Republicans may gain one extra EV in '08

[zorkpolitics]

A bill has been introduced to give DC a congressional representative.  To balance that Democratic seat, one more congressional seat would be added to the next state in line for a seat, Utah.  In 2008 that would create 539 EV, eliminate any possiblity of an Electoral College tie, and give the Republicans one more EV from Utah:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/politics/04vote.html?oref=login

So even without a nominee the Democrats have fallen farther behind...

[Joe Biden 2020]

A bill has been introduced to give DC a congressional representative. To balance that Democratic seat, one more congressional seat would be added to the next state in line for a seat, Utah. In 2008 that would create 539 EV, eliminate any possiblity of an Electoral College tie, and give the Republicans one more EV from Utah:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/politics/04vote.html?oref=login

So even without a nominee the Democrats have fallen farther behind...

That sounds like a good idea!!

[A18]

Unconstitutional

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I like the idea.   I wish we could do this without the Dems... then we could go to DC and say "See, we got ya'll a vote!".  Then rather than getting beat by a 90 point margin in DC... maybe we could get beat by an... um... 89.5% margin!  Woohoo!

[A18]

It is completely unconstitutional. Congress can not just grant voting seats to federal property.

[zorkpolitics]

It is completely unconstitutional. Congress can not just grant voting seats to federal property.

First its granting rights to the people not the property.
Second under Article 1 Section 4, the House may pass laws to regulate choosing its representatives and under Article 1, section 5 the House is the judge of the qualificaitons of its Memebers.

[A18]

Which isn't the same as just adding members. Under your logic, the Democrats, if in power, could vote to give DC 90 representatives.

[Joe Biden 2020]

If this bill does pass, according to the NY Times article, two extra states would lose a Congressional seat in the 2010 census on top of the shuffle of Congressional seats in the next census.  I just don't want one of the losers to be Oklahoma.  We lost one EV in the 2000 census taking us from 8 to 7.  We are just big enough to be considered a medium-size prize for the GOP (or Dems if they pull a rabbit out of their hat).

[Joe Biden 2020]

Which isn't the same as just adding members. Under your logic, the Democrats, if in power, could vote to give DC 90 representatives.

Isn't the House limited to 435 members at the beginning of each census?  If that is true, you would have to take every state with 11 or fewer EV's down to only 3 each including Washington State, Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana.  The proportion wouldn't be there anymore.

[zorkpolitics]

Which isn't the same as just adding members. Under your logic, the Democrats, if in power, could vote to give DC 90 representatives.

You are correct, logically the House could award 90 seats to DC.  Just as the Constitution allows a state to award all its electoral votes to me if they wanted to.  Its unlikley, its undemocratic, its political suicide, but its not unconstitutional

[Erc]

Referring you to the Fourteenth Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

D.C. is not a state.  Ergo, it may not have a Representative.

[Notre Dame rules!]

It's a bad idea.  If you give them a Rep, soon they'll be demanding two Senators as well.  How is the GOP going to counter  that?   

Federal district can demand representatives, then what is to stop the Indian nations from doing the same thing?

[jimrtex]

A bill has been introduced to give DC a congressional representative.  To balance that Democratic seat, one more congressional seat would be added to the next state in line for a seat, Utah.  In 2008 that would create 539 EV, eliminate any possiblity of an Electoral College tie, and give the Republicans one more EV from Utah:

While searching for the bill on Thomas, I came across HR 190 which would treat DC as part of Maryland for the purposes of electing representatives, senators, and presidential electors.

Of particular interest is Section 2, where Congress finds that there is no reason to treat the residents of the District of Columbia should be treated any different than residents of other federal installations, such as military posts, national forests, etc. of which the Congress also has "like authority" (Article I, Section 8, US Constitution).  As with DC residents, persons living on federal installations were denied the right to vote.  But unlike DC, the right to vote for federal officers in the state where the installation is located was restored.  The findings also note that citizens living overseas are permitted to vote in federal elections, even though they are not subject to the laws of the state they vote in, pay not taxes to that state, and may have no intent to return to that state.

The proposed bill would permit DC residents to vote as if they were Maryland residents for representatives, senators, and presidential electors, under Maryland laws, and also to run for office.  DC would be treated as a unit of local government for purposes of administration of elections (e.g a county equivalent).

To get around the 23rd Amendment, the legislation provides that no presidential electors be appointed for the DC (Congress has the authority to act as a legislature in defining the manner by which the electors from DC are elected).

For purposes of apportionment, the population of Maryaland and District would be treated as a single entity.  DC would be required to be within one congressional district (or if its population warranted, one or more complete CDs within the district).

As a temporary measure, the size of Congress would be increased by 2 members (effective January 2007).  One would go to Maryland+DC, and the other to Utah.  The 4 districts in Utah would be according to state law passed in Utah in 2001 in anticipation of gaining a 4th representative (i.e. the districts have already been drawn).  Until Maryland is able to redistrict, DC will be treated as a CD of its own.  The House would revert to 435 members in 2013.

It appears that Rep. Davis lifted this last section out of HR 190 and dropped the other parts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The concept is interesting but the means is unconstitutional. (At least as far as H.R. 190 is concerned that is.  Mr. Davis’s bill. which I have been unable to locate the text to, may get around that problem.)   They can't simply lump DC and Maryland together for electoral college purposes because that would interfere with the right of the Maryland legislature to decide how Maryland’s electors would be chosen.

Quite frankly, since no one is forced to live in DC, I'm not in favor what would likely be at best a quasi-constitutional fix.  In any case, there is absolutely no way that Dc is going to get Senators without becoming a State, as my interpretation is that such an amendment would require all fifty States to approve of giving up their equal sufferage in the Senate.

[minionofmidas]

I like the idea.   I wish we could do this without the Dems... then we could go to DC and say "See, we got ya'll a vote!".  Then rather than getting beat by a 90 point margin in DC... maybe we could get beat by an... um... 89.5% margin!  Woohoo!

LOL!

[minionofmidas]

A good idea, but unfortunately likely unconstitutional on account of that "states" word in there. (Philip's "proposal" of 90 seats would be struck down by the Supreme Court on basis of their established one-man-one-vote precedents, btw.)
As to the second plan, yeah, second best to just giving DC to Maryland. Ernest points out a constitutional problem with it, but that could be got around by having the Maryland Legislature vote on it too.

[MODU]

Referring you to the Fourteenth Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

D.C. is not a state.  Ergo, it may not have a Representative.

Bingo!  For those who complain that DC residents lack representation should not push for an extra seat in the House, but rather to allow DC residents to vote in and participate in Maryland politics.  "DC" is the nations capital (federal government), and the capital does not need representation.

Currently, the only way DC can obtain Representation rights is for it to become a state.  By allowing them to be considered residents of Maryland in the city of Washington, DC would be the only "easy" way around all of this.

[Brandon H]

Is it unconstitutional for DC to have 3 electoral votes if they do not have a member of the House or Senate? But they do have residents who get to vote in the election, so they do need electoral votes. Is this change even necessary in the first place?

If two states are going to lose a representative, make one Utah if it just gained one.

[Erc]

Is it unconstitutional for DC to have 3 electoral votes if they do not have a member of the House or Senate? But they do have residents who get to vote in the election, so they do need electoral votes. Is this change even necessary in the first place?

The 24th (?) Amendment gave them an electoral vote no larger than the smallest state, iirc.

[Joe Republic]

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why will they need to 'balance' the new seat by adding one to another state?

[Erc]

To make the Republicans happy (one seat for one seat)...otherwise the thing wouldn't have a chance.

Of course, the Democrats will have the last laugh, won't they...when they win Utah in 2008...

[Joe Republic]

To make the Republicans happy (one seat for one seat)...otherwise the thing wouldn't have a chance.

Of course, the Democrats will have the last laugh, won't they...when they win Utah in 2008...

In terms of EVs, then yes.  But at the congressional level, who knows?  The most rabidly conservative part of Utah currently has a Democratic congressman.

[zorkpolitics]

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense at all.  Why will they need to 'balance' the new seat by adding one to another state?

Unlike the Senate, the House has no procedure to break tie votes, hence it has ussually had an odd number of members, if DC gets one then another must be added to avoid tie votes. 

[ian]

Surprisingly, I agree with the Conservatives on this point.  DC doesn't deserve statehood or congressional representation; they get way too many advantages already, considering that they have in-state tuition to any public school in the country, and that DC receives up to ten times as much federal spending as the 50 states.  They have it made in the shade; they don't need any more perks.

[jimrtex]

The concept is interesting but the means is unconstitutional. (At least as far as H.R. 190 is concerned that is.  Mr. Davis’s bill. which I have been unable to locate the text to, may get around that problem.)   They can't simply lump DC and Maryland together for electoral college purposes because that would interfere with the right of the Maryland legislature to decide how Maryland’s electors would be chosen.

Residents who live at various federal facilities within Maryland are permitted by law to participate in the selection of presidential electors, and included in Marylands population for purposes of apportionment and defining congressional districts.  This participation in no way interferes with Maryland's legislature in determining that the electors will be chosen by popular vote.  Likewise, inclusion of the DC voters in the electorate will have no impact on the manner by which presidential electors are chosen.

Maryland's prerogatives do not extend so far as to allow exclusion of certain voters (for example, they could not exclude residents of Prince Georges County, but permit residents of Montgomery County to vote).  But they could choose electors by CDs (Maryland-Nebraska method) or they could have the Maryland governor appoint them, bypassing the voters of Maryland and DC entirely.