Senators Block D.C. Vote Bill, Delivering Possibly Fatal Blow (GOP blocks voting Rep.)

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

Republican lawmakers yesterday blocked the Senate from taking up the D.C. vote bill, a potentially fatal setback for the District's most promising effort in years to get a full member of Congress.

The vote was on a motion to simply consider the bill. Fifty-seven senators voted in favor, three short of the 60 needed to proceed. Without enough support to vault the Senate's procedural hurdles, the bill is expected to stall this year and possibly next year.

The Senate action was a crushing disappointment to many activists in the decades-long campaign for voting representation in Congress. The bill, which passed the House in April, has gone further than any other D.C. vote measure in almost 30 years.

Glum-faced supporters vowed to fight on.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801158.html

---

Editorial:
A 'Palpable Injustice'
The Republican Party blocks voting rights for the District of Columbia.

THE U.S. SENATE had a chance yesterday to make history. It chose instead to add another unconscionable chapter to that well-worn volume that could be titled "The Second-Class Status of the People of the District of Columbia." A few Republicans showed enough gumption to vote for principle and against party interest. Most Republicans, led by their leaders and egged on by President Bush -- who talks about democracy from Burma to Zimbabwe but not for his own neighbors -- did the reverse.

That a bid to bring D.C. voting rights legislation to the floor failed by a mere three votes is both heartbreaking and infuriating. What's most upsetting is that the vote was a refusal even to consider a bill that would have given the District a voting member in the House of Representatives, while giving another House seat to Utah. In remarks before the vote, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) made an impassioned plea to his colleagues to, at the very least, engage in a real debate. "My gosh," he said, "when has the United States Senate been afraid to debate a constitutional issue as important as this one?" He got his answer in the 57 to 42 vote that probably kills the bill for this year.

Opponents, mainly Republicans led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have pointed to their belief that the measure is unconstitutional. They say their opposition has nothing to do with depriving a majority-black city of a voice that would most likely be Democratic. No doubt there are strong arguments on both sides of the constitutional question; scholars of renown are divided. But the way to resolve the question is in court. That's why the bill included a provision for expedited review to the Supreme Court. The opponents' unwillingness to go to the court suggests they weren't all that confident in their constitutional argument.

The most cynical aspect of the debate was the lip service Mr. McConnell and other opponents gave to voting rights -- only if done properly, via an amendment to the Constitution. Are we really to believe that they would back a measure that could lead to their worst fears -- two senators from the mainly Democratic District of Columbia? And if so, where have they been all these years? Perhaps D.C. residents should hope that the soon-to-be retired Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), an opponent who said he'll introduce a constitutional amendment, will accomplish in the next few months what he hasn't bothered with during his 30 years in the Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801745.html

[Demeter]

1. The Smell of Fear

Are there that many people living in DC that hate the GOP that they should worry, or is it the precarious state of the balance of power in Congress that they think they can preserve by disenfranchising the District?

This mindless "but we've always done it this way" policy, like the ones affecting Cuba, make me think that someone ought to pull the plug on the brain-dead in Congress....

[MikeE]

2. One positive side to all of this

One positive side to all of this, and I'm speaking as a DC resident, is that when we have more of a majority in Congress after the upcoming elections, we may actually be able to get voting rights without having to offset it by giving Utah an additional vote. Also, maybe with a Democratic majority and a Democratic President, we may actually, (I hope )get full statehood. Why settle for something less?

[LynneSin]

8. I don't care about the seat we give Utah - that's nothing

I mean, we have enough democrats in the house to still keep the majority.

This is about a city with more people then the entire state of Wyoming that pays taxes to this country but has absolutely no representation whatsoever

[onehandle]

11. The Wyoming thing is always my point.

Here's my solution:

De-Represent Wyoming!

Problem solved.

[LynneSin]

12. How about we just split the senators - one for each state

and each can have their own representative

[Yupster]

18. That too would take a Constitutional change though

And those are hard, though not impossible to do.

[Yupster]

17. Statehood seems the better answer

Why doesn't DC push for a statehood vote?

Here's the relevant Constitutional passage

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

It seems like statehood is the way to go.

Perhaps there's a loophole which would allow a rep from DC to be elected but by voters from other states. That would probably be as bad as not having one if you had one elected by others for you.

[BrainGlutton]

24. You know, a state of Columbia within the current boundaries of D.C. wouldn't make much sense.

It would make more sense, and be more economically viable, if it included the entire Washington Metro Area -- D.C. plus the suburban counties of Virginia and Maryland. Of course, those states' legislatures would have to agree. The Constitution says no state can be deprived of territory without its consent.

Another solution would be to cede all D.C. north of the Potomac back to Maryland, as all D.C. south of the Potomac was long ago ceded back to Virginia. Then you wouldn't have two D.C. senators, but you would have a choice in choosing Maryland's, plus one or two or more House seats.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry this bill died.

This bill would have awarded another representative to one of the already over-represented Western states as "balance" for allowing the unrepresented people of DC to vote at all.

It also doesn't address the millions of unrepresented people in the territories.

This bill deserved to die.

[LynneSin]

7. So you're ok with 500K+ American citizens to be taxed without representation

It wouldn't have hurt to give them Utah. This isn't about republicans vs. democrats - this is about a city that has absolutely no say in how they are taxed or govern.

It's a shame you have no sense of democracy

[acmavm]

4. Oh hell no, it doesn't have anything to do with black voters.

Who do these people think they're kidding????

Take a look at New Orleans and then ask if the repubic party is a friend to the black Americans.

[rodeodance]

5. and Craig popped in voting NAY!!

[onehandle]

13. Gay people are against D.C. representation? Seems unlikely.

Must just be closeted gay people.

[rodeodance]

16. well............

[LynneSin]

6. So Wyoming, a state with less citizens than DC, is allowed 2 senators and a representative

But DC isn't.

Oh, but Wyoming is all republican.

All we wanted was a representative for the house and we were giving them another republican seat in Utah (what would be republican).

Assholes!

[Yupster]

19. Wyoming gets two senators because it's a state

and the Constitution gives each state two senators.

The Constitution also provides ways for it to be changed.

If people want the Constitution amended, then work to amend it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.

[lonestarnot]

9. Sucks ASS!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

10. Hatch and lieberman grabbed the photo op on local DC stations

[whistle]

14. The democrats in Congress must fight the rePukes on this bill

....because it will show them up to the enire country just what obstructions racists they really are.

[kickysnana]

15. DC needs to collect tolls until they get representation n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. Roll it into Maryland

The part of D.C. that was south of the Potomac was re-merged back into Virginia. Successfully, I guess.

So why not do the same with the remainder of D.C. north of the Potomac and re-merge it back into Maryland.

Then D.C. gets their senators, representatives, national guard, statehouse, the whole thing.

[Doctor_J]

21. The Repukes must not have heard of dry powder

of which our reps have mountains, left over from 2001-2007.

[mb7588a]

22. Good - this bill was a sham. Give them statehood.

D.C. has more problems than almost every state, and an effective local and state government could greatly help those problems.

1 in 19 residents is HIV positive.
Extremely high murder and crime rates.
an education system that struggles to meet basic requirements.


The next time we have a dem. president, house, and senate - statehood should be passed. 2 senators, one rep - just like wyoming has with less population.


How is it that in America, there are people with less rights than those in Iraq or Afghanistan or the former Soviet states?

[Reality Stinks]

23. Statehood Would Be Disaster

They do have local government...the problem is it's
dysfunctional and has been for a very, very long time
(remember the Marion Berry video?).

The Congress bestows Billions$$$ on the District every year,
and these budgets are still blown away.  If DC were a state it
would have to operate on a balanced budget - NO WAY.

IMHO we need to "backdoor" simple voting rights like
they're trying now.  While Statehood for DC would probably
fail miserably, perhaps it would illuminate the horrendous
problems you highlight.  And then maybe the local residents
would take self-governance more seriously to address these
problems.