DC Voting Rights

[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.

[Padfoot]

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.

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.  Also, it is not necessary for a metro area to be contained within one state.  There are plenty of metros across the country that contain parts of 2 or even 3 states.

There really is no reason for the people of Maryland to want to join up with Washington DC in a quest for statehood.

[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"?

[Padfoot]

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.

[Verily]

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.

Call me when my county is moved to New York 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"?

[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.

[Padfoot]

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.

[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.

[zorkpolitics]

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.

[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).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[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. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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 operative act here is section 1 of the 1790 Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the proviso indicates that until the Government moves, Maryland and Virginia will still exercise sole sovereign rights over the as of yet unnamed district.  Hence until the District was accepted and moved into, its inhabitants were still citizens of Maryland and Virginia respectively.

Then there is the case of Reily v. Lamar et al (6 US 344 (1805)) in which it was held:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly the residents of D.C. are not citizens of Maryland, any more than the residents of Puerto Rico are residents of New York.  Unless the District or a portion thereof is retroceded to Maryland, so that the residents thereof become citizens of Maryland, then it would be unconstitutional for them to count as citizens of Maryland for purposes of apportionment.  Maryland is free if it wishes to give the people of the District a vote, but it doesn't gain an extra  Representative.  Indeed, it effectively loses a Representative, since the District has about enough population of its own that it would effectly control one of the Maryland districts.

[ottermax]

Well, with DC's current population, there are not really enough people for it to be a state. The idea of having a separate district is a good one. Perhaps extending DC (that would probably be unpopular) so that there are enough people for a state? I don't think it would hurt to at least give DC a representative.

[Padfoot]

Well, with DC's current population, there are not really enough people for it to be a state. The idea of having a separate district is a good one. Perhaps extending DC (that would probably be unpopular) so that there are enough people for a state? I don't think it would hurt to at least give DC a representative.

Actually DC is more populated than Wyoming and it isn't really that much smaller than Alaska, Vermont, and North Dakota.

I'm going to try to avoid delving any further into this discussion as I've already made my opinion known earlier in this topic.

[ottermax]

Well, with DC's current population, there are not really enough people for it to be a state. The idea of having a separate district is a good one. Perhaps extending DC (that would probably be unpopular) so that there are enough people for a state? I don't think it would hurt to at least give DC a representative.

Actually DC is more populated than Wyoming and it isn't really that much smaller than Alaska, Vermont, and North Dakota.

I'm going to try to avoid delving any further into this discussion as I've already made my opinion known earlier in this topic.

Well, according to census estimates, I believe the population of DC is shrinking. I think it could be a state if the surrounding counties in MD and VA were included. That seems like a good proposal, and most people would support it because those who live in the suburbs of DC feel closer connected to DC than Virginia or Maryland.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.)

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.  Utah filed suit over this very issue for Census 2000, so as to get Mormon missionaries overseas counted as residents of Utah and they lost.

In any case, if H.R. 492 calls for the Democrats to lose it's 3 guaranteed electors, it won't get passed by this Congress.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.  Furthermore, thanks to the non-severability provisions of section 9 of that bill, the whole bill is rendered moot as a result.  Trying to finesse the issue of D.C. voting rights with an unconstitutional law is not valid.

The only constitutional options to gain for district residents the right to vote for Members of Congress are:
1) A constitutional amendment to give them Representatives and/or Senators.
2) cede the district to Maryland
3) cede the district to Virginia
4) admit the district as a State of its own

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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.)

Let's leave aside the fact that the prior voting you refer to occurred after the territory that would become the district had been chosen, but before Congress assumed sovereign control of it.  The XXIIIrd Amendment which was passed well after the time the people living in Washington County lost the right to vote in Maryland elections is a stronger bar.

As for that amendment, it definitely affects the apportionment of Electors.
Electors for States are based on the number of Representatives and Senators that a State has.

The XXIIIrd Amendment sets the number of electors the district is entitled to as: "A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State."

While the XXIIIrd Amendment does not grant the district any actual Representatives, it does apportion it a number of implicit Representatives for the purpose of determining the number of Electors the district has.  It does not matter that these Representatives do not exist except as accounting gimmick, or that they have then been later reduced to 1 implicit Representative by the requirement that the district have no more Electors than the least populous State.  The residents of the district are apportioned there and not to any State for the purpose of determining the number of Electors.