Utah likely to get another Electoral Vote

[muon2]

The bill in question is H.R.5388 the constitutional arguments are made here. The argument seems to rest heavily on the broad grant of power to Congress to provide for the District, and on the precedent of the years before 1800 when the District was set up but Congress had not assumed full control.

[muon2]

Newsflash.  DC already has 3 EVs and has had them for over 40 years so there is nothing to balance out there.   Try reading the 23rd amendment.  The question of balance only comes into play when you consider congressional representation.

Welcome, rude new person.  If we added more members of Congress to Utah or another GOP state, then I'd be just plum delighted to add 2 new Senators and a voting rep for DC - hence adding more EV's.

The only thing is that while the extra electoral votes might go to GOP states this time, there is no guarantee that would continue beyond 2008 once the next reapportionment occurs. Not to mention that the odds of 1 or 2 EVs tilting the balance of the election are quite small, of course.

It just happens by a nice coincidence that Utah was the state that came closest to deserving an extra EV in the last Census and is also the most Republican state in the nation, thus its extra House seat would balance out DC's politically. But in 2012, whose to say that Massachusetts won't be the state to just bately miss out under the current system and thus get the extra House seat and EV under the new system?

Nym makes a good point. Based on last year's estimates MN is expected to lose a seat, but would have the highest priority to keep that seat with the additional members to the House.

[muon2]

The Constitutional arguments made in the source cited by muon are mush.  It invokes Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805) in a manner contradictory to the plain language of Marshall's opinion.  Marshall explicitly writes: (emphasis added)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Hepburn v. Ellzey said was that Congress could grant access to the inhabitants of Columbia to the Federal courts in the same manner as it had to the inhabitants of the States and to foreign citizens, but that the law as it was in force then did not and that it was up to the Congress and not the courts to correct the anomaly as Columbia was not a state under the constitution.

Since Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 clearly states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,"  Any court that upheld H.R. 5388 would have to overturn an over 200 year old precedent.

The next cited case National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co.  Involved whether when Congress finally chose in 1940 to eliminate that anomaly as Marshall himself practically begged Congress to so , whether it was constitutional.  It did so, not by finding that D.C. could be treated as a State but on the use of other powers, that were not dependent upon D.C. being treated as a State under the Constutution.

I understand the strict argument that can be made from Hepburn. As such I certainly would be more comfortable with a cession of DC back to MD except for those Federal lands on and adjacent to the Mall. OTOH, Hepburn does not seem to clearly address the precedent of voting rights afforded district residents between 1790 and 1800. A current court may weigh those two opposing precedents, and I'm not sure how it would be decided today.