The Senate GOP minority blocked (through filibuster threat) a move to give District of Columbia residents congressional representation through some crazy-ass arrangement splitting the representation with Utah (the idea being that DC will vote liberal/Dem, Utah conservative/GOP, so everyone will be happy).

The measure, which passed the House in April, was devised to be politically neutral, granting one seat to the District, which is predominantly Democratic, and one at-large seat to Utah, which leans Republican.

Utah fell just 857 people short of getting a fourth House seat after the 2000 census, which state officials argue should have counted the more than 11,000 Mormon missionaries living overseas.

Okay, I have to admit, I'm glad it failed.

Not because I don't think DC residents shouldn't get a vote.  The whole neutral "federal district" idea was based on political realities (and swampland demographics) of the late 18th Century, and is long past due revisiting, out of basic principles of political fairness and representation to a large (more than Wyoming) disenfranchised population (regardless of their political or racial makeup).

But the Republican opponents of the bill were right: it still strikes me (as it did back in March) as pretty plainly unconstitutional.  The Constitution clearly identifies "states" as having voting representatives, not a federal district.  Conjuring up a single voting Representative (but not any Senators) out of nowhere, and jiggering it so that Utah gets one, too (making for 437 Reps), is just bad lawmaking. 

1. It's representation by fiat (for both DC and UT), which is wrong, just as easily revoked, or expanded in more goofy ways.
2. It's brokering a deal for votes -- "You give us DC, we'll give you Utah."  That's wrong, too, and just as prone to bad precedent.
3. It ignores Senatorial representation for DC.

And saying that the law should be passed and let the Supreme Court decide on its constitutionality is bad lawmaking, too ("let's let the court decide" is an abrogation of constitutional responsibility).

The right thing to do actually is, as the Republican opposition (albeit probably not with much sincerity) suggested, to amend the Constitution, as it was in the 23rd Amendment to give them a right to vote for President (though still limited in electoral votes).  Then the party that touts spreading democracy around the world can clearly show themselves to be partisan hacks, rather than having legitimate constitutional objections to hide behind. 

Alternately, change the makeup of DC to move the majority of it -- or all but the actual federal building property -- into the surrounding states.  Offer subsidies from the federal budget (the parts that go toward administering DC) to the states that take on the burden -- hell, double them for a while to make up for the trouble.

Or, heck, arrange it so that every representative agrees to hand off their vote on a daily basis to Eleanor Holmes Norton (a wonderfully feisty lady). 

Do something -- because proponents of the law are correct, it's unconscionable to have people in DC paying taxes and dying in wars, but not let them have a voice in the House -- and Senate.  Just don't write bad law to do it, because that only lays in trouble for the future.

Filed under :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Quoth Boulder Dude ...

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;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

To me it is already covered by in the constitution and if Congress were to decree that the federal district of Washington D.C. were to have a vote in congress then it would since it can “exercise exclusive legislation” in such a district.

Now, a graver sin is that the Congress Violated the 1:30k Representation as stated in the Constitution, making the current size of the House at a fixed number of 435 unconstitutional. So, if you want to go make things “right” constitutionally for the D.C. Rep to be in the House, then you might as well write an amendment redoing the total number of Representatives while you are at it.

Personally I would be happy with no more than 100k per rep with 50k per rep just about right.

While I'm not sure a person can represent 700K (give or take) well -- I'm not sure a Congress with 6,000 representatives would be at all effective, or accountable.