DC Voting Rights

[jimrtex]

Give the residential areas of DC to Montgomery (NW and SW -except across the Anacostia River) and Prince George's (NE and SE -including all areas east and south of the Anacostia River) counties in Maryland, and apportion representation accordingly.  It's a pity that idea doesn't have more support out in the real world....

Or simply make it a city like Baltimore (city).

The Virginia part of DC was originally part of Fairfax County.  When it was retroceded to Virginia it was formed into Alexandria County.  Alexandria County was renamed to Arlington County when part split off to form Alexandria independent city.

[jimrtex]

Following cession by Virginia and Maryland of the territory that became the District of Columbia, residents in those areas were permitted to continue to vote in Virginia and Maryland elections, not only for representatives, but for presidential electors, governors, and state legislators.

There are no persons still living from the time when the area was part of the neighboring states, so why not permit DC residents to designate their State for voting purposes.  Many residents have strong ties to their former states, since their living in the district is associated either directly or indirectly with operation of the federal government.  Others may choose a nearby state, particularly Maryland.

So how about this idea:

Registered voters in the District of Columbia may designate their State for voting purposes.  A voter may not change their designation more than once in any two year period ending on December 31 in an even-numbered year.

Voters who designate a State may vote in all federal elections (representative, senator, and presidential electors), all State executive and judicial elections, and all statewide referendums. 

A State may permit DC voters to vote in local elections.  If a State does not permit DC voters to vote in local elections, the DC voters may vote in local DC elections.

For purposes of the apportionment of representatives, the resident population of the district will be allocated on a pro rata basis according to the States designated by the DC voters.   After an initial designation period, a new apportionment will be made (based on 435 representatives).  No state shall lose representatives on the basis of this new apportionment.  If a state gains a representative as a result of this apportionment, they may:
  (1) Redistrict.
  (2) Provide for the at large election of the additional representative.
  (3) Permit DC voters who designated the State to constitute a new congressional district.

For all States not adjacent to DC (all but Maryland and Virginia), DC voters will be considered to reside at the State capitol for purposes of determining residence for district races.  A State may permit DC voters to designate a locality or place of residence other than the State capitol.

The 48 non-adjacent States are required to provide at least one in-person polling place for their DC voters.

For Virginia and Maryland, each DC voters' residence will be treated as if the district were part of the territory of the respective states.

For purposes of drawing congressional, legislative and other district populations, the resident population in each area of the district shall be allocated on a pro rata basis according to the States designated by the DC voters in that area.

Virginia and Maryland are required to provide appropriate in-person polling places for their DC voters.

Voters who do not designate a State may vote for the congressional delegate, DC presidential electors and local district officials.

If fewer than 10% of DC voters do not designate a State, their designation will be set to that of the State that is most designated by other DC voters.   No presidential electors will be appointed for the district.

If between 10% and 1/3 of DC voters do not designate a State, one presidential elector will be appointed.  If between 1/3 and 2/3 of DC voters do not designate a State, two presidential electors will be chosen.

[jimrtex]

The above proposal opens up too many windows for DC residents to gerrymander themselves into competitive states or districts.

I don't think it would happen.  Most would opt for Maryland, with perhaps a significant share choosing Virginia.  Others might pick their original home state.  Many might prefer not to designate a state, in which case they would continue to vote for the non-voting delegate and the presidential electors only.  If 30%+ of the voters opt for Maryland, it would result in an apportionment of another CD to Maryland, which would create a district they could dominate.   

The district only had 220,000 votes cast in 2004.  I doubt that you are going to get an effective number to switch their designation to some other state simply to swing what is perceived to be a close election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

DC is the capital of the United States.  Why should residents who work in a congressional office, or cover the government for their home town newspaper have to vote in Maryland?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about combining Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, and the district, minus the Mall into a single state?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should DC residents be excluded from voting for a governor or legislatures?  The United States is a federal union.   Why should they be excluded from voting for the government of one of the members of that union?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides 3, would lead to 4.

[jimrtex]

Following cession by Virginia and Maryland of the territory that became the District of Columbia, residents in those areas were permitted to continue to vote in Virginia and Maryland elections, not only for representatives, but for presidential electors, governors, and state legislators.

I presume that was true only for the period 1790-1800, after the cession, but before the District became the seat of government.

Sure.  But I suspect that if the federal government had simply let voters to continue to vote in Virginia and Maryland, that no one would have complained.  In 1800, the population of the district was about 14,000; with 6,000 south of the river.  If you exclude females, children, and slaves, you might have 1 or 2,000; and many of those might not have been qualifed to vote.

[jimrtex]

DC is the capital of the United States.  Why should residents who work in a congressional office, or cover the government for their home town newspaper have to vote in Maryland?

Its called absentee voting.  If a congressmen from Hawaii who spends the majority of their time in DC can still vote and be elected from Hawaii then so could any journalists or congressional employees.  In fact, I'm sure many of them already do this.

Congressmen maintain a residence in the home state, and spend enough time there that they actually use it.  They have a recess so that they can campaign in the home state and vote in person.  Regular citizens might not be able to maintain two residences, or perhaps simply don't think about it in time.  But the district should have an extraordinary number of persons who retain a connection to their home state.

You could do like for overseas citizens, who vote in their state of last residence.  But this would complicate matters for ordinary residents of the district, who either have lived their all their life, and their parents lives, and so on; or perhaps lived in some other state for a short while before moving back to Washington. 

Letting people designate their state simplifies matter.  If I wasn't clear, registration would be done by the federal government, who would then transmit the list of voters who designated each state to the state election officials.  This is similar to the requirement that States accept the federal registration form for overseas voters.

Of course you can simply point a gun at everyone's head and tell them to march out to Silver Springs and vote there.  But it simply isn't necessary.  Most will voluntarily vote in Maryland, or accept that they can only vote for a delegate and presidential electors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about combining Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, and the district, minus the Mall into a single state?[/quote]
Your sarcasm here obviously implies you think this is a horrible idea but lends no hints as to why.
[/quote]
DC has less population than each of Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax counties.  So a "New Washington" should encompass more area.   I thought perhaps a 50 mile radius.  But why stop there?  Any of the areas that didn't want to join New Washington could be annexed to Kentucky or North Carolina or Pennsylvania.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should DC residents be excluded from voting for a governor or legislatures?  The United States is a federal union.   Why should they be excluded from voting for the government of one of the members of that union?[/quote]
Most DC and Maryland residents are generally opposed to the idea of full retrocession.  Maryland really has no desire to take on a city with high crime and poverty rates.  DC residents see themselves as having a unique identity from Maryland since they have been separated for 200 years.  This is just my idea of a possible compromise that would allow DC residents to have an equal voice in the federal government.[/quote]
Why compromise?   My proposal gives DC residents a voice in the State of their choice as well.  The problem is not that they can't vote in federal elections, it is that they can't vote in any State elections, including those for choosing the representatives of the States in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides 3, would lead to 4.
[/quote]
That's probably true but I think 3 could serve as a first step in a possible transition period in which DC is slowly integrated into Maryland eventually leading to 4.
[/quote]
Under my plan, DC voters would be voting for the Maryland governor, legislators, etc., which would increase the call for retrocession.

[jimrtex]

According to the 2006 ACS,

Of DC residents:

40% born in DC
46% born in other state.
4% foreign born, naturalized
9% foreign born, non-citizen

But this is strongly age dependent.  Among children 0-5, and 5-17, 77% and 76% were born in the district.  Among adults 18-24, 30% were born in the district, and among those 25-34, 27% were born in the district.  The peak for adults is 45-54, 42%, and then it declines to under 25% among those over 60.

Only 13% of whites, who constitute 34% of the district population, were born there.  Even among blacks, only 61% were born in the district.

Of residents 1 year an older, 9.9% lived outside the district, one year earlier.  2.4% were from within the DC metro area, 6.1% from other states, and 1.4%.

You misunderstand my concern about population.  There are 100s of county-like areas with more population than Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota.  I am not advocating statehood for these county-like areas; and I don't think you are either.  The city of Washington, currently located in the District of Columbia, is more like its neighboring counties of Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax than it is like the state of Wyoming or Vermont.   Washington, Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax counties are simply places where people who work for the federal government, directly or indirectly sleep at night.

The federal government is so named because the United State is a federal union of sovereign States.  You don't here the people in France or the UK referring to their government as federal government.  Representatives and Senators are chosen by the citizens of their respective states.

My proposal would let the residents of DC participate in all levels of government.  If they choose not to participate in the elections for the governor and legislature, that is their right.  I suspect that if Washington City had 15 delegates and 5 senators in the Maryland General Assembly, they would vote for them.   BTW, 20 of the 141 Delegates in the Maryland HoD were born in Washington, DC.  It is an artificial boundary, no more significant than the one that used to split Virginia.

Why would my plan have to be passed via Constitutional Amendment?  Congress has provided that persons resident on federal enclaves can vote in State elections where the enclave is located.  Do you think that the plenary power of Congress is any lesser or greater with respect to military bases, than it is with the capital district?  They have required States to let overseas residents vote in their elections as well.

[jimrtex]

According to the 2006 ACS,

Of DC residents:

40% born in DC
46% born in other state.
4% foreign born, naturalized
9% foreign born, non-citizen

But this is strongly age dependent.  Among children 0-5, and 5-17, 77% and 76% were born in the district.  Among adults 18-24, 30% were born in the district, and among those 25-34, 27% were born in the district.  The peak for adults is 45-54, 42%, and then it declines to under 25% among those over 60.

Only 13% of whites, who constitute 34% of the district population, were born there.  Even among blacks, only 61% were born in the district.

Of residents 1 year an older, 9.9% lived outside the district, one year earlier.  2.4% were from within the DC metro area, 6.1% from other states, and 1.4%.

You misunderstand my concern about population.  There are 100s of county-like areas with more population than Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota.  I am not advocating statehood for these county-like areas; and I don't think you are either.  The city of Washington, currently located in the District of Columbia, is more like its neighboring counties of Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax than it is like the state of Wyoming or Vermont.   Washington, Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax counties are simply places where people who work for the federal government, directly or indirectly sleep at night.

The federal government is so named because the United State is a federal union of sovereign States.  You don't here the people in France or the UK referring to their government as federal government.  Representatives and Senators are chosen by the citizens of their respective states.

My proposal would let the residents of DC participate in all levels of government.  If they choose not to participate in the elections for the governor and legislature, that is their right.  I suspect that if Washington City had 15 delegates and 5 senators in the Maryland General Assembly, they would vote for them.   BTW, 20 of the 141 Delegates in the Maryland HoD were born in Washington, DC.  It is an artificial boundary, no more significant than the one that used to split Virginia.

Why would my plan have to be passed via Constitutional Amendment?  Congress has provided that persons resident on federal enclaves can vote in State elections where the enclave is located.  Do you think that the plenary power of Congress is any lesser or greater with respect to military bases, than it is with the capital district?  They have required States to let overseas residents vote in their elections as well.

This is somewhat frivolous argument. The state of Vermont is very much like the state of New Hampshire; should they be consolidated? The same goes for Wyoming and Idaho. Their boundaries are also arbitrary and artificial. (Of course, I would say yes to both, but that's beside the point.)

Which is a somewhat frivolous argument?  That 1/7 of the Maryland legislature was born in DC?  That 10% of residents in DC moved into the city in the last year.  That among younger adults 20-34 over 2/3 were born outside the city.

Your argument seems to be that DC residents can't vote for senators, therefore it should be a State.  But they could really care less about voting for governor or a legislature and are as happy as clams to be able to vote for Senators and a city council that is subject to total control by the federal government.

Washington is the largest city in a metropolitan area that extends into Maryland and Virginia, and even into Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  It has much less population than its neighboring counties in Maryland, and counties further afield are rapidly growing in population.  It is simply the central city of a metropolitan area.  It does not have the qualities of a State.


Of course, NH and VT are quite different.  They have always been politically different.  NH has seaports and manufacturing and now is becoming a far suburb of Boston.  Vermont has always been agricultural, with some skiing, a place for New Yorkers to move to.  The major population centers, Manchester-Nashua and Burlington are about as far apart as you can get.  The Connecticut Valley is very lightly populated above Springfield.

Wyoming and Idaho are also quite different.  Wyoming is ranching, coal, and oil, and a RR which was built because it had fewer mountains.  It's population is more or less stagnant, and is the poster child for low population congressional districts.  Idaho is growing rapidly, is mountainous, is an import semiconductor center, and soon will have a 3rd representative.

[jimrtex]

Yes, and DC and Maryland are quite different: one is an urban ghetto, and one isn't. Unless you'd like to explain to the people of Dorchester County that they are an urban ghetto.

Montgomery and Prince George's and and Calvert and Charles and Frederick counties are all parts of the Washington metropolitan area.  Howard and Anne Arundel counties could flip from being Baltimore suburbs to being Washington suburbs.  If Anne Arundel flips, then Queen Anne's could flip, and St.Mary's could also become part of the Washington metro area.

And people in Washington on their way to Ocean City could stop off in Cambridge and decide to buy a farmhouse for a summer home, so that eventually Dorchester County will become part of the Washington influence area.

[jimrtex]

You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that just because two counties or entities are part of the same metro area they must be completely uniform in character and political interest.

You I can better address your failure to understand my arguments, what do you mean by "uniform in character"?

[jimrtex]

You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that just because two counties or entities are part of the same metro area they must be completely uniform in character and political interest.

You I can better address your failure to understand my arguments, what do you mean by "uniform in character"?

I guess I'm just not fathoming what possible objection there could be to DC becoming a state based solely on its small land area.  I don't understand why you think the entire metro area must be included in order for it to be a valid state.

What did you mean by "uniform in character"?

[jimrtex]

How about combining Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, and the district, minus the Mall into a single state?

Why "minus the Mall"? Also, West Virginia, except the eastern panhandle, has very little in common with the other regions mentioned here, and would be better off fused with Kentucky and/or Ohio. Oh and New Castle County should be fused with Pennsylvania and South Jersey rather than with DC. But apart from that I like the proposal.

The Mall is where the US Capitol is located.  I think it should be apart from any state, it would continue to be designated D.C.  If Virginia was a neighbor with Pennsylvania, you wouldn't think it odd at all for Wilmington and Wheeling to be in the state.

[jimrtex]

You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that just because two counties or entities are part of the same metro area they must be completely uniform in character and political interest.

You I can better address your failure to understand my arguments, what do you mean by "uniform in character"?

I guess I'm just not fathoming what possible objection there could be to DC becoming a state based solely on its small land area.  I don't understand why you think the entire metro area must be included in order for it to be a valid state.

What did you mean by "uniform in character"?

I meant rural vs. urban vs. suburban, agricultural focus vs. industrial focus, ect.

I see little substantive difference between urban and suburban.  The Washington area has very little manufacturing.  It is all tied to the federal government.  People easily move across the city boundary into Maryland.  There is a subway into Maryland.  Again 20/141 of Maryland Delegates were born in Washington.  The name for someone who is a consumate government insider is "Inside The Beltway, which is completely outside the District.  Congresmen and Senators are treated at a hospital in Maryland.  The President uses an AFB in Maryland.  Montgomery and Prince George's are definitely focused on Washington.  People in their 20's move into the city, those in their 30's with children move to the suburbs.

32% of workers in Charles County work outside Maryland (either DC or Virginia), as do 16% of workers in Calvert, 30% in Montgomery, 43% in Prince George's, 10% in Howard, 11% in Frederick.  27% of the workers in the District work outside the District.

[jimrtex]

It is absurd to solve one problem, lack of voting rights for DC, by creating another absurdity: making DC a state.

The clear, common sense solution has been suggested previously:

4. Full retrocession to Maryland with the exception of National Monuments, White House, Capital, etc.  Washington would become a regular city in Maryland and all residents would be considered full citizens of Maryland.  DC would lose its EVs.

Or simply give D.C residents voting rights for federal elections in Maryland (as per HR 492).

[jimrtex]

It is absurd to solve one problem, lack of voting rights for DC, by creating another absurdity: making DC a state.

The clear, common sense solution has been suggested previously:

4. Full retrocession to Maryland with the exception of National Monuments, White House, Capital, etc.  Washington would become a regular city in Maryland and all residents would be considered full citizens of Maryland.  DC would lose its EVs.

Or simply give D.C residents voting rights for federal elections in Maryland (as per HR 492).

Shall we also give P.R. residents voting rights for federal elections in New York?  Would make as much sense and be as constitutional.  And before you trot out the example of how the residents of early D.C. voted in Maryland and Virginia elections during the District's first decade, I believe that was before Congress had taken formal possession of the District and moved the government there.

Here is the case made in HR 492

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) There is no reason, either historically or by virtue of law, why the people of the District of Columbia, the capital of the United States of America, should not have full voting representation in the Congress of the United States.

(2) Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States, which authorized the creation of the District of Columbia, provides only that the Congress shall have `exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over that District.

(3) The same clause of the Constitution provides that Congress `shall exercise like authority over' other Federal territories that have been purchased from the States for Federal purposes. Residents of other Federal enclaves, though also denied voting rights after becoming subject to exclusive Federal jurisdiction, have had restored their right to vote for and serve as elected Federal officials from their respective States which ceded the Federal enclaves to the United States.

(4) Congress has exercised its authority to regulate Federal elections under article I, section 4 of the Constitution to set the legal requirements that States must follow in establishing Congressional districts. Congress has also exercised this authority to require States to allow United States citizens who are former residents, and their children who are United States citizens, who are living overseas to vote in Federal elections in the previous State of residence, notwithstanding the fact that such former residents and their children may have no intention of returning or establishing residence in that State, and notwithstanding the fact that such citizens are not subject to the laws of that State, including tax laws.

(5) The entire territory of the current District of Columbia was ceded to the United States by the State of Maryland, one of the original 13 States of the United States. The portion of the original District of Columbia ceded to the United States by the Commonwealth of Virginia was returned to the authority of that state in 1846, and the people who now reside in that area vote as citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

(6) The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the cession of legislative authority over the territory that became the District of Columbia by the States of Maryland and Virginia did not remove that territory from the United States, and that the people who live in that territory are entitled to all the rights, guarantees, and immunities of the Constitution that they formerly enjoyed as citizens of those States. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Among those guarantees are the right to equal protection of the laws and the right to participate, equally with other Americans, in a Republican form of government.

(7) Since the people who lived in the territory that now makes up the District of Columbia once voted in Maryland as citizens of Maryland, and Congress by adoption of the Organic Act of 1801 severed the political connection between Maryland and the District of Columbia by statute, Congress has the power by statute to restore Maryland state citizenship rights, including Federal electoral rights, that it took away by enacting the Organic Act of 1801.

I don't believe that Puerto Rico was ceded to the federal government by New York.  As far as Maryland and Virginia goes, the passage of the law taking away voting rights was coincident with the move of the government.  It was not required by that move. 

[jimrtex]

All the Organic Act of 1801 does is establish the courts and other officials of the district, establish Washington and Alexandria Counties and continue in force the municipal corporations of the cities of Alexandria and Georgetown.  It is silent on the issue of voting.

The Maryland and Virginia legislatures provided that their laws would continue in force until Congress provided for the government of the District.  The Organic Act of 1801 does provide for the government of the District.

The Constitution provides that jurisdiction over the district occurs at the time of cession by the State(s)and acceptance by Congress.  That is, federal jurisdiction began in 1791.  Exercising its jurisdiction, it said it was OK for residents to continue to vote in Maryland and Virginia as provided for the laws of the two states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't say anything about sovereignty of Maryland and Virginia.   If Maryland and Virginia still retained sovereignty, there would be no purpose in Congress legislating in the matter.  In 1791 Congress legislated that residents of the district may participate in elections in Maryland and Virginia in accord with the laws of the two states.  They could do the same today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Rohrbacher bill would not make residents of Washington citizens of Maryland.  Residents of the district ceased to be citizens of Maryland and Virginia in 1791.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A resident of Paris, France is not a resident of Texas, yet they may vote in Texas.   The 14th Amendment is sufficiently vague that residents of the district might indeed be counted for apportionment purposes.

[jimrtex]

A resident of Paris, France is not a resident of Texas, yet they may vote in Texas.

Because that person is on the basis of a prior residency in Texas accounted as a citizen of Texas, not because Congress decided that all American citizens living in Paris, France shall be considered citizens of Texas.  At most it might have been constitutional to have residents of the district maintain their previous State citizenship for purposes of voting, though that would fly in the face of Reily v. Lamar.  However to do so now would clearly violate the XXIIIrd Amendment, which implicitly establishes that the residents of the district are not residents or citizens of any of the States.  If they were then they'd be counted twice for purposes of apportionment.  (The provisions that would cause such a count to matter require every State to have at least 2 Representatives.)

Congress recognized that the overseas voter is not a citizen of the state of former residence:

   "(C) a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such residence) would be qualified
   to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States;"

If they were a citizen of that state, then non-residence would not be a disqualification.

The 23rd Amendment doesn't say anything about voting.  It would be fully within the authority of Congress to appoint the 3 electors; or to have them chosen on the basis of the popular vote in the 50 States; or to not appoint them at all as is proposed by HR 492.

[jimrtex]

The 23rd Amendment doesn't say anything about voting.  It would be fully within the authority of Congress to appoint the 3 electors; or to have them chosen on the basis of the popular vote in the 50 States; or to not appoint them at all as is proposed by HR 492.

It doesn't how the electors are chosen.

The number of electors the district is allocated under the XXIIIrd is dependent on its resident population.  They can't count both for determining the number of electors that a State has and the number of electors that the district is allowed.  Having every person in the District be able to vote in Maryland would have no effect or the number of Representatives or Electors that Maryland is entitled to.  They aren't resident in Maryland, so even if they were enabled to vote in Maryland they don't count as Marylanders for purposes of apportionment.  Effectively, if Congress were able to mandate such a thing they would be disenfranchising the voters of Maryland. 

Let's see what the 23rd Amendment means.

If DC were a state, then under existing apportionment law, North Carolina would be apportioned one less representative and DC would have one.  Now of course it doesn't matter as far as the 23rd amendment that NC would be apportioned one less representative in this case of hypothetical statehood - but the apportionment algorithm would still have to be applied to calculate how many representatives that DC would be entitled to.  So we go through all the math and find out that DC and Wyoming would be entitled to one representative each, and so under terms of the 23rd Amendment, DC would have 3 electors (and North Carolina would continue to have 15).

Now let's assume that HR 492 has become law.  Among its provisions is a change to the apportionment algorithm to include the population of DC with that of Maryland.  So again, applying the 23rd Amendment, if DC were a state, then there would be no District of Columbia, and therefore its population would not be added to that of Maryland.  Instead its population would be considered separately.  In this case, it is likely that the hypothetical apportionment would show Maryland losing its 9th representative, and DC be apportioned one.  So as in the present case, DC would have 3 electors, but MD+DC would have 9 representative and 11 electors.  Again, as under current law where North Carolina does not lose a representative simply because DC has an elector, Maryland+DC would not lose a representative simply because DC has an elector.

Note: HR 492 also increases the size of the HoR to 437, so that Maryland+DC would gain 1 and Utah would gain one representative.  Until Maryland redistricted, its 9th CD would coincide with DC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utah argued that Congress should either include all US citizens overseas or no US citizens overseas for apportionment purposes.   

The courts have ruled (Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788) that it is proper to include federal employees, both military and civilian, and their dependents who reside outside the United States in the apportionment count.  This was an administrative decision, but Congress could have directly legislated it as well.  After the 2000 Census, filed suit claiming that if federal employees and their dependents had been excluded, or if Mormon missionaries had been included, Utah would have gained a 4th representative.

The federal district court rejected Utah's claim, and the SCOTUS decided not to grant an appeal.  Among considerations was that the Census Bureau could not count overseas residents reliability, and even if the LDS could supply reliable information about its missionaries, this would likely create a distributional bias towards states that could identify their overseas population.

But the point wasn't that it was unconstituional to include Mormon missionaries in the apportionment count, but that it was not improper to exclude them.  And the fact that the courts have sanctioned inclusion of other non-residents would suggest that they would also look favorably on a decision to include DC residents in Maryland's population count for apportionment and redistricting purposes if district residents were part of the Maryland electorate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

DC would not lose its 3 electors under HR 492, they simply would not be appointed.  Voters in the district would be able to participate in the election of 11 electors, 2 senators, and 1 representative.

[jimrtex]

You keep missing the point.  The residents of the district are thanks to the XXIIIrd Amendment required by the constitution to be accounted there and not in any State for purposes of apportionment.  Regardless of the constitutionality of any other provision of H.R. 492, Section 5(a) of that bill which counts the residents of the district as residents of Maryland is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the XXIIIrd amendment.

Where is this "accounting" mentioned?

The 23rd Amendment has nothing to do with the apportionment of representatives.  It provides a formula for calculating the number of presidential electors for the District.  You might as well claim that the 23rd Amendment has something to do with providing representation in the Senate.  The words "as if it were a state" is quite distinct from the 14th Amendment's "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, ..." (14th Amendment); Article I, Section 3 (number of senators); and Article II, Section 1 (number of electors for States).

Do you agree that the 23rd Amendment does not mean that North Carolina should have 14 rather than 15 electors?

If DC were a State, there would be no purpose in HR 492; so it can presumed in computing the number of 23rd Amendment electors that the population of DC should be counted separately from that of Maryland.  But that in no way means that it has to be calculated separately from that of Maryland for an actual apportionment of representatives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't patronize me.

Residents of the District of Columbia have in the past been permitted by Congress to vote in Maryland federal elections.  Persons who are not resident of a State have been granted the right to vote in federal elections within a State; and persons who are resident of a State have been counted within the apportionment population of a State.

[jimrtex]

The 23rd Amendment has nothing to do with the apportionment of representatives.  It provides a formula for calculating the number of presidential electors for the District.

Congress and the Census Bureau haven't bothered to do the math for apportioning the district since the requirement that the district have no more than the least populous State has limited the district to 3 Electors ever since the XXIIIrd has been passed.  By the way, without that final limiting clause, DC would have had 4 electors in the 1964 to 1980 elections.  (It would have had either 4 or 5 in 1952-1960 had the XXIIIrd been in effect then.  I'd need to go and do the math myself to figure which as DC was in population between Maine with 5 and Rhode Island with 4 in the 1950 apportionment.)

You are arguing that Congress hasn't bothered to do the arithmetic - but this makes no difference in the interpretation of the 23rd Amendment, just that they might have been negligent.   Note that if the total number of representative was such that Wyoming barely got 2 (HoR = about 806 members), then DC would still not get a 4th elector, because if DC were a State, then Wyoming wouldn't get 2 representatives.

In 1950, the district's population was equivalent to 2.30 representatives which is quite below the threshold of around 2.45 (square root of 6).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The United States assumed jurisdiction in 1791.  Article II, Section 8 is clear that exclusive jurisdiction begins at the time of cession by the States and its acceptance by the Congress, not at the time it became the seat of government.  What you are missing is that the Congress in 1791 enacted legislation that recognized that Maryland law would continue to be in force.  Voting by other non-residents of States and apportionment of population is occuring right now in 2007.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Electors are not apportioned.  Representative are apportioned.  If the District of Columbia were a State, then North Carolina would have 12 representatives and 14 electors.  But because the 23rd Amendment has no affect on the apportionment of representatives, North Carolina continues to have 13 representatives and 15 electors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it defines the number of electors that the district has.  This has zero impact on the apportionment of representatives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 23rd Amendment does not apportion any representatives, implicit or actual.  It simply prescribes a calculation to determine the number of electors assigned to the District of Columbia (and not to the residents thereof).  That the calculation is somewhat consonant with the apportionment of representatives has no effect.

[jimrtex]

The United States assumed jurisdiction in 1791.  Article II, Section 8 is clear that exclusive jurisdiction begins at the time of cession by the States and its acceptance by the Congress, not at the time it became the seat of government.  What you are missing is that the Congress in 1791 enacted legislation that recognized that Maryland law would continue to be in force.  Voting by other non-residents of States and apportionment of population is occurring right now in 2007.

Those non-residents you speak of are outside the United States.  The residents of the district are inside the incorporated territory of the United States.  The paltry number of people residing in the territory that would become Washington County, D.C. during the 1790 census would not have affected the number of Representatives that Maryland was entitled to under that census, regardless of whether the status of the district in the period 1791-1801 was merely a planned entity as I argue or an actual entity as you argue.

The language of Article I, Section 8 is quite clear as to when exclusive jurisdiction over the district begins.  "may become" is modified by "by Cession ... and acceptance".  Congress is not required to set up a separate political jurisdiction for the district - it hasn't done so in the case of forts, etc.  In 1790/1, Congress made an active decision for the laws of Maryland and Virginia to remain in effect within the area.

Congress has also permitted persons living on military bases to vote in State elections and federal elections within the State where the base is located.  It is not required to do so, but has elected to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction in that manner.

I would not be so sure about the apportionment of 1790.  There was one representative per 30,000 persons (adjusted for slaves), and the apportionment law truncated all fractions, so that the population in the district area might have been enough to avoid truncation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress accepted the cession in 1790/1.  It also set the date for moving the seat of government to 1800.  That has nothing to do with when its jurisdiction began.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Electors are not apportioned.  Representative are apportioned.  If the District of Columbia were a State, then North Carolina would have 12 representatives and 14 electors.  But because the 23rd Amendment has no affect on the apportionment of representatives, North Carolina continues to have 13 representatives and 15 electors.
[/quote]
The number of Representatives is not set in the Constitution at 435.  If the district were a State, there was no XXIIIrd Amendment, and there were 436 Representatives, then we'd have 538 Electors, apportioned exactly as they are now.  Just because Congress doesn't bother to make provisions for the implicit Representative used to determine the number of Electors the district is entitled to in its apportionment of the actual Representatives doesn't affect things in the slightest.[/quote]
In applying the terms of the 23rd Amendment, the current apportionment law must be used.   You can't go, "if the District of Columbia were a State, there might be 900 representatives and DC and Wyoming would have 2 each".  You can't assume that there would be 436 or 300 or 500.  Current law says 435.   (Note if HR 492 were to become law, the number would be 437, because HR 492 modifies the apportionment law).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Electors are not apportioned.  If the 23rd amendment had anything to do with an apportionment, then North Carolina would have 14 electors rather than 15.

Is it not clear that if DC were a State, that North Carolina would have 12 representatives and 14 electors?  But for purposes of the 23rd amendment, it does not matter what effect this hypothetical statehood apportionment would have on other States.  And if HR 492 were law, the 23rd Amendment would have no impact on the apportionment of Maryland even though the residents of DC were included in its apportionment population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HR 1905 is unconstitutional for the reason you state.  But its non-constitutionality has nothing to do with HR 492, which does not give representatives to a non-state.

If Congress want to provide for voting by District residents in presidential, senatorial, and representative elections, then HR 492 is the way to do it.

[jimrtex]

Let me try one more argument going directly from the clause of the Constitution you've been selectively quoting.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States"

The only way that the sentence can be read and make any sense is to join "may" and "become":

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States"

And then recognize that "by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress" is how the district becomes (became) the seat of the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 1791 Maryland law that ceded the territory of the district said, "That the jurisdiction of the laws of the state over the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession, should not cease or determine until Congress should by law provide for the government thereof under their jurisdiction."  Congress agreed to these terms when it accepted the cession in 1791.  And this is why the date of the act of February 1801 is the significant one, and not the meeting of Congress in December 1800.

Congress therefore legislated in 1791 that residents of the district could vote in Maryland elections.  It doesn't matter that this was a condition of the cession by Maryland.  It was a contract freely entered into by the United States and Maryland, and not under duress.  It continued to operate after Congress had begun meeting at the Capitol and other offices had been moved.  And it was fully within Congress's authority to provide that residents of the district vote in Maryland elections in 1792 or 2007.

[jimrtex]

The 1791 Maryland law that ceded the territory of the district said, "That the jurisdiction of the laws of the state over the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession, should not cease or determine until Congress should by law provide for the government thereof under their jurisdiction."  Congress agreed to these terms when it accepted the cession in 1791.  And this is why the date of the act of February 1801 is the significant one, and not the meeting of Congress in December 1800.

Congress therefore legislated in 1791 that residents of the district could vote in Maryland elections.  It doesn't matter that this was a condition of the cession by Maryland.  It was a contract freely entered into by the United States and Maryland, and not under duress.  It continued to operate after Congress had begun meeting at the Capitol and other offices had been moved.  And it was fully within Congress's authority to provide that residents of the district vote in Maryland elections in 1792 or 2007.

Thank you.  You just proved my point.  Under the terms of Maryland's 1791 act that you just quoted, Maryland did not cede the territory that would become Washington County, D.C. until Congress passed the Organic Act.  Until February 27, 1801, the future district was in essentially in escrow, ready to be claimed by Congress at the time of its choosing, but it did not take possession until then.

No you misunderstand.  Maryland set a condition on its cession.  Congress accepted that condition.  Congress could have walked on the deal and placed the capital in Pennsylvania, but they didn't.  It is just like if someone sold a piece of property, but included a covenant.  That doesn't mean that the seller still owns the property, it just means that the buyer agrees to certain restrictions on the use of the property that he owns.

[jimrtex]

No you misunderstand.  Maryland set a condition on its cession.  Congress accepted that condition.  Congress could have walked on the deal and placed the capital in Pennsylvania, but they didn't.  It is just like if someone sold a piece of property, but included a covenant.  That doesn't mean that the seller still owns the property, it just means that the buyer agrees to certain restrictions on the use of the property that he owns.

You're the one who is clearly misunderstanding here, but lets leave that aside for a moment, since I despair of convincing you of what seems to me to be so self evident.

Check Van Ness v Bank of the United States

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing.  Congress chose, by accepting the terms of the cession, to have the voters of Maryland vote in Maryland from 1791 to 1801.  That agreement terminated in 1801, at which time the Congress was free to provide for voting rights in another manner.

In the case of forts and other federal enclaves, residents vote in the State which ceded jurisdiction.  I believe that there is Department of Agriculture facility in Suitland, Maryland which has some residents who vote in Maryland elections.

I proposed an alternative

Let me ask you this question.  The 14th Amendment says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Do you think it was the intent of Congress to deny State citizenship to United States citizens merely because they reside outside the limits of a State?

[jimrtex]

No you misunderstand.  Maryland set a condition on its cession.  Congress accepted that condition.  Congress could have walked on the deal and placed the capital in Pennsylvania, but they didn't.  It is just like if someone sold a piece of property, but included a covenant.  That doesn't mean that the seller still owns the property, it just means that the buyer agrees to certain restrictions on the use of the property that he owns.

You're the one who is clearly misunderstanding here, but lets leave that aside for a moment, since I despair of convincing you of what seems to me to be so self evident.

Check Van Ness v Bank of the United States

The case in controversy began before the date on which Maryland ceded sovereignty over Washington County to Congress, namely February 27, 1801.  That Congress chose to leave such a suit in the Maryland courts hardly weakens my point that until that date that territory was still part of Maryland.

Maryland ceded sovereignty to the United States in 1791.

"The United States accepted the cession made by this law of the state; and the conditions above mentioned, therefore, formed a part of the contract between the parties; and consequently the laws of Maryland, and the jurisdiction of its Courts, continued in full force, until Congress took upon itself the government of the district"
Don't you understand why the court used the word "accepted" - could it because this is the precise language used in the Constitution?  Maryland did not have the authority to override the Constitution.  They did have the authority to enter into an agreement where the Congress would continue to use Maryland laws and Maryland courts to exercise Congress's exclusive jurisdiction.  And remember that even after February 1801, Maryland laws continued to be in force within the district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing.  Congress chose, by accepting the terms of the cession, to have the voters of Maryland vote in Maryland from 1791 to 1801.  That agreement terminated in 1801, at which time the Congress was free to provide for voting rights in another manner.

In the case of forts and other federal enclaves, residents vote in the State which ceded jurisdiction.  I believe that there is Department of Agriculture facility in Suitland, Maryland which has some residents who vote in Maryland elections.
[/quote]
There is a distinction though.  The forts and other needful buildings are not permanently ceded.  If the property is sold so that the United States no longer owns the property, sovereignty automatically reverts to the State wherein it is located.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with whether or not the United States permits residents on the federal enclaves to vote in the State that ceded the enclave; or in which jurisdiction they permit them to vote.  Congress doesn't have to let people who reside at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (Suitland is where the US Census Bureau has offices, I don't know that it has any residents), nor does it have to make the State Maryland.  Conventionally, it has done so, and it would make sense for DC residents to vote in Maryland rather than Virginia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all.  Congress has made a voluntary decision to include residents of federal enclaves in the apportionment population of the State in which the enclave is located, and has made a voluntary decision to let residents of the federal enclaves to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Otherwise the residents of all the Territories would be free to claim State citizenship and vote therein.  It would be passing strange that territorial residents would have a privilege to claim citizenship in another political jurisdiction when residents of States do not have that right.  I reside in the State of South Carolina.  So long as that is the case I cannot claim citizenship in Maryland or any other State.  Why should Congress have ever intended that a resident of a territory have the privilege of choosing a State of citizenship denied to the residents of States?
[/quote]
As a federal Union, citizens of the United States derive that citizenship from their State citizenship, and under terms of the 14th Amendment, vice versa.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These territories have self-government and for example elect their own governors, and their own legislatures, and United States citizens residing in these areas do have the right to vote in their elections.  Personally, I think that plebiscates should be held in these areas on incorporation.  If the voters decide not to be incorporated, US citizenship should not be granted on the basis of birth in these areas.  Citizens of these areas could continue to have the privilege of residence in the United States.

[jimrtex]

We have two distinctly different readings here.  I'm reading it as that the cession did not occur until Congress established the government of the district.  That the laws of Maryland as of the date of cession continued in force after the cession is immaterial.  Rather than write an entire code of laws for the district, Congress copied the laws already in force as of the date of cession.  A bit lazy, but they were not interested in writing a code of laws de novo, as they felt they had better things to attend to than to write new laws just to replace old ones.  (If only Congressmen these days felt the same, but then they have staff and lobbyists to do the writing for them these days.)

The Constitution uses specific the specific terms "cession" and "accept", which the Maryland legislature and the Congress used in their 1790&1791 laws.  This was just a few years after the Constitution was written.  Surely they understood the meaning of these words.

You've made this complicated construction that Maryland didn't really cede the territory in 1790, nor that the US didn't really accept the cession, simply because the two parties agreed that Maryland's laws would continue to be used until Congress provided for the government of the District.  This despite the fact that the SCOTUS recognized the terms of the cession and its acceptance as forming part of a contract.  Then in 1800, Congress started meeting in Washington and other government offices moved there and you're left with Maryland's laws being operative in the district.  And then in 1801 when Congress get around to establishing a government the cession actually occurs.

Much simpler is that the cession occured in 1790/1, and under the terms of the cession, Maryland law continued to be in force.  And then in 1801 at the time Congress provided for the government of the district, under the terms of the cession, Maryland law ceased to be in effect - except Congress in the law that provided that government said Maryland laws would be in effect until they got around to change them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The census bureau includes both overseas employees of the federal government, military and civilian, and their dependents in the apportionment population.  In the past, there were more dependents than employees counted.  The dependents are not required to move anywhere in the world at the discretion of the United States government, and in some cases would be forbidden from residing at the same location as the employee.

They are counted because it was easy to do so.  The courts did not rule that the government could not count Mormon missionaries, but rather that it was reasonable discretion to include federal employees and dependents, and not other American citizens.

Note that Congress has required that overseas residents be allowed to vote in federal elections - perhaps because in that case it is a voluntary activity on the part of voters.  To be accurate, participation in the census must be compulsory.