acroyear: (ouch...)
[personal profile] acroyear
the current DC voting rights proposal is utterly unconstitutional and flawed.
  • my reading of the Constitution is clear that it requires being a state to have house representation at all
  • i'm against the very thought of a state-wide at-large seat in congress because it is against the Constitution's idea that the house represent people by district
only an amendment will change either of those, and that's not forthcoming while the Republicans control more states.

Date: 2009-02-23 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thatwasjen
Doesn't Alaska have a single state-wide at-large seat in Congress?

Date: 2009-02-23 02:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
yes but that's still representational in that the population of the state, relative to the other states, doesn't have room for more.

Utah has 3 representatives now, each with (geographically large) districts. the current proposal would give utah a state-wide fourth in addition to those three, rather than requiring a redistricting of the state.

it's an apples-oranges thing.

Date: 2009-02-23 04:49 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thatwasjen
I'm still not understanding the problem. Vermont and Wyoming also are represented by a single state-wide at-large seat in Congress. DC's population is between Vermont's and Wyoming's.

Note I'm not fighting your first point. I acknowledge that the current proposal is probably unconstitutional -- but the situation that DC residents already are in is untenable, IMO.

Date: 2009-02-23 05:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
see my comment below - it's not the single state-wide that i have the problem with, it's the double-representation. a single state rep, if it is the only rep, just means the congressional district happens to be the state's borders.

but the utah case means some people will, during the transition, get double-representation. they will get a vote in congress for their district and a second for their state's at-large, and that goes against the spirit of the constitution and the intent of the House as representative, regardless of whether or not it has been done before and merely never challenged legally/constitutionally.

Date: 2009-02-23 07:32 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] thatwasjen
Aha!

I can't believe everyone has missed this implication. Is it a sneaky extra incentive for votes that's been written into the proposal, I wonder?

Date: 2009-02-23 05:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] blueeowyn.livejournal.com
who will lose a rep? Or are they changing the number of reps? (435 is the cap regardless of the constitution mentioning 1:30,000)
Edited Date: 2009-02-23 05:18 pm (UTC)

Date: 2009-02-23 05:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
my impression is that things brings us to 437 voting members (and 5 non-voting).

Date: 2009-02-23 02:19 pm (UTC)
kmusser: (America)
From: [personal profile] kmusser
I won't argue with the first point, but the country as always had state-wide at-large seats, every state that has the population for only one representative has a state-wide seat (the current congress has 7: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and both Dakotas), and most states, sometime in the past had at-large districts, even when they had more than one representative (Maryland 1963-1967, Virginia 1883-1885 and 1933-1935, more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:At-large_United_States_congressional_districts).

Date: 2009-02-23 02:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
What I was referring to was an at-large seat IN ADDITION to a representational districted seat. if the population of a state means they only get one, then it's not "state-wide", it's "representational" - the state itself is one large district.

In the utah case (and those others) it *technically* means that some people have double-representation, and that is an utter violation of the spirit and intent of the House.

whether or not it has happened before is moot. tradition or heritage != constitutional, it merely means no one challenged it before. If i was alive at the time, i'd have argued against it then, too.

I also note that many of those cases were transitional: there was a gap in time between the federal government reacting to the census in allocating the seat and the federal government working with the states to redistrict. modern computer technology makes for much faster redistricting (gerrymandering).

I don't think you really can't count anything from before the 435 freeze as being relevant.

Date: 2009-02-23 02:48 pm (UTC)
kmusser: (America)
From: [personal profile] kmusser
My understanding was that Utah's new seat would also be transitional and so would be comparable to those earlier cases, districts would be re-apportioned with the 2010 census.

Date: 2009-02-23 03:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rsteachout.livejournal.com
Yes, it is transitional. Furthermore, it's not even guarenteed that Utah gets to keep the seat after the next redistricting.

This is where politics interferes with the plain requirements of the census. Politics robbed Utah of the seat in the last census: the Census Bureau, under direction by the Clinton administration at the time, refused to count the 50k-60k missionaries who are serving overseas (not those serving in some other state of the U.S.) as residents of the state, even though members of the military who serve overseas are counted as residents of their home state, a ruling that S.C. (which was awarded the seat) and the Clinton Commerce Dept. fought for in court. A different ruling would have granted Utah the seat, which would likely have been filled by a Republican; instead, S.C. was apportioned the seat which was reliably filled by a Democrat. The more just position is that any American on long-term assignment overseas be counted as a resident of their home state, regardless of the reason (so long as the person hasn't relocated overseas on a permanent basis).

The extra seat, which would only be Utah's for a single term, would likewise become a political football.

As for the DC seat, I also agree with Joe about the unconstitutionality of this bill; but if it passes Obama has already said he'll sign it and it's not certain whether anyone would challenge the law in the Supreme Court.

Date: 2009-02-23 03:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
if you're right and there's a chance this at-large at-large seat (yes, i meant to say that twice) might move to a democratic-dominated state, then i'm pretty sure the republicans will file a suit.

the REAL question is whether or not this (or any) supreme court will even acknowledge the merits of the suits or just keep dismissing them on arbitrary "standing" grounds that seems to be their biggest dodge for REAL constitutional issues these days. standing is a crock - if the government is violating the constitution, it shouldn't matter that only a person who can prove harm has the right to complain about it.

Redress of grievances is what it is, and when taxpayer dollars are allotted in support of an unconstitutional act (and it is impossible not to have taxpayer dollars involved), then EVERYBODY has standing.

Date: 2009-02-23 08:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mandrakan.livejournal.com
Under the bill (unless it has changed recently) the House will return to 435 after decennial apportionment, with the seats allocated as per usual, except that DC will get one, same as Delaware or Wyoming.

Even if I'm wrong and the increase to 437 is permanent, the seats will still be allocated as usual. Utah will get one (to be redistricted as usual) if it is entitled to it by population and otherwise will not.

So if the bill is unconstitutional on that basis, the point would be moot before the 2012 elections, and so unlikely to be litigated fully. Standing would be very difficult to prove.

Date: 2009-02-24 12:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scarydavedc.livejournal.com
As the law is currently written US citizens who have left the US permanently can vote for President, Senators, and Representatives via absentee ballot, but DC can only vote for President (and only for less than 50 years).

My view on the DC seat can be seen below. It will be interesting to see if anyone does challenge this bill in the Supreme Court, because of the previous rulings that grant state level rights & responsibilities that may be overturned in the process.

Date: 2009-02-23 08:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scarydavedc.livejournal.com
I do disagree as far as this not being a Constitutional move. In Hepburn v. Ellzey in 1805, the Supreme Court found that Congress could allow residents of the District access to United States federal courts in order to sue residents of other states, even though such a right is not explicitly stated in Article III of the Constitution. In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.S. 582 (1949), the Supreme Court ruled that the District can be treated as a "state" for purposes of federal court jurisdiction. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), grants to the Congress "exclusive" legislative authority over the District, also allows the Congress to pass simple legislation in order to grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress. Now this would be unconstitutional in areas such as, say, establishing religion, abridging freedom of speech and of the press, or abolishing the right of peaceful assembly in the District. We are, however, talking about Congress making a decision about Congress itself, and the inclusion of representation of unrepresented taxpayers.

However, as a D.C. resident, I will also accept the following in exchange for proper representation on a national level: Give the District and it's residents the same freedoms in regards to U.S. Federal taxes and laws that other territories with non-voting representation on the Hill, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, have. That or shrink the size of the footprint set aside for an area to be free of State's influence (The District Clause only mentions that that space be a MAXIMUM of 10mx10m), and grant statehood to the remaining area in between Federal land and Maryland. Also, in this process, we should keep in mind that the writers of The District Clause never really intended for people to be living inside the area know as the District of Columbia, out side of MAYBE those who are already represented (or are doing the representing for areas) elsewhere. 95% of what is the District today was swamp or park.

I will say this: I think things are going to find us in a very 'Boston Tea Party' moment with a D.C. Tax Strike if this doesn't pass.

Date: 2009-02-24 12:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com
Is THAT what Marion Barry was not-so-secretly doing? *rimshot*

Date: 2009-02-24 04:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rsteachout.livejournal.com
I would certainly favor making DC the equivalent of PR and Guam and other protectorates in terms of taxes, if that would resolve the matter of representation rights. But I don't think the hard-core DC statehood advocates would accept that, and the agitation and push for full representation in both the House and Senate would continue.

I have to disagree about your statement that there never really was any intention to have citizens living within the District boundaries. Alexandria used to be part of the District, (one of the oldest towns in the country, established well before the U.S. was even a gleam in any founding father's eye), as was nearly all of what is now Arlington. Part of the reason that the VA portion of the District was receded to the state of Virginia was that the citizens of Alexandria discovered that, contrary to their expectation, they did not have any extra political clout with or financial benefit from Congress by virtue of their being part of the District, and so they petitioned to be returned to the state from which they had been separated. (See, a person *can* learn things from the comic pages -- this info was passed along via the wonderful "DC Flashbacks" cartoon which runs weekly in the Washington Post).

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 12:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios