A fascinating – and long overdue – development today:
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act overcame a major hurdle Tuesday, passing a Senate cloture vote by 62-34. …
The bill would give the Democratic-heavy District a voting Representative in the House and Republican-leaning Utah an extra seat that it just barely missed adding in the 2000 census. …
If the House and Senate versions pass each chamber as is, the bill would have to go to conference in order to iron out some differences – mainly, the fact that the Senate bill gives Utah a new district seat, while the House gives the state an at-large seat.
In practical terms, if this bill passes and survives constitutional scrutiny, DC will undoubtedly elect a Democrat. As for the Utah “sweetener” (necessary to ensure Republican votes), the question is whether the state legislature would use the opportunity to screw Jim Matheson out of his seat. The House solution neatly avoids this problem and would be my preferred outcome. Note that while no state with more than one representative utilizes at-large districts, there’s nothing forbidding it, and many states have done so in the past.
In any event, an at-large seat would probably only be temporary, as Utah is almost assured of gaining a new seat after the 2010 census. The enlargement of the House to 437 seats, however, would be permanent. And, bizarrely enough, this would mean the likely end of potential ties in the electoral college:
[T]he Constitution says that each state gets the same number of electoral votes as it has seats in Congress (in both the House and the Senate). So, you’d think that two more members of Congress would mean two more electoral votes, increasing the Electoral College from 538 members to 540.
However, the 23th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which granted the District voting rights in presidential elections, stipulates that the District only gets as many electoral votes as the state with the fewest. Even if this legislation is enacted (and upheld by the courts), Washington, D.C. will still only have three electoral votes.
As a result, the Electoral College will only increase by one vote, not two. That means that the Electoral College’s members would add up to 539, which, tragically, is an odd number. When you have an odd number of voters, it’s always tricky to end up with a tie vote. Unless a third-party candidate took some electoral votes, one candidate would have a majority.
Incidentally, Election Data Services’ latest study (PDF, p. 14) variously shows CA, NC, OR, and WA in the 436th and 437th slots, meaning one of those states would likely pick up an extra seat (or in the case of California, not lose a seat) in 2012.
UPDATE: A CRS report (PDF) suggests that Congress might have outlawed at-large districts – but because Congress has the power to set such rules (under the Constitution), it can do as it pleases vis-a-vis Utah. The same report also says that such a district would not violate one person, one vote jurisprudence.
I support statehood myself, but this is a step in the right direction.
So, by the at-large solution, Utahans would each vote for two Congressman (one from their already in place district, and one from the at-large district)? How does that fit in with Wesberry v. Sanders and the principle of one man, one vote?
Since one of the new seats has to stick with DC?
At large seats for states with more than one district do violate current statute, but Congress can easily amend the statute (which I’m too lazy to look up).
It would have to be among the most democratic PVI’s of any house seat in the nation. At least D+35 I’d imagine.
I always wanted to experience a tie in my lifetime!! A small price to pay for DC voting rights I guess.
make DC MD-09
The Maryland House of Delegates does this sort of thing with at-large, but at least they make it somewhat more uniform across constituencies. This, however, is a half-measure of dubious Constitutionality that will set a bad precedent – what will stop some other state that narrowly falls short of the population threshold from demanding an at-large seat after the next census? Frankly, with Washingtonians have gone a whole lot longer than 10 years without representation, and with congressional Republicans’ negotiating leverage reduced to nil, this Utah business strikes me as utterly laughable.
In two years we could very well have the margin we need in the Senate for full statehood, and Utah will get its rightful 4th CD in 2012.
after seeing the massive margin he racked up in the rural counties last time, it’s basically impossible for them to carve four unwinnable districts out of Utah. If they try to take out even more of Salt Lake City, he will just run in the new district that contains SLC.
They can’t keep diluting the power of the largest county in the state, one that Obama happened to win.
I dont outright oppose a voting House member for DC. I actually think giving the non-states a single voting member in the House (no matter their size and none in the Senate) is an idea to look into. But I believe the way this is being brought about is clearly unconsitutional and Im excited about the prospects that the courts will strike it down.
This should be tried though a consitutional amendment. I know its harder, but it is the right thing to do. Not ignore the fact that only states can having voting rights in the US House. I know some people try to justify it by saying the consitution gives the Congress power over DC, but I doubt that when that was written, it was intended to give the Congress power to even override the consitution in what they want with DC. They should have thw power over the District, with the restrictions the government has to deal with the rest of the nation.
Its actually a scary logic when one thinks about it that the Congress can do whatever they want to in DC.
I doubt 2/3rds of states would vote for it, either. And this doesnt just include states with a GOP majority, but many southern/border states with a Dem or half-Dem majority. Do people really think a white, conservative, yellow Dog Dem from a state like Alabama or Louisiana will vote to give DC statehood or a voting right? Im just saying all that in the case the courts do rule this has to go to the states to decide. Though im guessing theyd just rule that for statehood.
one could well argue that a) DC should not have congressional representation because that’s what the constitution says or b) Utah should wait it’s damn turn for another seat.
i support this because DC deserves representation and if the constitution says that this huge group of people (Americans with the same inalienable rights as the rest of us) shouldn’t have fair representation, it’s just BS. utah should wait its turn but if this makes it easier to get the DC camel’s nose under the tent, then i’m all for it.
There isn’t even a pretense of logic to this.
DC certainly does not deserve and should not have statehood anymore than San Francisco should so that is a non-starter.
The logical and easiest conclusion is to to have DC vote with Maryland on a Federal level, but not state. So Maryland gets one more congressional district, and becomes even more solidly Democratic for Senate… while we lose two votes in the Electoral College. It’s a fair tradeoff to get equal representation to the citizens of Washington.
a lot of comments in this thread were a bit too radical for my taste. I respect that opinion but I just want to say it’s a little Kos/OpenLeft’ish. But maybe more so in a different taste.