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

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.