DC Voting Rights and Utah

[socaldem]

It looks like the House is set to pass the bill to give Delegate E. H. Norton a vote in the House.  As a part of the bargain, Utah would get, early, the additional seat that it will get upon the next reapportionment.

Do you think the bill will pass the Senate?  Would President Bush veto?

As it stands now, the bill requires that the additional representative be elected from an at-large seat. 

If the bill passes in this form, who would be candidates for that seat?

I hope gubernatorial hopeful Scott Matheson who ran a good race against Jon Huntsman (who is from another iconic family in the state) runs.  I think he'd have a good shot.

[DownWithTheLeft]

You should probably look at the state before saying he has a good chance.

[Joe Republic]

Does this mean that the House will permanently have 437 voting representatives?  Or will it only be 437 temporarily until the next scheduled reapportionment reverts it to 435, like when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Does this mean that the House will permanently have 437 voting representatives?  Or will it only be 437 temporarily until the next scheduled reapportionment reverts it to 435, like when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted?

I think permantley 537, and this makes more sense as the extra vote for Utah in the EC will prevent ties

[Fritz]

Democrats should vote against this.  It gives the Republicans an extra EC vote, and gives the Democrats nothing.  The District of Columbia should get voting representation in Congress without the Democrats having to concede something to attain it.

A better idea would be keep the House at 435, and REMOVE an existing congressional seat.  I believe based on the last re-apportionment, the losing state would be North Carolina.  This state currently has a Democrat congressional majority (7-6).  If we need a compromise wherein neither party loses anything in the bargain, I'm sure the state could be gerrymandered in such a way that one of the Democrats ends up being the loser, such that NC's delegation ends up being 6-6 and both parties retain their current total congressional members.  It also removes the possibility of an EC tie, the new Electoral College would be 537.

[Mr. Morden]

It gives the Republicans an extra EC vote, and gives the Democrats nothing.

Only for one election though, the 2008 election.  Until the next census, you can't necessarily predict which state would get the 437th seat post-2010.  It could just as easily go to a Democratic state as a Republican state.  (And what are the chances that the 2008 election is decided by one electoral vote?  That's a very rare occurance.)

On the other hand, while you can't predict that the Republicans would continue to benefit from the awarding of the 437th seat for very long, you can confidently predict that the Democrats will continue to hold onto the seat in DC for many decades to come.  Thus, I think this is actually a pretty good deal for the Democrats....assuming that the alternative is the status quo.

[bullmoose88]

i especially don't like the fact that the two areas gaining a congressional and (EC) vote are hyper partisan

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

[Padfoot]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

That all depends on which parts of the Constitution you find most important in this case.  Most people opposed to the bill cite Article I, Section II, Clause III which states:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

Because DC is not a state, the bill's opponents claim that it is unconstitutional to grant it a representative.

However, the bill's supporters counter this argument by citing Article II, Section VIII which states that Congress shall have the power:

"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 bills supporters claim that the authority Congress has over D.C. is broad enough in scope that it is within their power to grant D.C. a voting representative.

Personally, I am conflicted.  Granting D.C. representation is Congress is certainly the correct thing to do.  Any Republican, or any American for that matter, who thinks that D.C. doesn't deserve a voting representative doesn't deserve one either.  It is absolutely inexcusable that the citizens of the capital city of the world's most powerful democracy do not have a voice in their own government.

However, I would have to agree that the opponents of this bill have a valid point with regards to its constitutionality.  Does Section VIII really give Congress so much power over D.C. that it can skirt around the wording of Section II?  I don't think this will open the door for full representation for US territories as some have claimed.  I am actually more concerned with the fact that this is a bill which means it can be easily overturned in any subsequent Congress.

One of the things I find most appalling about the current status of D.C. is the fact that it actually came very close to getting full representation in Congress in the late '70's and early '80's.  The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress on August 22, 1978 but was only approved by 16 of the 38 state legislatures necessary to be ratified before it expired seven years later on August 22, 1985.  It just boggles my mind as to how the legislatures let this opportunity slip by.  In case you're curious here's a list of states which approved the amendment and the date they approved it on:

    * New Jersey on September 11, 1978;
    * Michigan on December 12, 1978;
    * Ohio on December 21, 1978;
    * Minnesota on March 19, 1979;
    * Massachusetts on March 19, 1979;
    * Connecticut on April 11, 1979;
    * Wisconsin on November 1, 1979;
    * Maryland on March 19, 1980;
    * Hawaii on April 17, 1980;
    * Oregon on July 6, 1981;
    * Maine on February 16, 1983;
    * West Virginia on February 23, 1983;
    * Rhode Island on May 13, 1983;
    * Iowa on January 19, 1984;
    * Louisiana on June 24, 1984; and
    * Delaware on June 28, 1984.

[7,052,770]

It's inexcusable that DC does not have representation in Congress.  I support full statehood for DC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

That all depends on which parts of the Constitution you find most important in this case.  Most people opposed to the bill cite Article I, Section II, Clause III which states:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

Because DC is not a state, the bill's opponents claim that it is unconstitutional to grant it a representative.

However, the bill's supporters counter this argument by citing Article I, Section VIII which states that Congress shall have the power:

"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 bills supporters claim that the authority Congress has over D.C. is broad enough in scope that it is within their power to grant D.C. a voting representative.

Poppycock.  By that theory, then under the rest of that clause, Congress could authorize a voting Representative to be elected from each Fort or other domestic military base.  While it might give military spouses something to do, so we really want the Representative from Auxiliary Airfield North (representing the less than twenty personnel stationed there to cut the grass and do other maintenance on that strip of pavement used by Charleston AFB to train their C-17's on landings and takeoffs on a strip unused for any other purpose) to be elected to Congress?  What a wonderfully idiotic idea.  The clear intent of that clause was that no other authority than Congress would have a say in the governance of the district.  Thus for example Maryland couldn't object when D.C. was finally granted Home Rule or impose its taxes on the people residing in the District.

[Sam Spade]

The list of Supreme Court cases where DC is referred to as not being a State either as part of holding or part of dicta is too voluminous to count or list.

For a starting point, look at Bolling v. Sharpe, where the fact that DC is not a State and therefore not subject to the 14th amendment plays the key part in the decision.

Anyway, the "statute" would clearly be unconstitutional.  No question.

[Padfoot]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

That all depends on which parts of the Constitution you find most important in this case.  Most people opposed to the bill cite Article I, Section II, Clause III which states:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

Because DC is not a state, the bill's opponents claim that it is unconstitutional to grant it a representative.

However, the bill's supporters counter this argument by citing Article I, Section VIII which states that Congress shall have the power:

"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 bills supporters claim that the authority Congress has over D.C. is broad enough in scope that it is within their power to grant D.C. a voting representative.

Poppycock.  By that theory, then under the rest of that clause, Congress could authorize a voting Representative to be elected from each Fort or other domestic military base.  While it might give military spouses something to do, so we really want the Representative from Auxiliary Airfield North (representing the less than twenty personnel stationed there to cut the grass and do other maintenance on that strip of pavement used by Charleston AFB to train their C-17's on landings and takeoffs on a strip unused for any other purpose) to be elected to Congress?  What a wonderfully idiotic idea.  The clear intent of that clause was that no other authority than Congress would have a say in the governance of the district.  Thus for example Maryland couldn't object when D.C. was finally granted Home Rule or impose its taxes on the people residing in the District.

I would have to agree with you there Sen. Ernest.  However, you cannot deny that the disenfranchisement of over half a million full American citizens is something we should all be concerned about.  This country was founded on the principle of "No taxation without representation" yet the tax-paying citizens of our nation's capital remain without any true representation over 200 years after the fact.  As you may have guessed from my previous post I am not 100% behind this legislation.   However, if you're going to call yourself a true American then you must at least be behind the ultimate goal of this bill even if you find the methods unsatisfactory.

Nah I changed my mind about my previous post in this thread, because I admit I only want to add it to Virgina for Partisian Reasons, and I always speak against partisianship... so nevermind, lol...

If D.C. ever were to be "given" to another state it would be Maryland.  Virginia already reclaimed the portion of D.C. that it ceded back in 1846.  It is unlikely that Maryland will want to reclaim it's portion of D.C. anytime soon since neither Marylanders or Washingtonians are very eager to be reunited.  Most Washingtonians still harbor hopes for statehood and full representation in Congress and Marylanders aren't all that eager to take on the burdens of a city known for its high crime and poverty rates.  Both sides also see a disconnect in identities and really view themselves as two separate entities since they have been separated for so long.  Also, retrocession would likely require a repeal of the 23rd Amendment which granted D.C. its 3 Electoral Votes.

[jimrtex]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

That all depends on which parts of the Constitution you find most important in this case.  Most people opposed to the bill cite Article I, Section II, Clause III which states:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

I think opponents would cite:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the the several States"

The bill (HR 1433) requires the President (actually the Census Bureau) to transmit to Congress the number of representatives that each state is apportioned, and for the Clerk of the House to transmit to the governor of each state its apportionment.

Does Congress under the US Constitution have the authority to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade re-reapportionment?  Remember the rest of the section that you quoted provides for the decennial census.

And if Congress has that authority, are states whose state constitution requires redistricting after an apportionment by Congress, required to redistrict.  The bill specifies that Utah use its current districts.  But by making a specific exception for that state, isn't it clear that Congress wants the time, place, manner provisions of the individual state constitutions to operate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Congress may grant the district 500 representatives as easily as they grant it one, and they may direct that the representatives be appointed by the President to a life term and not be be required to be a resident of the District of Columbia?

[Padfoot]

Whether it is a good or bad idea politically, it is unconstitutional.  D.C. is not a State, therefore it cannot have a Representative apportioned to it.  It will take a Constitutional amendment or the admission of New Columbia as a State for the city to have a Representative.

That all depends on which parts of the Constitution you find most important in this case.  Most people opposed to the bill cite Article I, Section II, Clause III which states:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

I think opponents would cite:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the the several States"

The bill (HR 1433) requires the President (actually the Census Bureau) to transmit to Congress the number of representatives that each state is apportioned, and for the Clerk of the House to transmit to the governor of each state its apportionment.

Does Congress under the US Constitution have the authority to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade re-reapportionment?  Remember the rest of the section that you quoted provides for the decennial census.

And if Congress has that authority, are states whose state constitution requires redistricting after an apportionment by Congress, required to redistrict.  The bill specifies that Utah use its current districts.  But by making a specific exception for that state, isn't it clear that Congress wants the time, place, manner provisions of the individual state constitutions to operate?

(Hmmm... I sense you may be trying to trap me here to use it against me in our debate about Colorado redistricting laws.  Perhaps the wording is just too similar and I am imagining things). 

I would be more inclined to argue in this case that the reapportionment language is viewed as necessary because of the special situation being created in Utah and that the authors are being careless if they have forgotten the state rules about redistricting after a reapportionment.  This would open up a whole new can of worms that no one may have considered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Congress may grant the district 500 representatives as easily as they grant it one, and they may direct that the representatives be appointed by the President to a life term and not be be required to be a resident of the District of Columbia?

[/quote]

Its obvious that you didn't read my entire post because then you would have realized that I was essentially posing the same question that you are here.   I also stated later on that I agree with the bill's goal of granting DC a voting representative but the question of its Constitutionality raises too many red flags to garner my full support.

I think that you, and Sen. Ernest before you, assumed that since I support full representation for D.C. I must also support this bill.  That would be a false assumption and if you read my posts carefully you'll see that.  When I made my original post my intent was to present the Constitutional arguments both for and against the bill in order to enlighten the forum about the status of the debate going on in Congress.  Afterward, I offered my own opinions about the status of D.C. in general and I mentioned some alternative avenues towards representation for D.C. that would be acceptable under the Constitution.

[jimrtex]

I think opponents would cite:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the the several States"

The bill (HR 1433) requires the President (actually the Census Bureau) to transmit to Congress the number of representatives that each state is apportioned, and for the Clerk of the House to transmit to the governor of each state its apportionment.

Does Congress under the US Constitution have the authority to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade re-reapportionment?  Remember the rest of the section that you quoted provides for the decennial census.

And if Congress has that authority, are states whose state constitution requires redistricting after an apportionment by Congress, required to redistrict.  The bill specifies that Utah use its current districts.  But by making a specific exception for that state, isn't it clear that Congress wants the time, place, manner provisions of the individual state constitutions to operate?

(Hmmm... I sense you may be trying to trap me here to use it against me in our debate about Colorado redistricting laws.  Perhaps the wording is just too similar and I am imagining things). 

Not really.  I was just reading the proposed legislation and noticed that it called for an apportionment of representatives to all states, including the process of having the Census Bureau inform Congress of the numbers to be apportioned, and having Congress inform the governor of each state of its apportionment.

Given our reason discussion about Colorado, this raises two questions:

(1) Under the terms of the Colorado Constitution as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado General Assembly is required to redistrict following an apportionment (and before the 2008 elections are held according to the CSC interpretation).

(2) Does the US Constitution forbid apportionment at any time other than following the US Census.  The Constitution provides for the census specifically so that the apportionment of representatives (and direct taxes) is based on up to date and timely data.  Can Congress reduce Texas's apportionment from 32/435 to 32/437 using 7 year old data?  The US Constitution is ever bit as clear in this regard as is the Colorado Constitution.

Perhaps, Congress could make an apportionment when a State's basis of representation is reduced according to the terms of the 14th amendment.  But absent a finding of a violation in at least some of there 49 states, I wouldn't think that power would apply.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress only has the authority to make an "apportionment among the several States".  It is meaningless to apportion to a single state.

Since the Rules Committee rejected even considering an amendment that would permit Utah to elect its additional representative from a 4th district, Congress clearly intended that the other 49 states would continue to elect their representatives according to their respective election laws.  Congress could have included a provision forbidding operation of the Colorado Constitution, but chose not to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Congress may grant the district 500 representatives as easily as they grant it one, and they may direct that the representatives be appointed by the President to a life term and not be be required to be a resident of the District of Columbia?

[/quote]
Its obvious that you didn't read my entire post because then you would have realized that I was essentially posing the same question that you are here.[/quote]I re-read your entire post twice, and you did not pose the question that I raised.

First, you were not making the argument, but merely stating the argument that supporters of the bill would make, that Congress's plenary power permitted them to provide a representative for the District of Columbia.  But you limited their expression of power to what would appear to be reasonable.  I was simply asking whether this power would extend to something quite not as reasonable.  The District of Columbia has fewer residents than all states other than Wyoming, and fewer residents than each of its neighbors of Montgomery, Prince George, and Fairfax counties.  So even giving in one representative is giving it additional political power.

The states may not change the qualifications for their representatives, but Congress appears to also be setting a different qualification for the representative from District of Columbia.  If Congress can waive the requirement that some representatives be an inhabitant of the state from which they are chosen, why not change the age requirement, citizenship requirement, or impose term limits?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made no such assumption.  I carefully quoted where you said that you were making the arguments of others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was perhaps asking you to also address the implications of the Constitutional arguments made by proponents.

I also offered a correction on what I believe is the strongest argument against the bill (the the Constitution provides for election by the citizens of a state, as well as the qualifications of representatives).  Note that this was the reasoning that White House gave in their veto threat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(2) Does the US Constitution forbid apportionment at any time other than following the US Census.  The Constitution provides for the census specifically so that the apportionment of representatives (and direct taxes) is based on up to date and timely data.  Can Congress reduce Texas's apportionment from 32/435 to 32/437 using 7 year old data?  The US Constitution is ever bit as clear in this regard as is the Colorado Constitution.

The relevant text from the constitution is: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

The first meeting of Congress was March 4, 1789, so the first census had to be completed no later than March 4, 1792.  Thus the second Census had to be done sometime in the "subsequent Term of ten Years"  i.e. between March 4, 1792 and March 4, 1802.  While each census so far has been conducted in a decennial year, that is not a constitutional requirement.  Indeed, the modern convention of making April 1 the date of record was only established in 1930.  The 1790, 1800, 1810, and 1820 censuses used the first Monday in August; 1830 to 1900 used 1 June; 1910 used 15 April, and 1920 used 1 January.

Hence it would be within Congress' authority to conduct the 22nd Census now or push it back to 2011 so that the existing numeration would have to be used for a sixth Congress, the 112th.  However, they would not be able to start the 23rd Census any earlier than March 4, 2012 and it would have to be done by March 4, 2022.

[Downwinder]

As far as what would play out in an at-large election in Utah, I believe that a democrat would have an extremely hard time winning.  Scott Matheson, IMO, ran a very weak gubernatorial campaign--uninspiring, uninteresting--god, even I voted for Huntsman.  Matheson has a famous name, and a recent statewide run behind him, but I don't think he'd have a chance.  Jim Matheson would have a good shot at statewide election, but he already has a house seat.  The only other democrat, in my opinion, who could be elected state-wide, would be former AG Jan Graham, who was quite popular.  Who would the republicans select?  Probably some no-account of the same ilk as Bishop or Cannon--another idiot to disgrace the halls of Congress.  I think Huntsman likes where he is for now, and former governor Leavitt is waiting for a senate seat to open up.

It's what would happen in Utah after the next reapportionment is done that interests me.  The state legislature has drawn up plans for redistricting to four districts before reapportionment if necessary.  If redistricting in 2011 goes the same way, and everything is played out right, there could be some interesting outcomes.

[Verily]

It's inexcusable that DC does not have representation in Congress.  I support full statehood for DC.

^^^^^^^^^ or just add it to virginia

Why Virginia? Geographically it would be a part of Maryland (and I would support that). The only reason to add it to Virginia would be partisan advantage for the Democrats since it would make Virginia lean Democratic presidentially instead of leaning Republican.

[Beet]

I think opponents would cite:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the the several States"

The bill (HR 1433) requires the President (actually the Census Bureau) to transmit to Congress the number of representatives that each state is apportioned, and for the Clerk of the House to transmit to the governor of each state its apportionment.

Does Congress under the US Constitution have the authority to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade re-reapportionment?  Remember the rest of the section that you quoted provides for the decennial census.

Can you explain where the need for a reapportionment in the 49 states besides Utah is coming from? Requring the President to transmit to Congress a revised statement of total apportionment to account for the act proposed does not in itself necessarily affect those states' internal apportionment procedures. Nor does Congress communicating this to state governors represent anything more than bureaucratic formality. A reapportionment is when actual lines and people are moved around. The only reapportionment that may occur would be internally inside Utah, and the only reason for that is to ensure the partisan balance of this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant, because this is not an apportionment and again, I am wondering why you would consider it to be. It seems reasonable that Congress is not 'making an exemption' for Utah, rather it only addressed Utah because it naturally assumed that no redistricting would apply to any other states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it requires the Executive branch send a revised version of a letter to Congress, which then mails out some letters to Governors. I'm not really sure what the significance of this is, but it doesn't seem huge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is this relevant?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is Congress 'reducing' Texas's apportionment, any more than it 'reduced' the apportionment of existing states any time new states joined the union from 1789 to 1959?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not sure how this is relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This depends on what kind of argument is being made about powers, but I certainly wouldn't support that and obviously neither would most people. As for the argument being made which you are extending with your hypothetical, the one about how

You must be logged in to read this quote.

,

their argument is heavily tied to the idea, as expressed by Patricia Wald and Kenneth Star:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

a sentimental idea certainly, but also definitely not one which would stomach giving D.C. "500 representatives." The is a reason why the policy is limited to be

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The philosophical and legal arguments behind it are grounded in something reasonable, from a substantive standpoint. To argue that it extends to the unreasonability in your example is to fail to understand (or fail to want to understand) the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where is it written that the residence requirements for being a representative is waived? I don't see that in HR 1433.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I feel that the constitutional argument over the bill is a giant red herring which effectively prevents the substantive issue from being discussed. I would like to see more attention on padfoot's original question, particularly this doozy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of whether a bill or a constitutional amendment would be more appropriate as a means of giving D.C. representation in the House, the important question (the one which presumably is why all of us are here thinking about this) is whether D.C. should have representation in the House.

The interests of fairness and equality would certainly say that it should.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see anything in there that quite forbids having more than one enumeration within a single term of ten years, as long as at least one complete enumeration is made within every subsesequent term of ten years from the first. The history behind this would suggest that Congress's intent in setting the ten year period was simply to ensure that the time of redistricting was not put off indefinitely for the sake of perpetuating the privilege of entrenched constituencies.

[bgwah]

The people of the District of Columbia deserve full voting rights in Congress and statehood.

Anyone who opposes this does not truly value what the United States supposedly stands for. How can one tell me Iraqis deserve to be able to vote, but that those in our capital city do not deserve representation in our national legislature? How ridiculous!

I only wish more of you people would come out and say why you do not want DC Statehood. You don't want anymore Democrats in Congress, and you'd probably be happy taking away their right to vote in presidential elections. The thought of one or two more black senators appauls you (you're getting impatient! Why hasn't anyone killed that uppity negro Obama?! He might become President!), you really wish the negro would know his place in society and quit striving for equality and accept his position as your inferior. Those who oppose DC Statehood hate America, hate blacks, and hate democracy.

[Beet]

The people of the District of Columbia deserve full voting rights in Congress and statehood.

Anyone who opposes this does not truly value what the United States supposedly stands for. How can one tell me Iraqis deserve to be able to vote, but that those in our capital city do not deserve representation in our national legislature? How ridiculous!

I only wish more of you people would come out and say why you do not want DC Statehood. You don't want anymore Democrats in Congress, and you'd probably be happy taking away their right to vote in presidential elections. The thought of one or two more black senators appauls you (you're getting impatient! Why hasn't anyone killed that uppity negro Obama?! He might become President!), you really wish the negro would know his place in society and quit striving for equality and accept his position as your inferior. Those who oppose DC Statehood hate America, hate blacks, and hate democracy.

The one who has a picture in his signature comparing a US President to Hitler is complaining about hating America?

Just a question, man.

[opebo]

The people of the District of Columbia deserve full voting rights in Congress and statehood.

Anyone who opposes this does not truly value what the United States supposedly stands for. How can one tell me Iraqis deserve to be able to vote, but that those in our capital city do not deserve representation in our national legislature? How ridiculous!

I only wish more of you people would come out and say why you do not want DC Statehood. You don't want anymore Democrats in Congress, and you'd probably be happy taking away their right to vote in presidential elections. The thought of one or two more black senators appauls you (you're getting impatient! Why hasn't anyone killed that uppity negro Obama?! He might become President!), you really wish the negro would know his place in society and quit striving for equality and accept his position as your inferior. Those who oppose DC Statehood hate America, hate blacks, and hate democracy.

Beautifully stated Jesus!  Huzzah! I could not agree more.

[7,052,770]

The people of the District of Columbia deserve full voting rights in Congress and statehood.

Anyone who opposes this does not truly value what the United States supposedly stands for. How can one tell me Iraqis deserve to be able to vote, but that those in our capital city do not deserve representation in our national legislature? How ridiculous!

I only wish more of you people would come out and say why you do not want DC Statehood. You don't want anymore Democrats in Congress, and you'd probably be happy taking away their right to vote in presidential elections. The thought of one or two more black senators appauls you (you're getting impatient! Why hasn't anyone killed that uppity negro Obama?! He might become President!), you really wish the negro would know his place in society and quit striving for equality and accept his position as your inferior. Those who oppose DC Statehood hate America, hate blacks, and hate democracy.

Beautifully stated Jesus!  Huzzah! I could not agree more.

seriously, that pretty much sums it up

[Verily]

The people of the District of Columbia deserve full voting rights in Congress and statehood.

Anyone who opposes this does not truly value what the United States supposedly stands for. How can one tell me Iraqis deserve to be able to vote, but that those in our capital city do not deserve representation in our national legislature? How ridiculous!

I only wish more of you people would come out and say why you do not want DC Statehood. You don't want anymore Democrats in Congress, and you'd probably be happy taking away their right to vote in presidential elections. The thought of one or two more black senators appauls you (you're getting impatient! Why hasn't anyone killed that uppity negro Obama?! He might become President!), you really wish the negro would know his place in society and quit striving for equality and accept his position as your inferior. Those who oppose DC Statehood hate America, hate blacks, and hate democracy.

The one who has a picture in his signature comparing a US President to Hitler is complaining about hating America?

Just a question, man.

I don't know why that has anything to do with what he's saying. He could be a hypocrite and still be correct.