A House Seat for D.C. - Not gonna happen
Published Tue, Dec 5 2006 4:49 PM
Technorati Tags: News and Politics
From the Washington Times:
D.C. officials yesterday cheered the Utah Legislature's approval of a redistricting map that is key to the District's voting rights bill, saying the development brings city residents one step closer to having a vote in the House.
There's only one thing wrong with this that I can see. The District of Columbia is not a state. It is not eligible to have a House seat. That would require more than a new law, it would require a constitutional amendment, or am I missing something? At best this could increase the number of electoral votes that the District of Columbia could have during a presidential election, but it can't even do that, because the District of Columbia is not entitled to any more electoral votes than the least populous state. Seven states have only three electoral votes, so the maximum that the District can attain is three.
"I do think we can move this bill," said D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat who co-sponsored the D.C. Voting Rights Act. "The main problem is time."
Mayor-elect Adrian M. Fenty, who met with House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi last week and discussed the bill's prospects, said that Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, told him she would move aggressively for the bill.
"I remain optimistic that the bill will move this week," said Mr. Fenty, a Democrat. "And if it doesn't, I'm hopeful it will be at the top of the legislative agenda in 2007."
Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi, said the bill would be a priority for Democratic lawmakers if introduced again next year.
The Utah Legislature yesterday approved a map dividing the state into four congressional districts. The redistricting map was required by lawmakers to move the Voting Rights Act proposal, which has been put forward by Mrs. Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican.
The plan would give the largely Democratic District a seat in the House and add a fourth seat for largely Republican Utah. It also would expand the House permanently from 435 to 437 members.
How could it do this? Article 1 of the constitution defines the makeup of the House:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Nothing in that says that the District of Columbia, which is not a state,;can have a representative. Section 2 of Article 1 was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment, but that amendment still did not give the District of Columbia the right to a seat in the House. In fact in 1973 the courts held that the section 2 of the 14th amendment does not apply to the District, since they specifically are addressed to the States.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Nothing in that gives the District of Columbia the right to a seat in the house. This section of the 14th amendment was modified by the 26th amendment, but only to reduce the voting age to 18.
There is an amendment that specifically mentions the District, the 23rd amendment. In Section 1 it is plain that the district is NOT entitled to any Senators or Representatives (emphasis added in quote below).
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
The D.C. Voting Rights Act is based on the idea that Congress can treat the district as if it were a State. There's plenty of reason to challenge this act should it ever be passed. The constitution does not explicitly grant the District a right to a House seat or to any Senate seats. Specific language in the constitution and its amendments argues that the District is not entitled to those seats, precisely because it is not a State.
The only way the District of Columbia should gain a House seat is by a constitutional amendment. Legislation isn't the way to change this.
Linked at NWBloggers.com, Basil's Blog.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=251
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2006/12/5/251.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Comments to this entry are closed.