2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[Josh/Devilman88]

I used this link(Table E), I believe I did it right. Since UT will already have 6 seats they are out of the running for gaining a seat. With the new bill, if I read it right the number of reps in house would be 437 not 435. So that means seat 436 and 437 would be added.



Last five in(in order): TX(36), NY(28), SC(7), OR(6), WA(12)
Last five out(in order): NC(14), MN(8 ), MO(9), IL(19), CA(54)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

[Holmes]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

If that happens, I hope residents of DC don't have to pay federal taxes either.

[True Federalist]

S. 160 would indeed increase the size of the House of Representatives to 437 if enacted and it passes Constitutional muster.  The former might happen, but the second won't unless the Supreme Court dodges the issue by failing to find anyone who sues has standing to sue.

Incidentally, I note that DC is limited to a single Representative in this bill.  While that is all its population warrants now, that hasn't always been the case.  Under the Censuses of 1910 to 1970, DC would have been entitled to two Representatives had it been a State (assuming all other States kept the number of Representative they would have had.)

[Josh/Devilman88]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

[Snowguy716]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

[Josh/Devilman88]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

[Hashemite]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

So just because they're a district and not a state, you're arguing that nearly 600k people don't have the right to be represented in Congress, even when they pay taxes? Lol.

[Josh/Devilman88]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

DC always going Democrat is not even part of the reason for my opposition. I do oppose it because it is the only reason for the Republicans' Democrats' opposition support.

[blagohair.com]

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.

No, not in this bill:

Sec 3 of the bill:

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members- Effective with respect to the 112th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a).

(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking `the then existing number of Representatives' and inserting `the number of Representatives established with respect to the 112th Congress'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial census.

(c) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by President-

(1) STATEMENT OF APPORTIONMENT BY PRESIDENT- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the amendments made by this Act and identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

(2) REPORT BY CLERK- Not later than 15 calendar days after receiving the revised version of the statement of apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

[Josh/Devilman88]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

DC always going Democrat is not even part of the reason for my opposition. I do oppose it because it is the only reason for the Republicans' Democrats' opposition support.

No, you are just stupid if you believe that, because in this bill it would give UT a new CD too, which would most likely have a Republican Congress(wo)men.

[Holmes]

Actually, if you look at Utah's redistricting plans on its state legislature site, there's one plan that has the new district right in Salt Lake City, and Dems can make that competitive. But its first election in 2010, it'll be an at-large seat, which'll obviously favor Republicans, then in 2012 there'll probably be the incumbent effect, even if it is in Salt Lake City.

[nclib]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

DC always going Democrat is not even part of the reason for my opposition. I do oppose it because it is the only reason for the Republicans' Democrats' opposition support.

No, you are just stupid if you believe that, because in this bill it would give UT a new CD too, which would most likely have a Republican Congress(wo)men.

After the reapportionment, that seat would go to whichever state would just miss out under the current plan. That state wouldn't necessarily be Utah and the seat wouldn't necessarily be safe for one party or the other.

[Vasall des Midas]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

DC always going Democrat is not even part of the reason for my opposition. I do oppose it because it is the only reason for the Republicans' Democrats' opposition support.

So you support DC statehood then?

[blagohair.com]

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.

No, not in this bill:

Sec 3 of the bill:

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members- Effective with respect to the 112th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a).

(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking `the then existing number of Representatives' and inserting `the number of Representatives established with respect to the 112th Congress'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial census.

(c) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by President-

(1) STATEMENT OF APPORTIONMENT BY PRESIDENT- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the amendments made by this Act and identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

(2) REPORT BY CLERK- Not later than 15 calendar days after receiving the revised version of the statement of apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

That sucks.  I really don't like it when the number of representatives increases because that's two more salaries we have to pay.
I would like to see the Territories get a vote in Congress too.

[Verily]

Actually, if you look at Utah's redistricting plans on its state legislature site, there's one plan that has the new district right in Salt Lake City, and Dems can make that competitive. But its first election in 2010, it'll be an at-large seat, which'll obviously favor Republicans, then in 2012 there'll probably be the incumbent effect, even if it is in Salt Lake City.

The Democrats already hold a seat in Utah. The new Salt Lake City district would become Matheson's district; it's more or less what his district looked like before the Republicans tried to gerrymander it away in 2002 by splitting Salt Lake City (and they failed). The Utah delegation after 2012 will be guaranteed to be 1 Democrat and 3 Republicans (whereas right now it's 1 Democrat and 2 Republicans).

[Padfoot]

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.

No, not in this bill:

Sec 3 of the bill:

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members- Effective with respect to the 112th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a).

(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking `the then existing number of Representatives' and inserting `the number of Representatives established with respect to the 112th Congress'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial census.

(c) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by President-

(1) STATEMENT OF APPORTIONMENT BY PRESIDENT- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the amendments made by this Act and identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

(2) REPORT BY CLERK- Not later than 15 calendar days after receiving the revised version of the statement of apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

That sucks.  I really don't like it when the number of representatives increases because that's two more salaries we have to pay.
I would like to see the Territories get a vote in Congress too.

I actually think that a significant increase in the size of the House is long overdue.  The problem is that Congresspeople are greedy and have direct control over their own salaries which is ridiculous.

Also, I agree that the territories deserve a vote.  Personally, I'd like to see DC treated equally as a state with regards to federal representation and I think each territory should be given one full member of the House and one electoral vote.

[Senator Ben]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

[Hashemite]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

lol Ben.

[Holmes]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

But DC is in the South.

[Senator Ben]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

lol Ben.

The Constitution is clear that DC should not have a member of Congress.  This Bill should be struck down.

[Holmes]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

lol Ben.

The Constitution is clear that DC should not have a member of Congress.  This Bill should be struck down.

At one time the Constitution was clear that women could not vote. Your point is?