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

[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.