Talk Elections

The LA Times reports that the lame duck Congress is likely to grant DC a voting representative and, as part of the deal, give Utah an extra Congressman (Utah just missed an extra seat after the last census).  Although the motivation is to give DC a representative (obviously a Democrat) and balance that with likely Republican (Utah), it will add one Electoral Vote to Utah (but not DC), and eliminate the possibility of a 269:269 Electoral college tie.

This idea has been kicking around for several years and the Constitutionality of giving DC a vote in Congress is controversal.

See:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dcvote22nov22,1,6204229.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

I agree with Turley. 

The law would be directly unconstitutional, because by no means has DC ever been considered a "state" for constitutional purposes and Art. I, Sect. 2, Cl.3 specifically says that representatives must be apportioned "among the several states".  The 22nd amendment uses the language that DC will be given electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives "if it were a State".  This clearly implies DC is not a state, and certainly isn't one under constitutional design.

I tend to agree this seems to be unconstitutional, but Article 1, section 5 does state ‘each House shall be the judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members’ so one can rationalize that the House has the right to give the current DC delegate voting rights equivalent to other Members.

Depends on how they word it.  Before the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, the delegates and the Resident Commissioner were part of the Committee of the Whole House where most business takes place.  It would be constitutional to add Eleanor back to the Committee of the Whole House, but as a Representative, no way it passes constitutional muster given Article 1 section 2 "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," since D.C. is not a State, they cannot elect a Representative.

Yep, I had forgotten about the Committee.  But we agree about the rest.

I still feel that they should just let DC residents vote in Maryland's elections and extend Maryland's congressional districts into DC.

No, bad idea. :)

They should just pass a constitutional amendment giving DC voting rights.

Why is that a bad idea?

Because then D.C. would stop getting so much federal money.

This is the only really constitutional solution. I find it amazing that a Canadian can see this but many of the American posters do not. Are Canadians really that much smarter than Americans? ;)

A constitutional amendment isn't constitutional?

Since when has the Constitution ever stopped Congress from doing anything?

I'm all for "civil rights" giving us an extra electoral vote :)

Why don't they just make D.C. a state and settle this thing once and for all?

Doggone, everyone. If I was from D.C., I'd be really, really, REALLY mad right about now about never having proper representation in Congress or the Electoral College.

I don't think it even requires a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

The problem is D.C. wants to both be a State and still live off the Federal dole.  Without the Federal largess, D.C. has too small a tax base (because of all the government property in D.C.) to make it on its own.  What they ought to do is retrocede most of D.C. to Maryland, but even the Democrats in Maryland aren't that dumb as to take up that burden.

And I'll take it too, since we gain an extra House seat for free, and there's no guarantee the extra electoral vote will still be Republican beyond 2008 after the next reapportionment.

Plus, as a practical matter, I think it's desirable to have an odd number of electroal votes so that there can't be a tie. This assures the election can never be thrown into the House unless a 3rd party candidate wins electoral votes.

You do realize that problem wasn't created until the 22nd amendment passed, right?

Yes.

At the time, it was one potentially bad thing about the amendment, albeit outweighed overall by the positives of that amendment. Now, the positive effects are congruent with an otherwise positive change. :)

I guess.  Perhaps you should read Federalist 143.

It would be a shame for Utah to spend all that money to hold an election for a Representative that never will be seated.  When the bill is struck down because of the D.C. provision the extra Utah representative goes bye-bye as well, since the bill explictly says the provisions are not severable.

DC should be joined to Virginia, it would be even things out more.

If the Republicans ever let that happen I would be angry beyond belief.

I disagree.  I don't think that sort of thing should be decided on a political basis, and there is really no other basis that I can think of for picking Virginia over Maryland.

The better basis for Maryland is that all of present-day DC was ceded to the federal government from Maryland.

The part of DC that was ceded from Virginia was given back to Virginia in 1847 anyway, and the Potomac River forms a nice, natural boundary between the two states.

It does in fact require a Constitutional Ammendment as was attemted on August 22, 1978 when the District of Columbia Voting Rights Ammendment was passed by Congress.  However it failed to be added to the Constitution because it had only been approved by 16 state legislatures when the 7 year deadline for ratification expired.  The states that ratified the ammendment were: 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. 

Can you imagine the disappointment in DC when after a year of being up for consideration only 6 states had ratified the ammendment?  It boggles my mind how the state legislatures could have let this go by.  Maybe now that the Dems control a majority of them DC will have a chance again.

It appears unlikely that 109th will get to the current voting rights act but Democratic leaders have indicated it will be a top priority in the 110th.

And we shall fight it to the death.

(unless we can work out a few more EV's for Utah to balance it out) :)

VA already got their chunk back. The remaining portion was ceded from MD.

^^^
Bush would have still won VA by about 80,000 votes.




You would actually deny your fellow Americans the right to have themselves represented in Congress for pety political reasons?

You're disgusting.

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.  Its fairly obvious that the addition of DC as a state or any granting of full representation to the District would add two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative to Congress.  Another issue that arises is that unless the size of the House is increased, one state would be losing a seat in order for DC to gain one.  I beleive the currently proposed bill to grant both Utah and DC a new seat would permanantly increase the size of the house by two.

IMO the size of the House is too small.  No single Representative can accurately represent the wishes of over 750,000 people.  Montana, Delaware, and South Dakota all deserve to have another representative under that assertion.  Either that or the method of apportionment should be changed so that the state with the highest population to representative ratio receives the next seat.  Using that method the 2000 apportionment would change as follows:
CA: -2 instead of +1
CT: -0 instead of -1
DE: +1 instead of +0
FL: +1 instead of +2
MS: -0 instead of -1
MT: +1 instead of +0
NY: -3 instead of -2
NC: +0 instead of +1
OH: -2 instead of -1
OK: -0 instead of -1
OR: +1 instead of +0
SD: +1 instead of +0
TX: +1 instead of +2
UT: +1 instead of +0

If these totals had been in affect during 2004 Kerry gets one less electoral vote so this has little affect in major shifts as far as party power goes.  It just shifts the power slightly in favor of smaller states as evidenced by their gains in my scenario.

The apportionment methods rely on a priority value k, with a state always being guaranteed at least one rep.

The current system of sqrt((n-1)*n)*k required for n reps is already biased in favor of small states.  1.42k gives a state 2 reps, while 53.49k gives a state only 53 reps. That's not fair.

The Jefferson method of n*k require for n reps was much less favorable to small states.

The Webster method was (n-1/2)*k for n reps

The Hamilton method worked slightly differently.

I think you mean the 23rd, unless George W. Bush's inability to get re-elected somehow induces the ability for a tie in the electoral college. :P

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 bill in question is H.R.5388 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05388:@@@X|/bss/d109query.html|) the constitutional arguments are made here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp109&sid=cp109OeQXd&refer=&r_n=hr593p1.109&item=&sel=TOC_24067&). 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.

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)

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.

The fact that you would hold ransom the voting rights of over half a million tax paying American citizens just so your party can gain a few extra votes for itself is disgusting.  Although I support the current compromise bill I still find it repulsive that we have to resort to such measures to give DC residents the simple right to vote.  DC should have been granted equal congressional representation back when the 23rd amendment was passed.  They at least should have gotten it in 1978.

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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=33630.0) MN is expected to lose a seat, but would have the highest priority to keep that seat with the additional members to the House.

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.

You know what, you're exactly right.  I don't want to hold ransom the voting rights of any tax-paying American citizen.  Declare DC a tax-free haven and watch it blossom!

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?

I think it would require a new Constitutional Amendment to retrocede DC to Maryland because the 23rd Amendment would have to be undone.  I don't think Maryland or DC have any desire to reunite though.  We shouldn't force it on them either.  I think a better course for those who favor the retrocession option would be to give DC its own Congressional District, allow DC residents to vote and run for office as Maryland Senators, and maintain its current 3EVs. 

Yeah you'd like that wouldn't you.... that way you get 3 Dem EV's instead of just basically adding 1 to Maryland (which is about all that the population of DC would be entitled to)

Well I suppose we could use your preferred method of equalization.  If your willing to force North and South Dakota together I'll gladly force DC and Maryland together.  I'm sure neither of those parties will mind us forcing them together at all.

Hmm... that might get rid of at least one, and probably two Dem Senators :)

Should Maryland actually want to annex DC then that would be acceptable.

However, when it comes down to it, neither Maryland nor Virginia are interested in annexing a big crime-infested city full of poor people.

Regardless of that, I, as any real democracy and freedom loving American would, of course support their right for representation in Congress.

True, some people like McDONalds are democracy-loathing Nazi scumbags who have absolutely no problem suppressing their fellow Americans. Afterall McDONalds, they're just a bunch of black people, right? I'm sure deep down inside you're thinking it would be easier to just kill everyone there and turn it into a national park.

Jesus has spoken and his word is true and good.  LOL :D

Obviously Maryland isn't going to want DC. It's nothing but a liability for them; all of that government property of course brings in zero tax revenue and has to be maintained, you need lots of police due to the high crime rate, and the poor folks who live there don't pay much in taxes anyway. It's obviously a net loss financially, lots of expenses and little revenue.

Clearly DC should have representation in Congress. I'd prefer it have 2 Senators and a Representative of its own (i.e., make it a state in all but name), but making it a part of Maryland for purposes of the House and Senate would be acceptable. I don't think it should lose the 3 Electoral Votes that it already has now, however.

A third of the city is actually White, and large parts of that are extremely rich...

Actually, in terms of land area the "white third" occupies, probably, about a half of DC. And of the "black" neighborhoods, quite a few are pretty middle class.  The poor black neighborhoods are a well-defined chunk of the city. Of course, Anacostia is a nasty ghetto, but DC is not just Anacostia.  I am pretty sure Maryland would be happy to get back Georgetown, Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan and quite a few other places :).

Even if Maryland was willing to take back DC I doubt that DC residents are ready to give up their fight for complete autonomy and representation.  Especially not since they've been so close to gaining some of their major goals in recent years.

Under the 23rd Amendment, Congress determines the method of appointment of electors.  In the legislation that proposed combining DC with Maryland for congressional voting, Congress would determine that no electors be chosen from DC.

Or perhaps they could apportion them on the basis of the national popular vote.