Senate clears way for approval of D.C. voting rights bill

[IDemo]

Source: USA Today

We'll go with the USA Today link instead....

The Senate has approved a key procedural step that clears the way for full Senate approval of a bill giving Washington, D.C., its first-ever seat in the House of Representatives. The vote to cut off further debate on the issue and move to a vote passed 62 to 34.

Last year, the bill failed in the Senate on this critical test vote by three votes.

There is strong support for the measure in the House. Under the bill two seats would be added to the 435-member House -- one for the District of Columbia and one for Utah, which barely missed getting an extra representative in the last census.

Because the District of Columbia votes overwhelmingly Democratic and Utah votes overwhelmingly Republican, the party balance in the House would not be affected by the addition of the two seats.




Read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/senate-clears-w.html

[WI_DEM]

1. I wonder if this would be a vote in both the senate and the house?

It would be very important in the Senate.

[karynnj]

9. Just the House - the Constitution specifies that

every state gets 2 Senators - so to change that is harder as it might require a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is less specific on the House.

[Oregone]

2. What, are we going to let North Korea vote in Congress too?

They aren't a state, and this clearly violates our framework. Packs of 8 hamburger buns, without a matching quantity of hamburgers, I can stand. A nation of octo-moms and obsessed media, I can tolerate. But this, this, is the last straw. My militia may mobilize.

[tritsofme]

3. The bill is likely unconstitutional.

Congress can't decide to admit members from territories or other non-state entities without a constitutional amendment.

What we could be left with is another Utah Republican, and DC residents getting hosed again after this bill is overturned.

[HopeHoops]

4. Constitutional or not, that can be done - give DC the vote or don't tax DC - sound familiar?

[tritsofme]

5. Doing this the wrong way hurts everyone.

In the end an extra Republican is seated and the people of DC are still left without a vote.

We should be pushing for an amendment.

[HopeHoops]

6. Oh, I agree - an amendment is the only reasonable approach - just why tax them?

It just seems so wrong. Until they have full representation, they shouldn't be taxed and that's what the bill SHOULD be about. Now THAT would get the Republicans pushing for an amendment!

[tritsofme]

7. Republicans would be scrambling for DC addresses

If there were no federal taxes.

Are there negative tax consequences from being a DC resident as opposed to other US territorries or possessions?

[HopeHoops]

11. You mean other than "proximity to Congress"?

[No Elephants]

8. Make D.C. a state or amend the Constitution. Don't do this illegal hybrid.

[Romulox]

10. The Constitution can't be amended by act of Congress. Why even waste time with an Unconstitutional

bill?

[Joanne98]

12. This will take care of that 60 vote in the Senate problem

[bigscott]

13. actually

this has nothing to do with the Senate - the Constitution is very clear that each STATE gets 2 Senators. This is about the HOR

[defendandprotect]

14. Wasn't the deal "Statehood for DC" . . . ??????????????????

Well, I don't like the Utah/Repug deal either --- and DC has long waited for any real representation --

I'd like to see it go forward legitimately with Senate representation as well!

[byeya]

15. Utah does not have another Rep on merit. After the 2000

election both Utah and North Carolina claimed an extra Rep, the numbers favored North Carolina. Utah is no more deserving of another Rep than any other state: rules are rules and Utah was a close second but still was second to NC.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. It will also give Utah an extra electoral vote

while not adding one for DC. Not only is this blatantly unconstitutional, it's BAD POLITICS!