Supporters Upbeat About Bill to Give D.C. a Vote in Congress
The Washington Post ^ | 23 Feb 2009 | Mary Beth Sheridan

Conditions Appear Favorable in Senate, House and White House

Supporters of D.C. voting rights believe that they are on the verge of their biggest victory in at least 30 years as the Senate prepares to take up a bill this week creating a full House seat for the District.

Two years ago, a similar measure failed to clear a key procedural hurdle in that chamber by three votes. Democrats picked up at least seven Senate seats in the elections last fall, boosting the current bill's chance of passage. They also expanded their majority in the House, where the bill is expected to be approved as early as next month.

"I think the votes are there. I think it's going to pass the Senate," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who is sponsoring the bill with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

In decades of struggle for representation, D.C. residents' hopes have often been raised and then dashed. This time, they are counting not only on bigger majorities in Congress but also on a supportive White House. President Obama calls himself a "strong proponent" of congressional representation for the District –– unlike President George W. Bush, who had threatened to veto the measure.

Although passage is likely, it is not ensured.

"The question is whether there will be an attempt to foul it up by amending it," Hatch said in an interview. He also said important differences remain between the Senate and House bills.

Even if the bill becomes law, it will probably be challenged in court. Opponents note that the Constitution gives House representation to the "people of the several states," and the District is not a state.

Still, advocates say they are the closest they've come in decades to having a real D.C. vote in Congress. The issue has particular resonance in a majority-black city whose affairs were long dominated by Southern white congressmen. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District's longtime voice in Congress, can vote only in committee and not on final passage of legislation.

"We were disappointed before, and we don't expect to be disappointed this time," said Lloyd Leonard, director of advocacy for the League of Women Voters.

As they did in 2007, the bill's authors are trying to appeal to both parties by adding a House seat for the District, which is heavily Democratic, and a second seat that would go to Utah for the next few years. Utah, which leans Republican, barely missed getting another representative after the last census.

The Senate bill calls for the seats to be added in the session that begins January 2011.

Members of both parties have decried D.C. residents' lack of a vote in Congress. But opponents of the bill say it is unconstitutional. And some lawmakers are wary that the legislation could be a first step in giving the District two senators –– significantly boosting Democrats' power in that body.

"If the District of Columbia deserves a member of the House of Representatives, they deserve two senators as well," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former presidential candidate, in a speech against the bill this month.
This Story

   *
     Supporters Upbeat About Bill to Give D.C. a Vote in Congress
   *
     District Vote Is Again Before Congress

Obama indicated a month ago that the D.C. measure might take time to pass because the legislative agenda was "chock-full." But the bill easily passed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Feb. 12. It became one of the few pieces of legislation ready for action when senators return from a week-long break today.

The D.C. vote measure is also positioned to move through the House soon. The Judiciary Committee is expected to approve it this week, setting up a key vote by the entire body, possibly in early March, House officials said.

"The major obstacles, I think, are in the Senate," Norton said. That is because of the rule in that chamber requiring 60 votes for "cloture" –– to end a filibuster.

The Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote tomorrow on whether to take up the bill. If it succeeds, a debate will follow that could stretch over days. It is not clear whether the final vote on the bill will occur by the end of the week.

The Democratic caucus holds a 58-41 advantage in the Senate. At least 55 Democrats are likely to vote to begin action on the bill, according to estimates by D.C. voting rights supporters and a count by The Washington Post. As in 2007, at least two Democrats are expected to not support the bill: Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.). In addition, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) is ill, and it is unclear whether he will be present.
ad_icon

Seven of the eight Republicans senators who backed the measure in 2007 are expected to vote to begin consideration of the bill. The eighth Republican, Norm Coleman, is locked in a legal battle over the fall election results for the Minnesota seat, which hasn't been filled.

At least two senators –– Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) –– said Friday that they would vote to take up the bill but that they weren't sure they would support it on final passage. A bill needs only a simple majority of those present on the ultimate vote. Bennett made his comments to the Salt Lake Tribune.

A Republican leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said supporters appeared to have enough votes to start debate on the bill, unlike in 2007, when they fell three votes short.

For Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group, the biggest question surrounding the bill was what kind of amendments opponents would offer. Amendments could peel off some voting rights supporters.

"We're trying to prepare for those amendments," he said.

One possibility was an amendment that would weaken the District's gun laws, he said. Such a measure was introduced in the 2007 House vote on the D.C. vote legislation, temporarily derailing it. The bill was passed, however, after a month-long delay.

DC Vote is holding a "Senate call-in day" today for people in the states to ring their senators toll-free and encourage them to vote for the bill. D.C. residents can participate, with their calls transferred to various senators.

If the bill becomes law, it would mark the biggest legislative victory for D.C. voting rights since Congress passed a constitutional amendment in 1978 that would have given the city two senators and a House representative.

That measure collapsed seven years later, when only 16 of the required 38 states ratified it. Then, in 1993, a bill for D.C. statehood was rebuffed by the House.

Former representative Tom Davis (R-Va.), who first proposed the political compromise at the heart of the current bill in 2003, said he was optimistic this time.

A voting representative, he said, is "long overdue in the nation's capital."

And the rape continues.

Any Republican who supports this is an absolute idiot. Do they actually believe DC will ever go red?

The Constitution is dead. It spells who gets a vote very explicitly...so, these dickheads cannot even pretend to be able to twist its meaning. Instead, they are just outright ignoring it.

Ghey

There are days i am asking why the fuck do i even try anymore. There are so many days when I say "LET IT ALL BURN and we will build back up from the ash of the weak and the dead." It will be easy to wipe the slate clean and start over then trying to fill this pothole filled government.

Why the hell is Utah supporting this? They're going to get another seat anyways since they barely missed it in the 2K census.

Let's let people on the virgin islands vote then too. They're just as eligible as DC. The dems want a supermajority and this is how they'll accomplish it. Its unfortunate that they've duped the reps from Utah.

can this really be done without a constitutional amendment?

You act as if they care about the Constitution.

I thought "the Constitution sets representation".  Then I thought "oh, yeah."

Yep.



I regret having children. Look at what they are going to inherit.

Hmm.

They are not officially a "state" and yet will get the privileges of a state?  

This kills me:

OK, do they or do they not deserve representation? Seems wrong that they have none. I don't give a fuck that you don't like their politics. They are still US citizens living in the continental USA.

It's a messy situation. No representation is unamerican. 1 rep is a MUCH better idea (for us) than 1 rep and 2 senators.



SCOTUS should and will strike it down saying exactly that.

QFTMFT.

I will be donating to the inevitable legal action this "law" will trigger.

Unbelievable.

We're only just over 1/48th through Obama's term and look at what's happened since he took the Oath.

Because it is against the Constitution, and for good reason.  

Dear Leader is doing everything to solidify his power base.  Have the Census run by the White House.  Now this?

Obama Political Arithmetic

40 acres + Mule = DC Congressman

The founders set up DC as a district for exactly these reasons. They didn't want, nor did they ever intend, to have representation in DC.

If people want their voices heard in congress, I suggest moving to a state. No one is forcing them to live there, so why should the rules be changed for them?

If they want representation, create a law that allows them to be citizens of Virginia.

Sorry-we already have Arlington and Alexandria-take DC, combine it with Baltimore, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties, declare it the 51st state, and Maryland would be a decent place to live.

Something about a city filled entirely by politicians and their families getting to vote in politics just makes my head asplode...

The District of Columbia is not a state.  Period, end of fucking story.

Certainly, however, I don't think the founding fathers imagined that it would become so populous. The population of DC now is 25% of the total population of the USA when it was founded. Certainly the founders didn't want that many people disenfranchised?

Maybe part of the reason that DC is a shithole is that nobody would choose to live without representation if they can help it. Adding representation will help add incentive over time for the successful to stay there.

If DC doesn't get a DC Rep through and amendment, then they ought to have it through MD or VA.

They are free to move to a state.

Fuck this shit...

FUCK THAT SHIT!

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

Some Republican should add an amendment stating that it shall become law when the District removes all bans on firearms.

That will kill it quicker than anything even if it is already unConstitutional.

po-po

All you haters out there seems to have forGOT what this nation was founded on!

WE THE PEOPLE... they pay taxes just like anybody else! They be subjected to the laws of this country just like everybody else!

What about no taxation with no representation? Or is that only for rich white Republicans?

The PEOPLE of DC are NOT third-class citizens of this nation and they will NOT be forced to sit at the back of the bus of democracy ANYMORE!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

It's a DNC landgrab for voter marketshare.  

Honest to God it really is that simple.  End of discussion.

They will get representation= more democrat representatives.

Amnesty= 11 million new democrat voters.

Then the census (now under white house control) will surprisingly show that "urban" districts are underrepresented = more democrat representation.

Pueto Rico will get a voting rep as well= more democrats.

Presidential term limits will be declared unconstitutional= more democrat rule.

The socialist takeover of the united states will be nearly complete. All that would be needed is some form of representation by the U.N in our government.

What about Puerto Rico?

Maybe when the powers that be stop treating their citizens like third class citizens and let them legally own the means to defend themselves, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Other than that, if they want representation, then D.C. (the City) should be folded back into Maryland, and the Capitol Buildings remain separate.

This just in, left is now center.

Wouldn't this be tossed by the Supreme Court?  I was under the impression that the status of DC was specified in the Constitution.

BOHICA folks

Rabble rouser




 

The SC won't hear the case since no one will be able to prove they have suffered harm from this monstrosity.

The Constitution allows for a government seat...
Article 1, Clause 17. Congress shall have 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 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, dock–Yards, and other needful Buildings.

This is just a district for Congress to meet, not a state, and to have the appropriate buildings built.  It seems that people shouldn't even be living there and if they choose to do so, have no representation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag85_user.html#art1_sec8cl17

OH, do you mean the same Supreme Court, that doesn't have the balls to even make 0bongo produce a REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. That Supreme Court?  Yea right, that's going to happen, NOT.

Let's hope the Supreme Court decides to give a flying fuck about the Constitution when this bill, if passed, is challenged.  

I agree the people who reside in D.C. as federal employees should not have to pay federal taxes.  Make it so, and then reduce their pay rate accordingly.  Their work will not suddenly be worth more, and their take home pay will stay the same.  Anyone else who chooses to live in D.C. does it knowing that they have no representation and that it is by design in the U.S. Constitution.  

Don't like it?  CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION VIA AMENDMENT.

Fuck DC and the people living in the District they know the rules and they don't fucking care, they want the rules to change to suit them.

As for the Supreme Court they allow all kinds of unconstutional shit to go on, this should be stopped in Congress. To vote for this bill is to due violence to the Constitution and it meaning. Undermining the Constutition like this should be cause for impeachment.

Uhhhh Senator Bennett said he may not support it.

Anybody got a contact number for Congress?

DC Voting Rights Bill Clears Senate Hurdle
FoxNews ^ | 24 February 2009 | n/a

The District of Columbia's two-century-long wait for a voice in Congress was a step closer to ending Tuesday with a crucial Senate vote to take up legislation giving the capital city's 600,000 residents a full seat in the House.

The Senate voted 62-34, two more than needed, to begin debate on the measure that would increase the House to 437 members. It would give the Democratic-dominated city a new vote while adding a fourth seat to Republican-leaning Utah.

Key to the vote was that Democrats, who overwhelmingly support the bill, have seven more Senate seats than two years ago when the chamber fell three votes short of the 60 required to end a Republican-led filibuster.

The bill still faces contentious amendments and may have to overcome GOP opposition to moving to a final vote. If it does pass the Senate, possibly by the end of the week, the bill goes on to a receptive House and ultimately to President Barack Obama, who supports it.

If enacted into law, the measure is likely to face court challenges from opponents who contend that giving a House seat to D.C. is unconstitutional because the District is not a state. The Supreme Court could be the final arbiter.

"I find it unimaginable that 600,000 Americans have no voice and no vote in the United States Congress," the Senate's no. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in urging support for the measure.

Past votes denying residents of the federal capital a vote in the House "left the citizens of the District with the wholly unsought-after distinction of being the only residents of a democratically ruled national capital in the world who have no say in how their nation is governed. It's really astounding," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., sponsor of the measure with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"We're closer than we've ever been," Ilir Zherka, executive director of the advocacy group DC Vote, said ahead of a preliminary vote.

More than 3,000 people from across the nation called their senators Monday asking them to support the measure, according to DC Vote. Callers from the District, who don't have a senator, were directed to lawmakers who might be uncertain, such as Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C.

Washington has been without a vote in Congress since 1801, when Congress took control of the newly created capital on the Potomac but did not provide residents with voting rights.

Voting rights advocates believe the measure will win enough Senate support for a final vote later this week that requires only a simple majority for passage. The House Judiciary Committee votes on the legislation Wednesday, and the full House could take it up in early March.

With the president's signature, D.C. residents would elect a representative with full voting rights for January 2011, barring court interdiction.

One possible stumbling block, Zherka said, is that some lawmakers could add amendments making the bill less appealing to voting rights supporters. In 2007, the bill was slowed in the House after Republicans proposed language that would weaken the city's gun laws.

Opponents argue that the bill violates the Constitution, which says members of the House should be chosen "by the people of the several states." The District, of course, is not a state.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who spoke in favor of the bill earlier this month, said the question of constitutionality should be resolved by the courts, not Congress.

"As a matter of fundamental fairness, I believe the residents of the District of Columbia should have representation in the House," she said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has spoken out against the bill. He said the legislation could be the first step toward giving the District two senators. He also criticized the compromise that would give Utah an extra House seat, saying that is unfair to other high-growth states.

"I don't like the deal and I think it is unconstitutional," he said.

The District has been represented since 1991 by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Norton, like five other delegates from island territories, can vote in committees and on some amendments on the House floor but not on final passage of legislation.

The bill is S. 160

Republican Co-Authors of the Bill
Orrin Hatch
Arlen Specter
George Voinovich

Yet again, he stabs us in the back and shits on the Constitution in the same stroke.