and I still insist

[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.

Comments

[thatwasjen]

Doesn't Alaska have a single state-wide at-large seat in Congress?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

my impression is that things brings us to 437 voting members (and 5 non-voting).