ITEM CULLED FROM THE HEADLINES:
Senate approves new seats for D.C., Utah
The Senate voted 61-37 Thursday to give, at long last, the heavily Democratic District of Columbia a U.S. House member with full voting rights — to end "taxation without representation" there. At the same time, the bill would give heavily Republican Utah a fourth House seat as a political counterweight.
"It's a significant, historic step forward to realize the best principles of this great republic," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., the main sponsor of the bill. "600,000 of our fellow Americans (in D.C.) get taxed, get called to war … and yet have no say here by a vote by a representative," which the bill would change.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, voted for it and was a key co-sponsor of the bill. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, voted against it, even though he had supported it in previous years. He said he became convinced it is unconstitutional. He faces reelection next year, and had been attacked by some conservatives for his earlier support of the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill next week.
The legislation would permanently expand the number of U.S. House members from 435 to 437 for the 2010 election. One seat would go to D.C., and the other temporarily would go (until after the 2010 Census) to Utah. The Beehive State had been in line for the next available House seat after the 2000 Census, missing one by just 80 people.
"The Senate today is moving to right a centuries-old wrong. It's inexcusable and indefensible that nearly 600,000 people who live in the District of Columbia don't enjoy a voice like other American citizens," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
He added, "We're the only democracy in the world that denies citizens of its capital … the right to vote in national legislation. Citizens of Washington, D.C. pay taxes, they sit on juries, they serve bravely in the armed services, yet they are permitted only a delegate in Congress who is not permitted to vote."
The bill is controversial and likely will be challenged in court — and provisions in the bill call for expedited review by federal courts if that happens.
Critics say the Constitution clearly allows House seats only for states, and D.C. is not a state. Supporters, including Hatch, note that the Constitution also allows federal taxation only for residents of states, the right to jury trial for residents of states and regulation of interstate commerce for states — but courts ruled such language also applies to D.C.
Hatch also said in debate that Congress allowed D.C. residents from 1790 to 1800 to vote for senators and representatives in Maryland and Virginia, from which D.C. had been extracted. He said if Congress could allow D.C. residents to vote for members of Congress then, it can do it now, too.
On Thursday, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have transferred all non-federal land in D.C. back to Maryland so residents could vote for senators and House members there as an alternative to giving DC and Utah new House seats.
The Senate bill has some differences with the House version. The most significant is that the Senate version would require Utah to draw boundaries for four new districts. The House version instead calls for the new Utah seat to be an at-large statewide seat.
Hatch said that at-large seat would be unconstitutional, and allow Utahns to vote for two House members instead of one. The member with the at-large district would also represent three times more constituents than the other three House members in Utah.
However, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told a House committee this week that an at-large seat would prevent the possibility of the Utah Legislature trying to gain two Republican seats instead of one by making districts even less Democratic-friendly than they now are, possibly ousting current Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.
Nadler also said the at-large seat is part of a years-old political compromise seeking to ensure One GOP and one Democratic seat would likely be created.
RIGHT ASCENSION COMMENTARY
Let me publicly praise Senator Bennett for not voting for the District of Columbia Representation Bill. I don't know what Senator Hatch is thinking, but he is not reading the Constitution.
Modern telecommunications and the Internet make it possible to, in a Constitutional Amendment, redefine the District of Columbia as all federal work buildings in northeast Virginia, western Maryland and in the current D.C.
Then the Virginia counties across the river from D.C. and the Maryland counties surrounding D.C. and residential D.C. could form a new state {The State of Columbia? The State of Potomac?) with two senators and 7?? representatives.
THE CALL TO ACTION
The federal government needs a redefined District of Columbia to put all the federal work places in northeast Virginia, west Maryland and Washington into one governmental umbrella entity.
The people in and around Washington need a new state with 2 senators and at least 7 representatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment