Congress Moves on Giving D.C. Full Voting Rights

[question everything]

FEBRUARY 23, 2009

Congress Moves on Giving D.C. Full Voting Rights
By TIMOTHY J. ALBERTA
WSJ

WASHINGTON -- After three decades of debate, Congress appears poised to pass legislation that would give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives.. The legislation would permanently increase House membership to 437 from 435; the Democratic-dominated District would pick up the first seat and the second would go to reliably Republican Utah, the fastest growing state since the 2000 census. Similar legislation easily passed the House in 2007, but the Senate vote fell three shy of the 60 needed to make it filibuster-proof. Ms. Norton expects about 63 votes this year after the fall election added more Senate Democrats.

When the new Congress convened this year, Ms. Norton reintroduced the bill in the House; Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, did the same in the Senate. The measure passed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The measure is now scheduled for Senate debate on Monday and a floor vote Tuesday, where it is expected to pass. Also this week, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up the legislation and send it to the full House for a vote. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who threatened a veto of the measure, President Barack Obama is a fan -- he was a co-sponsor when he was in the Senate.

(snip)

If the bill is enacted, it faces a trip to the Supreme Court to decide whether it passes constitutional muster. Opponents say the District of Columbia isn't a state, and cite the Constitution's Article 1, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Supporters also refer to Article 1, specifically the "Seat of Government" clause -- Section 8 -- authorizing Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District." Ken Thomas, legislative attorney with the American Law Division at the Library of Congress, says D.C. voting rights "would certainly be viable by constitutional amendment, but not by statute." And he is convinced the high court would agree. "It would not be a difficult question for the Supreme Court," he says.

Former federal judge and Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, a supporter of D.C. voting rights, disagrees. On this matter, he says, the Constitution is ambiguous, and that gives Congress the upper hand. "It's a very important structural issue to which the Constitution doesn't specifically speak," says Mr. Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's Law School. "In my view, Congress has very broad powers under the Seat of Government clause." If the Supreme Court allows the legislation to stand, Mr. Thomas sees a potential cascade: "It would seem reasonable that if they uphold this statute, it would also provide senators to D.C. and might well provide precedent for representatives for U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or Guam."

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123534856935544625.html (subscription)