According to this Washington Post article, District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton expects Congress to pass a bill in 2009, providing for a voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives for the District of Columbia.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Making DC into a state is a terrible idea.
The Virginia portion of DC was returned to the State of Virginia long ago. The Maryland part of DC should be returned to Maryland, with the exception of a tiny district containing the Federal monuments, Whitehouse and the Capitol.
No statehood for DC.
No House and Senate members for DC.
No Electoral Votes for DC. Repeal the DC electoral votes.
Give DC back to Maryland!
I agree, let’s give the entirety of DC back to Maryland as its second independent city (after Baltimore). Some foreign countries similarly have capitals that aren’t set aside in their own special zones, so it could work. Perhaps to mitigate complaints of loss of electoral power the House could be expanded to 450 members, thus virtually guaranteeing an extra house seat or two for MD. The only problem is MD probably doesn’t want DC back!
The proposed bill, which almost passed in 2007, is not a bill for Statehood for D.C. It was just a bill to give D.C. a voting representative in the US House of Representatives. It included an extra seat for Utah as well.
Richard,
Is it reasonable to assume that on the day that this
bill is signed into law, the appropriate official in
Utah will call a special election for all 4 House
seats in Utah?
The first of many bills by this Congrtess that I will oppose. D.C is out of touch with America so it should remain in a class by itself.
DC residents already made their voice clear some time ago regarding their position on the matter. However, they could have a referendum vote again on which path they’d like to take, with pros and cons considered for each option. Congress should honor their wishes.
Considering DC out of touch with America is not a reason to oppose its representation in Congress. I believe Utah is out of touch with America, but I don’t oppose it having representation in Congress.
Regardless of the merits, wouldn’t this require a Constitutional Amendment?
YES
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
D.C. is NOT a *STATE*.
See the 23rd Amdt allowing D.C. voters to choose Prez Electors (to be treated as if it was a State).
The bill is one more attempt to SUBVERT the Constitution by any means necessary by the COMMUNIST Donkey usual suspects.
Proper remedy – constitutional amendment —
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. NOW — to end the rule of the EVIL monarchs / oligarchs in the gerrymander Congress and in each gerrymander State legislature.
The ignorant juveniles on this list (about constitutional law, Anglo-American history, math, etc.) do NOT have ANY comprehension of just how far GONE the U.S.A. is into communism, fascism and wannabee statist tyrants since 1933 who want UNLIMITED government — to make everybody but them into tax slaves (if not actual slaves).
All the citizens should of the US should have representation. So let’s make the amendment (Suggested text below).
Article of Amendment XXVIII
(Providing Representation to the House and Electoral College for Territories including the District of Colombia)
1. Those citizens residing in non-State Territories of the United States shall be granted representation in the House of Representatives. This shall include those citizens residing in the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States, so long as said District has not been designated by Congress a State or part of any of the several States.
2. Representatives shall be assigned to the Territories as Congress may direct, provided that no fewer than one Representative and no greater than seven Representatives be provided to all the Territories inclusive. Congress shall determine the number of Representatives, the boundaries of their constituencies, and the manner of their election; however, Congress must ensure that all citizens of the United States have representation in the House of Representatives, and Congress may allow Territorial governments to determine certain aspects of the manner of election and to administer elections. The election of Territorial Representatives shall occur on the same day as those Representatives of the several States. Congress shall have the power to assign more than one Territorial Representative to a constituency.
3. Congress shall provide this representation within one year following ratification of this amendment. After the original designation of the number of Representatives and the boundaries of their constituencies, Congress shall not alter the number nor constituency boundaries of Territorial Representatives except within one year following the decadal enumeration of persons provided for in Article 1, provided that such alteration does not occur less than 240 days before a general election for the House of Representatives or the date of choosing electors for President, or in the case that a Territory or part thereof becomes a State or becomes no longer a Territory of the United States.
4. Territorial Representatives shall have the same qualifications, duties, and privileges as other members of the House of Representatives as provided for in this Constitution, except that no person shall be a representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that Territory in which he or she shall be chosen. The electors thereof shall have the same qualifications requisite for electors of Representatives of the Several States as provided in this Constitution. When vacancies happen in any Territorial constituency, Writs of Election to fill such vacancies will be issued in a manner provided by Congress.
5. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to provide Territorial representation in the Senate.
6. The twenty-third article of amendment is hereby repealed.
7. The Territories 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 Territorial Representatives plus two; 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 their respective Territories and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
8. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Sounds good to me, except that I’m not sure I want to perpetuate the territorial/Commonwealth system the US is running.
The Federated States of Micronesia provides a better model, a former Trust Territory which is now a nominally independent nation with a Free Association treaty with us, effectively making it a permanent ally of the U.S. but ensuring it home rule and the conduct of its own diplomatic policies.
“Puerto Rico” should become a state or become independent, same with “Virgin Islands”, “American Samoa”, “Guam and the Northern Marianas”. The others are microterritories, mostly uninhabited like Baker Island, and should be added to those new or existing states.
We are the United States, and we shouldn’t be running a string of imperial colonies. Everyone should be equal citizens, or should be cut lose if they can’t hack it.
Charles:
I understand your point of view, but I wrote that proposed amendment acknowledging that there are many points of view on this subject. In fact, Puerto Rico has had referenda in which they chose to continue the current commonwealth system instead of either becoming a state or independent.
This proposed amendment itself does nothing to perpetuate or end territorial existence: it merely ensures that all citizens have representation so long as we do have territories/DC.
I like this idea, they should also get two seats in the US Senate as well. They even have a larger population than Wyoming.
NE:
I specifically avoided adding US Senate seats. The reason is that in the process for amending the Constitution (as indicated in Art. 5 of the Constitution), no state can be denied equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent (and this clause is generally considered unamendable). Giving any non-state entity Senators could be considered denying all 50 states equal suffrage, and thus require consent (ratification) by all 50 states, a much more herculean task than 3/4.
OR… if the real beef is “taxation without representation” simply stop taxing them. That should solve it as well.
I’m not positive, but I don’t believe citizens in territories excluding DC are income taxed. But regardless, personally I find it antithetical to a democratic nation to have citizens who are entirely disenfranchised. Maybe territories still shouldn’t be taxed even with House representation, especially if they don’t have representation in the Senate.
#15 – Once upon a time getting rid of slavery was thought impossible.
The U.S.A. Senate gerrymander regime is THE most UNREPRESENTATIVE legislative body in the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. regime is now like the last years of the Roman Republic regime — before it rotted into the Roman Empire in 27 B.C. — due to the TYRANT Augustus Caesar.
——-
Uniform definition of Elector in All of the U.S.A.
P.R. for ALL legislative bodies
A.V. for NONPARTISAN executive/judical officers
Democracy NOW — before the EVIL powermad control freaks cause World War III and/or Civil War II to happen.
See the business- as- usual 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act in the gerrymander Congress — one more attempted *fix* for the system.
Result – Horrific Civil WAR in 1861-1865.
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments — Cost — about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides — with multi-thousands physically and mentally maimed for life.
Lemur, I think the solution is simple: redraw the boundaries of the federal government’s capital to only include its main buildings (e.g. the White House, the capitol building, etc). Then the rest of what is currently Washington D.C. could be admitted as the 51st state.
Wouldn’t this just give lobbiest thier own congressman.
This would make a Green getting into Congress much more likely.
NE Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“Lemur, I think the solution is simple: redraw the boundaries of the federal government’s capital to only include its main buildings (e.g. the White House, the capitol building, etc). Then the rest of what is currently Washington D.C. could be admitted as the 51st state.”
Or, better yet, redraw the boundries and give the inhabited bulk of DC back to Maryland. It was taken from Maryland and now is the time to give it back.
It would be interesting to see if you’re able to find
sponsors for your proposed amendment. Placing a limit
of 7 seems unworkable to me because Puerto Rico’s
population of 3.8+ million should entitle it to 6
House seats in the 2010 Census. It would probably work
out better to increase the size of the House to say
449 members. That would also take care of re-alignment
should one or more of these dependencies one day vote
to become a full fledged State. Also, it looks to me
that everwhere “territory” appears it would be better
to use “dependency” instead since they have differing
status with regards to the Federal Government. Finally,
the part about repealing the 23rd Amendment should be
reworked to just say that it is amended to include all
of the dependencies not just the District of Columbia &
it should be referenced as the Amendment passed by the
Congress by date not number. There are some who argue
that there is one more Amendment to the Constituion and
should that ever be accepted as being valid then using
a number in your Amendment you could introduce a mess
into the Constitution.
US citizens resident in the District of Columbia should be permitted to vote in federal elections of the State of their choosing, with an option for each State to extend suffrage for state and legislative elections.
For apportionment purposes, the population of the District should be allocated on a pro rata basis according to the voter registrations by District citizens.
Congress, in cooperation with the States, should provide voting facilities, both for registration, and actual voting within the District.
For the purpose of elections of US representatives (by district), the 48 non-adjacent States shall treat their DC voters as being resident at their State capitol, or optionally based on the location of last residence within the State.
States adjacent to the district shall treat the district as if it were within their territorial jurisdiction, and any congressional district must include the entire district.
Congress shall provide that no presidential electors be appointed under terms of the 23rd Amendment.
Transition. Registration may begin immediately, and DC voters may participate in all federal elections after January 1st, 2010. An initial reapportionment based on the 2000 Census and 435 representatives shall be made on that date. No State may lose representative.
If a State gains a representative, they may re-district for the 2010 election, or alternatively provide for a district exclusively for its DC voters. In the latter case, a vacancy is deemed to exist, and the governor of the State shall issue writes of election.
==================================================
Following the cession of the territory that became the District of Columbia, by Maryland, Congress provided that residents could continue to vote in Maryland and Virginia elections, including those for US representatives and presidential electors.
When the government moved to Washington, it was by omission that the right to vote was terminated.
Congress has provided that residents of federal enclaves may vote in State elections, and included them in apportionment populations. They have not always done so. This is a discretionary act of Congress.
Congress has provided that former residents of States who reside outside the limits of the United States and its territores may vote in federal elections in their last State residence. It also has included some of these persons and their dependents in apportionment populations (military and civilian employees of the US government, along with their dependents).
I remember reading up on the fact that our House is way “under-represented” in the sense that, compared to European countries for example, our House hasn’t become as “representative” as it should be. Remember, our Constitution says that there should be 1 Representative for each 30,000 people. Now, I understand that we’d have 1,000 odd Representatives today but we can use the “Wyoming Rule”. What’s the “Wyoming Rule”? It’s basically a rule that uses the least populous state’s population as the quota. So, let’s say that Wyoming has 500,000 people and there are 300 million people nationwide, the quota would be 500,000 people. That would mean that we’d have a House of 600 members.
The Constitution says that there should not be more than one representative per 30,000. This was the basis for the first presidential veto of a bill passed by Congress. George Washington was advised by his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, that the apportionment bill passed following the 1790 Census violated the Constitution.
It provided that the apportionment population of each State (including the 3/5 adjustment for slaves) be divided by a quota, and then rounded to a whole number. Thus a state nominally entitled to 1.7 representative would have received 2. But it also meant that even if a quota greater than 30,000 were used, that some State’s would have a population/representative less than 30,000. In particular, this veto cost Delaware a second representative. The apportionment bill that Congress then passed provided for truncation of any excess fraction (including 0.99).
It wasn’t until the population had grown substantially and a quota much larger than 30,000 was used, that the apportionment bill provided for a rounding mechanism.
The “Wyoming Rule” would have been known as the “Nevada Rule” until 1960, when it would have become the “Alaska Rule” until 1990, when it became the “Wyoming Rule”. In 1900 this rule would have resulted in a House of Representatives of over 1800 members. This would have decreased to 1100+ in 1910 after a mining boom in Nevada, and then increased to almost 1400 after the subsequent bust. Since that time the size of the House would have gradually declined to roughly 550 in 1990, with a slight increase since then. Since the Wyoming population is heavily dependent on natural resources, particularly coal and oil, its population is particularly subject to rapid population changes, which could mean dramatic changes in the size of the House, until the rule becomes known as the “Vermont Rule”.
Incidentally, the 7 States with a single representative are collectively entitled to about 7.5.
There is an observation that legislative bodies tend to have a number of members that is about equal to the cube root of the population. For the USA this would require a House of Representatives of around 670, or an increase of more than 50%. This could provide a solution to the DC problem. If we are going to have to build a new capitol to accomodate the huge influx of representatives. Maryland accepts retrocession of DC, or the capital moves to a more central location.