Tag: fourth seat

Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Post author By David
Post date October 19, 2009
No Comments on Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

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

It’s back – the bill that just won’t die. Let’s first explain why this is such a bad bill that I never pass up an opportunity to oppose it. First, it’s unconstitutional and both sides are compromising the integrity of their ideals in order to produce this bad bill. Second, this is an example of governing by exception which is a long-term recipe for disaster. Having only states be represented in Congress is good, except that we want to treat D.C. more like a state. The current census apportionment process is good, except that Utah felt bad about not getting an extra seat on a technical sliver. Long-term the only people who come out ahead when governing by exception are the exploiters who prefer to live in loopholes rather than being ensnared by the system that they are taking advantage of. These are the same people who rarely if ever actually contribute anything to the society in return for playing the leeches role.

There are two very good ideas in this bill which should be pursued without compromise. The first is giving D.C. a voting representative in the House. Any citizen who is subject to the same federal tax laws as the citizens of the states should have a voting representative in Congress – as far as I know that is only D.C. but that rule would apply to any citizen who did not live in a state whether we started taxing American Samoa or Puerto Rico the same as we do for the 50 states. The privilege of representation in the House should be based on the responsibility to pay taxes because taxation is the primary responsibility of the House. Representation in the Senate should be a privilege limited to full statehood.

The second good idea in the bill is the expansion of the House. This should be much more than two seats. In fact what we need is a bill (probably an amendment) that defines the size of the House as a function of population by setting the maximum number of citizens that a Representative in the House may represent. While I would argue that the size of the house should be multiples of its current size even setting such a ration to such an unmanageable number as 500,000 citizens per representative would be an improvement over this static “435 seats in the House” that we have currently. (That would add somewhere near 100 new representatives – as opposed to the paltry 2 being proposed in this bill.)

While I am not a fan of legislative manipulation tactics (such as the NRA killing the bill previously by attaching an amendment that would curtail the gun laws in D.C.) I have to say that it is better to prevent a law from passing using such tactics than it is to enact a law using such tactics (such as slipping the bill into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill as they are talking about trying now).

The fact that the people pushing this bill have not even proposed an amendment to give D.C. the voting representative they deserve demonstrates that they are more interested int he power grab than they are in actually helping the people of D.C. If they were serious about the issue they would at least be making that kind of proposal even if they also pursued this unconstitutional path.

Tags Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, legislation, unconstitutional, voting

National State

How and Why to Expand the House

Post author By David
Post date September 17, 2009
21 Comments on How and Why to Expand the House

I find it appropriate that on Constitution Day (“happy” 222nd) there is a story about a lawsuit seeking to expand the House in the name of fairness for voters across the nation. Of course, I am in favor of expanding the House but let’s look at this lawsuit summed up in two paragraphs:

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761.

Tags change congress, Delaware, Elevated, fourth seat, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

General

Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Post author By David
Post date September 14, 2009
No Comments on Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Not unrelated to the issue of whether the people of Washington D.C. should have a voting representative in the House is the issue of how the size of the House is set. Few people probably even consider that the number of representatives in the House is set by Congress and fewer still are aware that when the first Congress drafted the proposed bill of rights that Article the First, the first of their proposed amendments, was designed to answer the needs of an expected growth in population and that along with the second of their proposed amendments (later adopted as the 27th amendment) this proposed amendment was not ratified with the original bill of rights.

After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

When James Madison wrote the first draft of this three months before the final proposed Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress he included two changes to his proposal that I would include in any current discussion of the issue. First, he left the numbers blank besides that which had already been specified in the Constitution – thus allowing for the framework to be discussed and the final numbers to be arrived at by consensus. Second, he specified that after the first census each state should have a minimum of two Representatives. I would also add that with our population filled out to over 300 Million we may not need a multi-tiered approach anymore. We might be able to safely skip to the final proportion of the amendment. With those changes the proposed amendment would look like this:

The proportion of voters for each representative shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than [First Blank] Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every [Second Blank] persons, but each State shall have at least two Representatives.

One of the major changes that this would produce would be that Congress could no longer directly regulate the number of members of Congress – they could only regulate the proportion so that as the population grew (or even shrunk in some extraordinary circumstance) the size of Congress would automatically adjust accordingly.

In my previous writings on this topic I have suggested that the second blank could be 200,000 (a number I adopted from the Daily Kos) but I am more concerned with the principle that Congress be limited to regulating the proportion than with any particular number.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future

National

Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Post author By David
Post date September 8, 2009
3 Comments on Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Having read and processed all the documents upon which our Constitution was built as well the Constitution itself and each existing amendment along with other significant expressions of American political thought through our history I think I have established a fairly solid foundation for my own political thinking that can be explored by anyone who might be curious about where I stand on fundamental issues of our government. Now I would like to venture into the future by exploring four amendments that I believe we ought to make to our Constitution.

These are not intended to be presented in any particular order (such as the order of importance in my mind) which is why I will not suggest any number for any of them. In fact, the first one I will present here was chosen only because I have already exposed my position on the issue multiple times already. (None of the four are new topics for my writing.)

The founders of our nation made a conscious decision to keep the federal government free from any particular local interest by stipulating that Congress should have complete control over the capital city and that the city should be independent of any state. They certainly did not expect hundreds of thousands of people to have no voice in the government that led them, nor did they intend for the federal government to be as powerful and controlling as the one we have built up. I have been a vocal opponent of the push to expand the house by two seats and give one of those seats to Washington D.C. but that is because the bill contradicts the current Constitution and rather than addressing the real issue in accordance to our legal foundation it ignores our fundamental law with a convenient but half-baked political compromise.

The proper solution to this situation is to pass an amendment that would allow Washington D.C. the legitimate voting representation in the House that their population warrants. I believe that the amendment should be worded so that it does not apply exclusively to Washington D.C.. Some might argue that not all our territories should have a voting representative in Congress but it seems only right than any territory in which residents pay the same federal taxes as the residents of the several states should have voting representation in the House of Representatives. Under that restriction Washington D.C. qualifies and anytime another territory has a legitimate claim about “taxation without representation” (the mantra that supporters of voting rights for D.C. have adopted) the problem would already be constitutionally solved rather than having to patch each leak in the boat that we may encounter in the future.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future, voting

National

Constitutional Amendment 23

Post author By David
Post date August 26, 2009
5 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 23

Reacting to changes in society that the founders could not have anticipated, the 23rd Amendment provided representation in the electoral college to residents of Washington D.C. in presidential elections.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

To get an idea of how they might have made this oversight, we should look at what the founders envisioned for the seat of government. They would have anticipated an essentially agrarian society, a federal government with limited power, and therefore a city that would not draw any particularly large number of people. Many of those who would be drawn there would, in their expectations, have been temporary residents – members of Congress and federal employees – who would have the right to cast their votes in their states of residence.

Those who would live their permanently would likely have been farmers. The Constitution stipulates that the capital city not exceed 10 square miles which is 6400 acres. In 1865 freed slaves were initially promised 40 acres and a mule. I think it is safe to assume that, as this was a promise to ex-slaves, 40 acres was not a particularly large amount of land for one family. in other words, if the entire city were populated by farmers it would have a population of no more than 160 families – and representatives in Congress were to represent at least 30,000 people according to the Constitution. It is understandable that they would not think it necessary to give those few people a vote in the electoral college.

In many ways the 23rd Amendment was a half measure. Considering the expanded (and expanding) breadth of congressional authority (especially over Washington D.C.) it is very reasonable for the residents of Washington D.C. to desire a voting representative in the House. In order to achieve that we will need to pass another constitutional amendment.

Perhaps it is because they have been breathing the capital air too long (and because previous attempts to amend the Constitution have been rejected for overreaching by seeking full statehood) the residents of D.C. have spent their energy trying to circumvent the Constitution in their efforts to gain that otherwise well-deserved voting representation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, fourth seat, history, voting

National State

Second Amendment Victory

My appreciation for the second amendment just went up another notch. Opponents of gun ownership rights like to argue that guns kill people (for that matter so do hands, cars, T-bone steaks, and many other things) but they never mentioned that gun rights could also kill an illegal house seat for D.C.:

Fights over gun control in Washington, D.C., may have killed for the year a bill that would give Utah a fourth U.S. House seat and give D.C. a House seat with full voting rights.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., delivered that message in his weekly briefing for reporters on Tuesday

Apparently leaders in D.C. would rather keep very strict gun control laws than gain an unconstitutional voting seat in the House. If they want to now pursue a path to full House representation that does not sidestep the Constitution I’ll sign the petition at the first opportunity. Residents of D.C. deserve voting congressional representation as much as anyone else, but that does not justify ignoring the fundamental law of the land.

I still can’t believe that 80% of Utah’s congressional delegation fell for this Washington parlor trick. If the bill comes up again in 2010 I hope they will be smart enough to reject it since Utah would only have 1 possible year of representation before we would get another seat anyway (regardless of what Orrin Hatch would tell you about possibly missing it again).

Tags Bill of Rights, Deseret News, fourth seat, Orrin Hatch, unconstitutional, Utah

National

D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

Post author By David
Post date March 4, 2009
2 Comments on D.C. Voting – House vs Senate

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.

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, house, voting

National

Orrin at the Bully Pulpit

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.).

Tags amendments, change congress, Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, Orrin Hatch

National State

Orrin Depends on Sloppy Journalism

Post author By David
Post date January 7, 2009
14 Comments on Orrin Depends on Sloppy Journalism

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.

Tags amendments, Deseret News, fourth seat, media, Orrin Hatch, Utah Policy, voting

National State

Near-Sighted Legislation

The senate is scheduled to vote today on whether to debate the bill to make two new seats in the House of Representatives and give them to give Utah and D.C. My opinion on this can be found in an editorial at National Review Online (no, I didn’t write it, but it expresses the same position I hold). The one new thing I learned from that article was that the bill does not specify that Utah gets the second seat, but that it would go to "the state that stands next in line to receive a seat through the normal process of apportionment. " (currently Utah) I guess I did know that, but I did not realize the wording.

When I wrote about this issue in July I made much the same argument as NRO and stated that Utah had nothing to gain by pushing for a new representative with so little time before the next census. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Ut) points out that we do have something to gain – money. Sending a new representative earlier gives earlier seniority and allows for more pork money to be sent home from Washington. Unfortunately sending pork money home is exactly the way to buy votes for re-election.

I’m sure this sounds un-American of me but if the purpose of a representative is to send more pork home then we should reduce the size of the house to 250 or less rather than increase its size by 2. What we need in this country is not more money being passed around after filtering through the capitol. This only ties us to greater dependence on the federal government and gives more power to what was supposed to be a relatively weak central governing body.

UPDATE: The bill failed. But Senator Hatch promises to keep pushing for it until we pass his flag burning amendment. If we got him a recording contract in Nashville would he retire from the Senate?

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, legislation, money