As soon as I read the title, D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat, I knew we were in for more misinformation. To then go to the article and find that it was written by Senator Hatch was a pleasant surprise – I had been afraid that it was another editorial board capitulating to his "expertise."
Most of the article reiterates the arguments that got me writing last time but there are a few new twists that should be corrected. Many, like me, argue that due to our high growth Utah is assured of another seat after the 2010 census. Orrin answers that "Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census." That is damning to the very bill he’s peddling. Look at the language of the bill – it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it’s not Utah in 2010 – we could immediately lose our extra seat after the census if Utah really was not growing as fast as we thought.
America’s founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress.
We should clarify that between 1788 and 1800 the founders treated Americans living in those ceded lands as if they still lived in the state which had ceded the land – not as an independent political entity – so they could be represented in Congress. That’s more like the idea being promoted by Rep. Chaffetz.
Apparently Orrin thinks that Congress has authority over the Constitution:
. . . the courts have ruled that Congress can use its legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" to accomplish there what the Constitution accomplishes for states.
It is true that Congress has legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" but Congress does not have authority to redefine the Constitution simply because it involves the District. The Constitution talks about apportioning tazes among the citizens of the states, but it does not prohibit Congress from taxing the district over which they have exclusive legislative authority. It does not allow Congress, however, to stipulate the nature of Congress – that requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s what we need, an amendment removing the cap on the size of Congress and stipulating a maximum size (in population) for a Congressional District. At the same time this amendment could grant voting representation to the citizens of any territory which pays federal taxes (or any other generic designation that would encompass D.C.).
Leave a Reply