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
I have been staunchly opposed to this expansion of the House of Representatives to grant D.C. a voting representative. The political compromise of giving a balancing seat to the Republicans (for Utah) until the next census doesn’t make the move any more legal. Despite what some people may believe I am not opposed to D.C. having a voting representative, but I am opposed to giving D.C. special treatment. As the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people of the United States it would make sense to amend the Constitution to state that:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, districts, and territories of the United States. (changes in bold)
To that ammendment I would add (perhaps as a separate section) the stipulation that:
The size of the House of Representatives shall be determined by the decennial census and the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand nor fall below one for every two hundred thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; (changes in bold)
Such an amendment would provide a legal remedy to the non-voting status of D.C. but would also fix the same issue faces by other U.S. territories. At the same time it would reverse the arbitrary limit on the size of the House of Representatives that was enacted in 1911. This would all be done without resorting to political deal-making in which the deal makers (like our beloved Senator Hatch) feel free to ignore the law of the land in the name of whatever they deem as good.
I have already talked about Thirty-Thousand.org but I was surprised to learn of other groups that oppose Public Law 62-5 (as that bill is known). There was even a good article about it in the Daily Kos back in 2006 (which is where I picked the upper bound at 200,000). Back then the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress, now that Democrats are in control I doubt that the Daily Kos would be very supportive of such a change since it’s their party that is holding the concentrated reins of power now.
I would like to see all those who are interested in returning to population based representation start working with DC Vote to encourage them to push for a full and legal solution to their issue rather than sadling us with the illegal, “politically expedient” half measure they have been pursuing. Perhaps reminding them that they would be able to get three or four voting members of Congress might pursuade them to take up the banner.
3 replies on “Pursue a Real Solution”
Some would argue that the phrase “each state shall have at least one Representative” should be rendered as “each state, district, or territory shall have at least one Representative.” However, I would not agree with this, as some territories have very low populations. Moreover, most non-states do not share the obligations that states shoulder. If they want to legislate like states, they should shoulder those obligations.
There are plenty that would circumvent the Constitution to give DC congressional representation. I completely disagree with this direction. If the Constitution unjustly excludes DC from appropriate representation, we should amend the document and make it right.
Each time this has been tried, however, supporters have discovered very little support among the state legislatures that must vote on the measure. Moreover, they found very little support — even in a heavily Democratic congress — for passage of such an amendment.
Since they can’t get it done the right way, they are looking for other avenues, assuming that the injustice of no representation justifies this approach. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I think that they could find the necessary support if they were to make the amendment not DC-specific (in other words it should be generic to all non-state areas of the nation). I also think that the only guarantee of voting representation should be statehood (in other words territories that don’t meet the population requirements established by Congress would not get voting representation).
Even if they cannot get the necessary level of support they should not try to circumvent the Constitution.
DC is, to my knowledge, the only non-state jurisdiction which pays Federal taxes. It is also the only one of the non-state territories which was part of the original posterity to which the founders referred when they pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to secure Liberty.
That said, the fundamental first principle of participative forms of government is that “just” (ie, legitimate) power flows from the Consent of the Governed. The DC grievance is not (only) about taxes, not even mostly about taxes. It is about Consent of the Governed (or rather the lack of it).
With that in mind, I believe that there is some sense in suggestions that all districts and territories deserve representation (ie, the opportunity to consent to how they are governed). If they are not large enough in population to warrant individual representation, then they could be “gerrymandered” into “districts” large enough to warrant collective representation (they should in that case also be included in the same requirements other citizens have, such as paying taxes).
Another alternative is to allow DC residents to “affiliate” with states, much as expatriate Americans living abroad can still vote in the state of origin years and decades after they have moved abroad (sometimes never to return).
There are myriad ways to resolve the issue of lack of DC representation. The key point is that DC denizens, having been excluded from the system for over two centuries, cannot implement the necessary changes from outside. The impetus must come from their fellow countrymen in the fifty states.