Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 1/2/2007 11:13:18 AM EST
Democrats to Consider Giving Vote in Congress to District of Columbia
Tuesday, January 02, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WASHINGTON — After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in the nation's wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington residents are close to getting a full-fledged representative in the House.

The turning point in this long battle for enfranchisement may be an unlikely partnership with the people of Utah.

The new Democratic majority, in the first months of the new Congress, is expected to take up a bill that would increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah, a Republican stronghold, and the District of Columbia, dominated by Democrats.

The bill is backed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will be responsible for moving it.

Prospects are also good in the Senate. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who calls himself an independent Democrat, will chair the committee of jurisdiction there. Lieberman is a leading supporter of the measure, and Utah's two Republican senators have endorsed it as well.

Senate action is needed because Congress in 1929 enacted a law fixing House membership at 435 seats. The number was increased to 437 in 1959 after Alaska and Hawaii became states, but reverted to 435 after the 1960 census. The legislation that would add new seats for D.C. and Utah would keep the House at 437 members.

Washington residents have been clamoring for representation ever since Congress moved to Washington from Philadelphia in 1800. Regardless, the 600,000 citizens of the district are still the only residents of a national capital in any democracy in the world without full voting rights.

Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group seeking voting representation in the House and Senate, said racist attitudes toward Washington, with its heavily black population since the Civil War, long have been a factor, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s when the demands for equal rights and statehood became more vocal in the city.

Some progress was made: The 23rd Amendment in 1961 gave D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections. In 1971 Congress allowed the district to send a nonvoting delegate to the House. Currently, along with delegates from American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton can cast votes at the committee level but not on the House floor.

Congress also gave the district limited home rule in the 1970s, and in 1978 approved a constitutional amendment extending voting rights. The amendment died when it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Most — but by no means all — scholars say an amendment is unnecessary. The Constitution says that the House shall be composed of members chosen by "the people of the several states." But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted by some to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights.

Republicans, after capturing the majority in 1995, were naturally cool to the idea of giving Democrats another sure vote in the House, but it was a Republican, Rep. Tom Davis of Washington's northern Virginia suburbs, who several years ago came up with the link between Utah and the District.

Utah insists that the 2000 census undercounted the state's population because so many of the state's young Mormon men were out of state or out of the country doing missionary work. Utahans said a proper count would have entitled the state to an additional representative, up from the current three.

"They wanted the seat as desperately as we did," Norton said in an interview. "We became joined at the hip."

Earlier this month the Utah legislature, to comply with the Davis-Norton bill, approved a redistricting plan creating three largely Republican districts and one more urban district where Democrats might have a better chance.

Davis said he plans to reintroduce his bill at the beginning of the new Congress in January. In the meantime, Norton, a delegate since 1990, is also pressing her Democratic colleagues to back a change in House rules so she can vote on amendments to legislation, but not final passage.

Norton had that voting right in 1993 and 1994, but Republicans rescinded it when they took over in 1995.

This, she said in a letter, would be a "temporary remedy pending consideration of the full House representation that American citizens who live in the nation's capital are entitled to and that Democrats have always supported."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240621,00.html

If Demos are for it, I'm against it.

Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:15:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If Demos are for it, I'm against it.



Me too.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:17:04 AM EST
Um, excuse me for being stupid, but wouldn't they have to amend the constitution in order to do this?

Then again, the constitution is meaningless anyways.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:22:04 AM EST
In doing so, the Democrats would pick that many more votes (what ever the population of the District is) for themselves. Which could have a sway in future national elections, no?
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:24:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Um, excuse me for being stupid, but wouldn't they have to amend the constitution in order to do this?

Then again, the constitution is meaningless anyways.


You are correct. Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:26:13 AM EST
unconstitutional, but that does not matter to democRATS
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:30:28 AM EST
Of course. If I were a Democrat I'd be all for giving a vote to a district that is demographically guaranteed to be mine.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:31:21 AM EST
If the FEDERAL DISTRICT of DC wants to have voting rights it should go back to become a part of MD, as Arlington, VA did many years ago.

Dumbasses.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:31:34 AM EST
The D.C. rep, Eleanor Holmes Norton is a 'tard of the first order. Additionally she's a complete commie nutbag.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:35:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Um, excuse me for being stupid, but wouldn't they have to amend the constitution in order to do this?

Then again, the constitution is meaningless anyways.


You are correct. Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.


Words mean only what demoncraps want them to mean and only for as long as the demoncraps want them to mean that. State= district= 'is' = healthcare = whatever.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:36:56 AM EST
If it goes through will be a new place for the craziest of the crazy reps in the house to come from
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:37:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 11:38:21 AM EST by Towely]

Originally Posted By Partisan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Um, excuse me for being stupid, but wouldn't they have to amend the constitution in order to do this?

Then again, the constitution is meaningless anyways.


You are correct. Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.


Words mean only what demoncraps want them to mean and only for as long as the demoncraps want them to mean that. State= district= 'is' = healthcare = whatever.


Well..if you interpret it in the old english style..or some other bullshit...

Idk..they will figure someone way to interpret it so it says what they want it to say. They have been doing it for decades. By now they are experts...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:38:18 AM EST
I'm more concerned by what Utah is trying to pull here. The idea of congress on a whim changing the number of seats without a census basis leaves me with an uneasy feeling.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 11:54:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Taxman:
If it goes through will be a new place for the craziest of the crazy reps in the house to come from


yeah, like Marion Berry...
maybe they will start honoring the 2nd amendment there, too...

fred
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 12:40:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Democrats to Consider Giving Vote in Congress to District of Columbia


Of course they are!.......the DC vote is ALWAYS a Democrat vote!!!
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:06:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:07:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If Demos are for it, I'm against it.



Me too.


Same here.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:11:25 PM EST
If they don't want ALL of their rights, they don't deserve any.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:11:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If Demos are for it, I'm against it.



Me too.
Me three

The district is teh suxor I have been to many, many cities. The second worse was St. Louise, and at that point I thought it was the scariest, until my friend and I got lost in the inner city of DC.
Top Top