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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 03:09 pm (UTC)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.