Apparently the Senate cloture vote is more newsworthy than the House rules vote on a bill. We have heard on many bills that the cloture vote is the bottleneck or the hurdle that can trip up a bill. In the House the rules vote is the procedural hurdle that must precede the actual vote and can be used to kill or hamper a bill. This is taking place right now with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I am not particularly a fan of using technicalities, but considering my position on this bill I’m happy to see any delay.
I figure that each passing day makes the bill less enticing for Utah as we draw ever closer to getting our extra seat anyway. In fact, if this bill had still not passed by 2013 and Hatch were still in office I would love to see him reverse position on the bill once Utah were no longer next in line to get the "balancing" extra seat. (I would doubly expect this if the state next in line for a seat leaned Democratic.)
Having studied the issues surrounding this bill there is no doubt that the residents of D.C. have a complaint worth addressing – the only problem is that it must be addressed within the constraints of the law. The only issues that are truly clear cut here are the tax related arguments. The proper resolution for those arguments is not a simple bill but a constitutional amendment to the effect that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and all territories subject to the same federal taxes as the several states."
I don’t claim that the threshold for an amendment is an easy one to climb, but I think that a majority of fair minded people could be brought to support such an amendment along with the requisite supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Problem solved, constitutional objections averted.
Leave a Reply