Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
The news media is supposed to help us make sense of the world around us, but to a large degree most news organizations have relegated themselves to being nothing more than data streams. A perfect example today comes with the news regarding the D.C. Voting rights bill that Orrin Hatch introduced (again) yesterday. In the Washington Watch section of today’s Utah Policy we get news of the event with no analysis and a mention of, but no link to, the press release. They manage to quote Hatch as he contradicts himself (I’ll get to that in a minute) but offer no analysis or context. The Washington Post covers the story in a biased fashion, but at least in their case we could expect that as Washington has everything to gain and nothing to lose by this bill. Simply put, the residents of D.C. have a legitimate complaint and they would rather compromise on the issue than take the time to make the change in the right way. The compromise is that they offer to help Utah to a temporary solution to Utah’s legitimate concern of being denied a seat in conjunction with a permanent solution to their predicament. Looking at the Deseret News coverage we find the story played as a tussle between Hatch and Jason Chaffetz but still little analysis of the merits of the bill.
Let’s see what analysis of the merits of the bill would tell us.
The residents of D.C. have a legitimate grievance about their lack of voting representation in the House. The proper solution would be an amendment that would grant voting representation in the House to the citizens of any territory that pays federal taxes, or returning the residential portions of D.C. to Maryland as suggested by Rep. Chaffetz – this bill does neither of those things. Likewise Utah has a legitimate complaint about being denied another seat after the 2000 census. The proper solution is our pursuit of a redress through the judicial system and a bill to examine and improve the methodology of counting for the census as well as growing our way outside the margin of error in the census system. We have the growth, we pursued the judicial relief, and this bill does not address the census methodologies in any way.
Let’s see what sloppy journalism ignores in Hatch’s statement.
While the 2010 census and reapportionment might provide Utah an additional seat, the failure of the 2000 process showed that this is not a sure thing. This bill maximizes the chances of securing an additional seat for Utah, which has had one of the country’s fastest growth rates since the last census.
I have no doubt that when Hatch spoke he emphasized the word "might" regarding Utah gaining another seat after the 2010 census. Somehow he can get away with saying that, and admitting that Utah has one of the fastest growing populations since the 2000 census, without anyone questioning in their stories how having one of the fastest growth rates in the country would allow us to still be below the margin for error in the next census.
For those who are wondering, the bill makes no mention of Utah. It provides two new seats in the House and assigns one to D.C. The supporters of the bill are trying to work fast before Utah gains their seat in the 2010 census because they aren’t willing to wait until Congress will give them what they deserve, which is representation in the house without resorting to a gimmick such as offering a balancing seat to poor, picked-on Utah. They also fear that after 2010 there will not be a Republican state with a legitimate grievance about their apportionment of representatives. I understand that legislation is dependent on the art of compromise, and rightly so in most cases, but gimmicks are not the same thing as compromise.
Orrin is not representing the interests of his constituents – he’s simply representing the interests of some of his friends in Washington. If that were not the case he would not have to lie to us and say that we might not get our deserved representation from the 2010 census.
14 replies on “Orrin Depends on Sloppy Journalism”
Utah *had* a legitimate complaint about being denied a seat in 2000, but it does not really *have* a legitimate complaint. We applied every available remedy to the cause and came up on the losing end every single time. The appropriate answer is not to circumvent the Constitution, but to sit down and wait for our turn in line. If it’s not 2010, so be it. Let’s play by the rules instead of griping that the game was lost due to bad refereeing.
Besides, do we honestly think that South Carolina wouldn’t have griped like crazy had Utah gotten the seat instead of SC? I see no advantage in Hatch or any other person representing Utah to continue to push the sour grapes angle on this.
You make a good point about the difference between “have” and “had.” Our grievance was heard and a ruling made so we have no current legitimate complaint.
I also agree that it is useless to complain about “bad refereeing,” that’s just a sore loser tactic. If there is a problem with the rules then we work within the system to change the rules, and if the rules are fine then we wait our turn, not tweak the system to suit our whims.
“VI That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good. ”
Virginia Bill of Rights, June, 1776
Do we or do we not still believe this?
“the residents of D.C. have a legitimate complaint and they would rather compromise on the issue than take the time to make the change in the right way.”
In 1978, Congress passed an amendment to make DC a state, and it failed ratification (only 16 of 38 states needed ratified). In 2000 DC took the issue to the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and was told, in effect, “Go away kid, ya BOTHER me.”
We’ve been waiting since 1801. How long SHOULD it take to get the rest of America to recognize and respect our inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights?
citizenw,
I’m with you – we should get representation for D.C.
D.C. should not be a state, that would defeat the purpose of creating the district in the first place. The constitution was written with a different expectation of the Federal government than we have today so it did not adequately provide for the representation of D.C. in Congress. The solution to that is not to do an end-run around the Constitution – it is to amend it. The most reasonable amendment would grant D.C. representation in the House without making it a state.
Just because you’re fellow citizens are not very understanding of your cause does not excuse trampling the supreme law of the land.
As a resident of DC, I have to say, quite frankly, it is NOT really OUR Constitution anymore. We have not had an opportunity to participate in amendments 12-27 (since 1801). It is NOT our Congress, we have no vote and precious little voice (since 1801). They are NOT EVEN our Courts; we have had not say in their staffing or operations for over 200 years (since 1801). We have in effect been evicted from our own native land, and we want back IN!
I respectfully suggest that it is not in the long-term interest of this country, nor is it in any way compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded, to continue to exclude, alienate, and disillusion the population of this nation’s capital. If you recall, the original Constitution, in spite of “all men are created equal”, counted non whites as three-fifths of whites for roughly the first fifty years (say 1770-1820); black men were not allowed to vote (and then reluctantly in many cases) until 1870; women were not allowed to vote until (after who-knows-how-many bedroom skirmishes) 1920; 18-20 year olds were sent to war but not allowed to vote until 1970. All of these recognized deficiencies in our Constitution have been, over time, remedied. An additional deficiency has been identified and needs to be remedied. Catch 22 is that DC denizens cannot petition their representatives to correct this deficiency because they HAVE none.
In 1978 Congress passed an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification that would have made DC a state. Only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified. In 2000 DC’s complaint was heard by the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and the response was basically “Go away, kid, ya BOTHER me!
If the supreme law of the land becomes destructive toward the lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of the people, ” it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Virginia Bill of Rights (written by George Mason, instrumental in our Bill of Rights, and mentor to, among others, Jefferson and Madison) says, in Article 6:
“That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.”
Do we still believe that, or do we not?
Madison and Mason (and others) recommended “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” as we refine our Constitution over time “in order to form a more perfect Union.”
DC denizens remind our fellow countrymen, as the colonists reminded the British, that
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our [American] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our …settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf [so far] to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”
The District Clause strongly resembles the Declaratory Act of 1766; each was an attempt by a national legislature to arrogate absolute power over an unrepresented minority of the nation.
The ball is apparently in YOUR Court (so to speak), Ladies and Gentlemen!
An amendment giving DC representation equal to a state would be wonderful, but not a complete solution.
Congress still would have the ability to exercise unwarranted interference in local afairs. Also needed would be a provision limiting Congressional interference in local affairs to those issues that were clearly and compellingly essential from a national interest standpoint. A straightforward way of determining THAT might be to require a high threshold for interference, such as a supermajority vote of both houses on any measure of legislation over DC exclusively.
I agree with most of what you have said – there are just a couple of points that I would address here. First, making D.C. a state is not really an option. The District of Columbia is a special case in our nation in that it was created for the express purpose of providing a location for the seat of our federal government that would not be subject to the jurisdiction of any one of the states. In Article 1 Section 8 it states that Congress shall have exclusive legislative authority over the area that would become the seat of government. (This directly contradicts the claim that Congress asserts unwarranted interference in local affairs since they have exclusive legislative authority over that area. You also claim that the people of D.C. cannot petition their representatives to correct their plight because they have none – that is false, D.C. has a representative although their representative has not vote in Congress. This does put them at a disadvantage, and I agree that this must be corrected, but please don’t misrepresent the current reality.) In many ways D.C. is more comparable to a military base than it is to a state.
I’m not trying to say that the situation is desirable, or even acceptable, but we have to recognize that it is special and can’t be treated simply as another state. We need to find a way to grant representation to D.C. while honoring the fact that it is a special situation as the seat of government. I believe that the founders anticipated that the vast majority of the citizens living there would be in the employ of the government. The more I read and think about this the more I am inclined to believe that the best solution is to cede the residential areas of D.C. back to the states from which those areas were drawn. This would leave Congress in full control of the area where the government is administered while granting the citizens who live in close proximity to the seat of government to have their appropriate representation from their respective states. If the residents of D.C. don’t like that perhaps it is because they prefer their current situation – whatever its disadvantages – to having regular representation in Congress.
“In many ways D.C. is more comparable to a military base than it is to a state.”
I can’t disagree with the reality of that statement(DC is more like “occupied terrotory” than a ” free ‘state’ “), but I vehemently disagree that the “free” citizens who inhabit DC should accept that status quo.
The District Clause is the American equivalent of the Declaratory Act of 1766 (qv); in each case, a nation unwarrantedly arrogating to itself absolute power over an unrepresentd minority of its population. Free people? No under those circumstances. No consent allowed to the manner in which they are governed –is not equal to — “free”.
Thomas Paine in “The American Crisis. Number 1”, Dec 23 1776 said “Britain [In this DC case, read “Congress” or “the fifty states”], with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
Maryland is like the case of a mother who sold her child [DC] down-river. Now that the child is grown, the odds of re-uniting the mother (who has no interest in reuniting) with the child (who is understandably resentful) are minimal at best.
Other parts of the original Constitution, such as the thre-fifths rule, were recognized as incongruent with the underlying fundamental first principles on which the nation was founded, and they were dropped. One of the basic weaknesses of the Constitution, even today, is that it does not reflect the universal suffrage principle, expressed in Article Six of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Piecemeal attempts to correct the situation by the Fifteenth, Nineteeth, and Twenty-sixth amendments have still left gaps in voting rights, which are the primary means by which citizens express their Consent to the manner in which they are Governed.
Mason, Madison and other recommended that the basis for Constitutional provisions be regularly reviewed in light of “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
If there ever were a rationale for the creation of the District (and there may have been once, when the central government was new and weak, and when the district comprised an area whose radius was roughly an hour’s ride at full gallop, etc.), certainly in this era of phones, faxes, emails, internet, TV, cars, trains, planes, missiles, etc., and a federal government which presides strongly over the states, — all of which were likely un-conceived and inconceivable by the Founders in their time–, it is reasonable to re-visit the very raison d’etre for the District.
The supreme sovereign rights of the people (that subset of the nation residing in the “District”) must be balanced against the need for the Federal government to have a secure base of operations. Justification for depriving free citizens of their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights can stand only to the extent that the nation can demonstrate a compelling and unavoidable need to do so in the unavoidable national interest. That result could perhaps be accomplished by changing the language of the District clause from “in all cases whatsoever” to “in cases where the compelling national interest demands it, as demonstrated by a three-fourths vote of both houses”, and by arranging that each DC resident be allowed the same vote for one representative and two senators as is the “gold standard” for all residents of the fifty states. If retrocession to Maryland is untenable, as I have argued above, then perhaps individual DC residents could be allowed to vote in the state to which they express the strongest ties, much as Americans residing overseas can still vote in the state in which they last resided, even if they have lived abroad for decades and have no intention of returning.
OR, since small states like Wyoming are disproportionately over-represented, perhaps DC (and even other territories, if they pay taxes?) should be allowed to vote in and with the smaller(-est) state(s), to correct two deficiencies at once in our ever perfectible Union.
citizenw,
I don’t appreciate the assertion that I have advocated “that the ‘free’ citizens who inhabit DC should accept that status quo.” I have said that we need a change so that the citizens of D.C. do have representation and will continue to push for the appropriate changes to allow that. Also, you act skeptical that there ever existed a reason for the creation of the district. I find that a bit disingenuous considering that the reason was stated plainly at the time of the founding and I repeated that reason in my comment preceding yours. You may disagree with that reason, but please do not pretend that no such reason has ever been offered.
One of the arguments about residents of D.C. being resentful about their position rings a bit hollow for me because it treats the issue as if those residents have been imprisoned or confined to the district – as if they did not have the freedom to go elsewhere. I know that is not a permanent, viable, universal solution, but if many of those residents who
dislike their situation in D.C. were to relocate themselves they would have the representation they desire.
Now, if we accept your assertion that retrocession is untenable (a position I am not yet ready to commit to), I think your idea of allowing residents of D.C. to vote within a state of their choosing is worth serious consideration. This would not be unlike the treatment of military personnel who are located on bases throughout the country and the world. The only challenge I see to that solution would be related to running for office. I would not like a culture to develop where full-time residents of D.C. fill the seats of representation for states they have never lived in (or have not lived in for an extended period of time. If we were to pursue such a solution I would think that residents of D.C. who have adopted a specific state for voting purposes would be required to take up physical residence in a state for a year or two before they could file as a candidate to represent that state.
You idea of having the residents of D.C. as a group to vote as part of one small state is full of troubling possibilities.
The DC lack of representation could potentially be resolved in a myriad of ways, some better than others, some acceptable, some not.
What IS untenable is further stalling and temporizing in the guise of what has become over the last two centuries an interminable “debate”.
This problem is resolvable…we simply need the will to sit down and devise a solution.
I absolutely agree that the problem is resolvable and that the necessary ingredient is the political will to tackle the issue and see it through.
Inevitably the bedrock principles used by the founders (“all men are created equal”, “consent of the governed”, etc.)must transcend and over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution that are conflicting, inconsistent, arbitrary, artificial and/or have become anachronistic. Madison and Mason (among others) recommended “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” as we “form a more perfect Union”.
There I can’t agree. The bedrock principles used by the founders must not transcend or over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution that are conflicting, inconsistent, arbitrary, artificial and/or have become anachronistic, instead those bedrock principles must be used to guide the amendment of the Constitution so that those individual provisions are no longer conflicting, inconsistent, arbitrary, artificial, or anachronistic. That is how we will form a more perfect union. (And I’m not convinced that any of the provisions of the Constitution were actually arbitrary.)