats and Republicans to permanently increase the size of the House to 437 members gains momentum.

A Republican, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, is brokering a deal that would give the district's delegate full representative status, a change that would give the overwhelmingly Democratic district a vote in the House.

In exchange, another seat would be awarded to Utah, a heavily Republican state expected to gain a new seat in Congress after reapportionment after the 2010 Census.

The size of the House has been fixed at 435 since 1911, except for 1959-1963, when it was increased to 437 to give new states Hawaii and Alaska a vote each. The House returned to 435 members after districts were redrawn based on 1960 Census data.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3924151.html

[MountainLaurel]

1. Please write your congresspeople

In support of this bill. I'd really like to have voting representation.

Thanks!

:hi:

[fortyfeetunder]

2. It's about bloody time!

After all these years of taxation without representation, this is a long ass over due welcome to the taxpaying DC citizens!

Historical note: The first time DC residents could vote in a Presidential election was in 1964. Limited home rule came 10 years later.

[S_B_Jackson]

3. Why not simply increase temporarily the total number of House seats to 436

and then resume to 435 following the 2010 census? At that time they could allow DC their pittance of a single seat, apportioning the 1 seat each to AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT, & WY and then apportioning the remaining 427 seats as they would normally by population.

Why the fuck should Utah be granted an additional seat now? They've already got 3 voting members of the House! And why Utah? Why not Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, & Wyoming who only have 1 each?

[DumpDavisHogg]

8. Don't you know Utah gets special rights?

Don't you know Utah gets special rights? Remember how the Rethugs cried and stamped their feet and filed a lawsuit after the 2000 census to try to get Utah an additional seat?

This after the Democratic areas got shortchanged in the census, no less. I live in a very, very heavily Democratic precinct in Kentucky, where hardly anyone even received a census form. I even called the census office to have them send me a form (just like the webpage said), and still I never got a form.

Notice how all the Rethug states and counties suspiciously gained a whole bunch of people in the census, while all the blue states dropped. Now there's a thing that makes you go hmmm...

[meow2u3]

4. Will it increase the Senate to 102 seats?

Why not just grant DC statehood?

[rmgarrette64]

10. It's unconstitutional

Here it is, Article I, Section 8: (Scope of Legislative Power)

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;


DC was ceded by the States (either Maryland or Virginia, not entirely sure which) and has first claim on that land. By Article 4, Section 3:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


So, we cannot form a new state out of DC without the express consent of the states involved, and specifically, the legislatures of said states.

R. Garrett

[UDenver20]

5. Bill number?

Would like to call my rep, whom I'm sure will end up supporting it, but I need to reference a bill number

Anyone know it?

[Odin2005]

6. Isn't this unconstitutional?

D.C. must be granted statehood before it can legally have a voting congressperson. I'm all for D.C. getting representation, but we be like *, wiping our asses with the Constitution, to do it. Giving Utah another rep by legislative decree, even if they will likely get another one in the 2010 census, is also on shaky ground constitutionally.

[Odin2005]

7. *KICK*

[Sgent]

9. I agree, its questionable

plus it removes some of the very real pressure to grant DC statehood -- with 2 senate votes as well.