MyDD :: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill

Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill

by DaveB, Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:26:43 PM EST

This is just a great, great diary--Chris

It looks like Utah's legislature will pass a new 4th seat map by December 4th, barely enough time for an 11th hour effort to revive Davis' DC-Utah House seat bill in the lame duck.

See the extended for the two proposed maps, what they mean for Jim Matheson and Democrats nationally.

Uber-popular Governor John Huntsman Jr. wants this 4th seat bad, and he seems to want to give Jim Matheson a safe seat while making the remaining 3 seats 55-60% GOP. Here's Huntsman's map, courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune:

(courtesy of Deseret Morning News)
"We've been committed all along to making certain at the end of the day that a fair map is adopted," said Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower.

Here is the map that the legislature passed in 2001 for four seats, hoping that their Supreme Court challenge to the 2000 Census would be upheld (had Mormon Missionaries temporarily abroad been counted, Utah would have had a forth seat over North Carolina)

The map made by the Tribune shows Matheson's current residence, but he was in the Avenues (and therefore that map's 2nd district) at the time of drawing. But the legislature wants to consider this map again as well as the Huntsman map.

"It's open. We're not pushing any particular map," said State Senate President John Valentine. This map would make every district about 60-65% GOP.

One outgoing member realized that the Davis (R-VA) bill is a raw deal for Republicans, especially given Matheson's popularity:

At least one member of the statehouse circulated a letter Tuesday calling the proposal the "fourth seat slippery slide," slamming the idea as one that would eventually hurt Utah and boost Democrats.
"In return for a Western, Republican Utah seat for possibly four years [until we get it legitimately in 2012] we give Washington, D.C., and the Eastern Democrats an extra seat forever," said outgoing Rep. David Cox, R-Lehi. "That doesn't seem like a fair trade."

Matheson is known and loved statewide. He is strong in Salt Lake, San Juan, Carbon, and Summit Counties. His main weaknesses are Utah and Washington Counties, which are some of the most Republican and conservative counties in the whole U.S. Still I think no matter what, Jim Matheson will hold one of the 4 seats, but I honestly believe that Jim and a reasonably mainstream Utah Democrat can take two seats if Matheson stretches his strength and runs in a new district that does not contain Utah County.

Combined with Norton in D.C. that would mean a net pickup of 2 more Democratic votes in 2007. Of course, many of the good candidates for a 2nd district (other than Jim) are running for the wide open SLC mayoral race vacated by unpopular Rocky Anderson.

Poll

Votes: 56
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Utah, DC, 4th seat, Huntsman, Matheson, Republicans, Democrats, GOP, redistricting, Bush, lame duck congress (all tags)

Permalink :: 118 Comments :: Post a Comment

Baloney (none / 0)

Why should Democrats support this? Some state, somewhere, will always be stuck at #436. Equating that with the complete lack of representation for D.C. is absurd. Utah can wait 4 years and earn their seat the old fashioned way -through the Census.

Either give D.C. a representative share of seats in the House, or just give D.C. back to Maryland and get the seats that way.

Enough is enough!

by Bear83 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:16:19 PM EST

Re: Baloney (3.00 / 2)

I say give DC a representative and let them vote for senator in Maryland. I don't think they'll ever get two senators for themselves.

by adamterando on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about we give DC to Virginia... (3.00 / 1)

Cause you know they could extra Dem votes.. heh.. just kidding. I would wait untill we get into control so we can call more of the shots on this bill.

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baloney (3.00 / 3)

Have you ever lived in DC? Most District residents have no interest in voting for MD senators. We deserve our OWN Representative and 2 senators. We pay federal taxes, we have more people than Wyoming. Getting a House vote is a step forward, but it is NOT enough. Nor is voting for MD members of Congress. Maryland is a different jurisdiction with different interests and focuses.

I don't like inreasing the size of the House for the first time in 93 years, and I thought a critical part of the deal to get Democratic support was to require that Utah's 4th seat be at-large to protect Matheson. Many Northeast and Midwest Dems (as more and more reps from there are Dems) are worried about losing their seat to DC in the 2010 reapportionment. I agree that shouldn't be considered a legitimate objection; it only saves one seat somewhere and delays the inevitable, which is far less compelling than DC's lack of democracy. The Davis bill essentially assures DC a seat, lifting the non-apportioned seats to 51, and the apportioned ones from 385 to 386. By no means does that 386th seat necessarily go to a Democrat or even to the East Coast. The last analysis I saw suggests that it could well go to a state like Missouri, which could otherwise lose its 9th seat. And the MO delegation is 5-4 Republican. Or it could go to a 34th seat for Texas. http://www.edssurvey.com/index.php?conte nt=reap05

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baloney (none / 0)

To be honest, I'd be happy with any solution that gives me a rep and two senators to vote for, even if the senators are shared with Maryland. I know that's not a popular sentiment here in DC. It would be preferable to have our own senators, but as long as we have two senators to vote for we'd have what other Americans have.

True, Maryland has different interests and focuses, but Montgomery County and Baltimore and the Eastern Shore all have different interests and focuses, and I don't think people become radically different when you cross the border at Friendship Heights or elsewhere.

I don't understand why you're worried about expanding the House. Hell, I'd like to have it expanded even further, so that House members could represent smaller numbers of people like they used to. But how would going from 435 to 437 even make a noticeable difference?

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baloney (none / 0)

What's your objection to increasing the size of the house? Is it tactical or on principle?

Personally, I'd say it's a very long time overdue, and while simply adding 2 seats at the margin won't do much, it's a start.

by nkedel on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baloney (none / 0)

If it's worked to have the House at 435 members since 1913, I don't see why we have to suddenly start expanding it now. It's huge and a weird number as it is, though it's at least a multiple of 5. People are never going to remember how many House seats there are if we keep changing it. And that's what you'd end up doing, because it's a slippery slope. Exactly what should the ratio of people to representatives be? How many decades back do you want to go? In the original 12 amendments submitted to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, one of the two rejected was to fix the size of the House so the ratio was always 30,000 people per Representative. If that amendment had been ratified, the House would now have 10,000 members. Wyoming would have about 15 House seats, while California would have something like 1200. It would be awfully hard to keep track of who's from Ohio's 367th district vs. its 637th. No matter what ratio you set, it will eventually expand the House to a ridiculously large size. And if you don't fix a specific ratio, you get constant political/partisan tinkering with the size of the House. Reps from states that deserve to lose seats would always push to just increase the body to keep their state's number of seats static.

The precent set in 1959 with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii was the right one. The size of the House was temporarily expanded to 437 so the new states got 1 seat each until the next census, after which the House reverted back to 435 and seats were apportioned among 50 states instead of 48. The original Davis bill was better in this sense since it would have reverted the House back to 435 seats in 2010, apportioned among 51 jurisdictions instead of 50.

I believe the only legislatures in the world bigger than the US House are the British and Indian Parliaments. And they are essentially unicameral legislatures (and India has 3-4 times our population). I think leaving the House at 435 is far safer than opening up an endless can of worms.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:55:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Size of Legislatures (none / 0)

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. The German 'Bundestag' has 598 members (the number was decrased from 656 only a few years ago). Germany's population is ~82M.
France: population 60M, national assembly members 577.
Poland: population 38M, 'Sejm' members 460.
Austria: population 8M, 'Nationalrat' members 183.

All of these are lower chambers in bicameral legislatures. Need more examples?

The number of representatives is not a matter of tactics or 'slippery slopes', it is a matter of democratic representation. From a European point of view, this discussion is most irritating.

Here is my revolutionary suggestion: Increase the House's size to 600-700 (effective 2010), re-calculate the numbers for the individual states (+DC), set up non-partisan redistricting commissions with strict rules to avoid gerrymandering. What will happen? Less "safe seats", more competitive elections, more people voting (because voting suddenly matters again). Does that sound so bad?

by markusle on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 06:56:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baloney (none / 0)

It's not a slippery slope to expand the House every time a state (or other entity) is added to it. How often do you expect that to happen?

And who cares how many people remember the size of the House? What proportion of people on the street know it as it is?

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd say give DC one senator. (none / 0)

I can't come up with a tight justification for that idea, but I think it's about right and is a little more achievable than two senators. If DC were a state, it'd be the 50th smallest of 51. Two senators to such a small jurisdiction increases the already-bad disproportionality of the senate.

One senator also means the VP would never get to cast a deciding vote in organizing the Senate, which is just frickin fine with me. My inclination is that if the chamber is tied, the party with the presidency shouldn't get the Senate, the opposite of how it winds up working now, for separation of powers and checks and balances reasons.

In fact, the founders specified that the losing presidential candidate became VP, so back then a tied chamber would indeed have tilted to the opposition. Not that the founders really anticipated a two party system, but still.

Anyway, one senator, no more tie votes, vaguely more achievable than two senators, also more fairly representative (two senators for 400k people? boo.) There's my two cents.

by texas dem on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd say give DC one senator. (3.00 / 1)

It's 600k people, not 400k -- more than Wyoming and nearly as many as Vermont. Treating DC residents as half-citizens feels almost worse than not giving us Senate representation at all, since you're taking the step of recognizing that the situation is unfair but then insulting us by specifically deciding we don't deserve to have two senators to vote for like other Americans. And I doubt that such a bizarre solution is any more achievable than something that actually gives us full rights.

As for the badness of the Senate, if anything, giving two senators to the 100% urban, Democratic DC would help offset the overrepresentation of the big, sparsely populated, Republican-leaning states that get two senators despite their small populations.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A few questions (none / 0)

Thanks for the update. I have a few questions.

1. Which map is a better deal for Democrats? Huntsmen's or the '01 map?

2. Is much of Utah's current growth due to natural increase (i.e. Mormon's) or out of staters? If it's the latter are these people more moderate than the Mormons?

3. So Huntsmen map would make the 2nd very safe for Matheson is that correct?

4. Why is Rocky Anderson retiring? Is he expected to seek another office?

Thanks

by adamterando on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:22:33 PM EST

Re: A few questions (3.00 / 1)

1. Huntsman's, no question. Under the '01 plan, Matheson could be in trouble. Huntsman's plan gives Matheson a safe seat; anything combining north Salt Lake County with Summit County (Park City) is a district a Dem can win. The other three seats are unlikely to go Dem, but whatever.

2. Mostly due to natural increase, but there are some out-of-staters moving in. I read that by 2030 Mormons will no longer constitute a majority in Utah, not just because of the newcomers but because of the Mormons who leave the church.

3. As safe as a House seat in Utah can be.

4. No idea.

by Tom on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few questions (3.00 / 1)

Mormons have more children than other Americans. Utah has the lowest average age of any state. That's a major reason for its growth.

I'm glad the Supreme Court left the Census' decision intact. NC-13 is a Democratic seat, as we knew it would be because Dems control(led) everything in that state. A 4th district for Utah would almost certainly have gone Republican and possibly jeopardized Matheson. Utah will get a 4th seat in 2010 anyway. I realize it was very close behind NC-13, but that's how it goes. Kinda like winner take all.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A few questions (none / 0)

As to 4,

Rocky wants to take on a job running an international advocacy organization on Global Warming or Human Rights. He's got the credentials to do either quite well.

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more question (none / 0)

If we don't give Utah this seat now, is there a chance the legislature will retaliate and try really hard to redistrict out Matheson?

You had a quote where some legislator said their '01 map (I think) had all 4 districts being 55-60% GOP. Is that what Matheson's current district is?

by adamterando on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:25:30 PM EST

Re: One more question (none / 0)

According to the Almanac of American Politics: "Redistricting in 2002 raised George W. Bush's 2000 percentage in the [2nd] district from 57% to 67% and made it the strongest Bush district held by a Democrat outside of Texas."

The 2001 map I talked about is one that never came into being because UT lost its SCOTUS case because it called for 4 seats.

To your other questions:

1. The Huntsman map is much more favorable to Democrats because it makes Matheson safe or at least one Democratic seat safe. Matheson and a moderate Utah Democrat could take two seats under this plan.

2. Our growth is a little bit of both. Salt Lake County is growing more and more cosmopolitan, but LDS families still have lots of babies. Keep in mind, many people who move into Utah are also LDS. However there is a significant chunck of people that move to Utah for other reasons, including their love of Utah's natural beauty (aka environmentalists).

3. Yes, Salt Lake County goes over 60% for Jim, and the parts in the Huntsman map include all of the Avenues, West Valley, Magna, Rose Park, and North Salt Lake--Democratic strongholds. Summit County is home of Park City and the Sundance Film Festival (as well as where most out of staters move).

4. Rocky Anderson is not running for reelection because he is unpopular and would probably lose reelection. While he has done some great things in terms of Koyto, he is very antagonistic and terrible to his staff. The surest way for an issue to lose at the state legislature is to have Rocky advocate it.

by DaveB on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One more question (none / 0)

they tried to redistrict Matheson out of his seat in 2002. his district used to be centered around Salt Lake City, now it contains a lot of eastern Utah.

by johnny longtorso on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NC (none / 0)

I'm unsure how this would affect NC. We have a Democratic legislature, but one that is leaning towards a bipartisan commission to draw maps. If we lose a seat, we could possibly end up kicking out someone like Chuck Taylor or Howard Coble through redistricting. Then again, we might lose ground in some seats.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:35:13 PM EST

Re: NC (none / 0)

NC would not lose a seat. This is not rehashing the 2001 SCOTUS arguments. What this would do is add two seats to the House -- one for DC, and, correspondingly, seat #436 in Utah (as a compromise to make this more palatable to Republicans.)

by Tom on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NC (3.00 / 1)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't need to worry about kicking Taylor out through redistricting...

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about... Give DC a Rep (3.00 / 1)

And let them vote for Senate

IN VIRGINIA!!!!!!!

That would more than put VA in toss-up status.

Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?

by jgkojak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:52:32 PM EST

Re: How about... Give DC a Rep (3.00 / 1)

Excellent idea! Virginia plus the Gore states makes -- President Edwards in 2009!

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 4)

Tell me why we can't give D.C. a rep and two senators. They have more people than Wyoming. They deserve equal representation.

by kfc colonel on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:01:40 PM EST

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 1)

Exactly. There is no way you could convince me (and I'm guessing most Washingtonians) to vote for either of our neighboring states. We are not Virginia. And we're definitely not Maryland. We deserve our own vote for our own representatives.

by kojo on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 1)

It's sadly because they are so reliably democratic.

The Republicans will never agree to add another state they have no chance of winning.

Not unless they get something in return I guess. Annex Alberta or something.

by scientician on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

Annex Alberta or something.

54° 40' or fight!

Read Brian's Utah Weblog

by Brian Watkins on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 1)

Racism, plain and simple. DC is 60% black, and another 8% or so Hispanic. No state has anything close to a black majority. The NAACP and other groups have gotten on board pushing for DC voting rights as a civil rights issue. Jack Kemp made comments supporting the Davis bill at the MLK Memorial ceremony in DC recently.

Actually, the history of admitting states (thus changing the partisan composition of Congress) has always been a very partisan undertaking. Witness the Missouri Compromise which for 30 years admitted free and slave states in pairs. I researched this in an effort to determine whether the previous DC push, the Norton/Lieberman No Taxation Without Representation Act, would be constitutional, and what kind of vote in Congress and what kind of approval from the president--if any--is required to admit a new state. So while Congress is in Republican hands, you could argue that it's simply a partisan matter of not wanting to add a Democrat to the House and two to the Senate. When Democrats are in charge, they lack such an excuse.

Personally, I don't believe in statehood for DC, but I do believe in full congressional representation for it. The tactical irony is that it would be easier to admit DC as a state (which the House voted on in 1993 and rejected) than to ratify a constitutional amendment giving it full congressional representation despite not being a state (which was tried in the 70s and died in the states).

I think that until DC has full representation in Congress, DC voters should be allowed to vote for members of Congress in any state or district in the country, as long as they only vote once per election. Imagine if we voted as a bloc, we could swing some major races each cycle!

-Fun fact: Lyndon Johnson pushed DC representation when he was president. Back then, with more people in DC and fewer in the nation, DC would've been entitled to two House seats.

I recently suggested to several DC council members and incoming Mayor Adrian Fenty that because DC is really a hybrid of a city and a state, it should rename its mayor Governor and its council the DC Senate. Fenty and a senior council member liked the idea. At minimum, the media would have to cover the change, bringing much needed attention to DC's taxation without representation status.

You should check out http://www.dcvote.org

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 0)

"Maryland doesn't want DC back. The District is horribly governed, high crime, terrible public schools, etc."

Maryland does not have any legal mechanism for taking the District of Colombia back and DC does not want to be a part of Maryland. As an actual resident of the District, I can certainly say that while our city undeniably has problems (which are common to all of America's large urban centers) we are far from horribly governed. Under Mayor Anthony Williams the District has been admirably governed and has enjoyed a true renaissance throughout the entire city. While our crime rate is high, it is also concentrated heavily in Southeast DC. The rest of the city is largely safe and has low rates of both property and violent crime. Our school system does perform dismally, but that is an intractable problem we have been struggling with for years. So before you blow off one of America's great urban centers, you might want to take a more nuanced perspective and actually know what you are talking about. I'm sure life in the provinces is much easier, bereft of our "horrible governance, high crime and bad schools." Of course I'm also sure it is mind numbingly bland.

by wjpugliese on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:11:27 PM EST

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

I have actually lived in DC and my relatives live there currently. I love the city. I just think they have a lot of problems that make them unattractive to MD for retrosession. You say that MD has no legal mechanism to take back its part of the District. Read this Wiki; VA did it, so MD can do it as well. They just don't want to. Part of DC's governance problem is that Congress gets to overrule any decision by the mayor and the city council. No other mayor has it this crappy in the US.

I hope to live in DC again next year, but I don't think it is a stretch to say the city has lots of problems.

by DaveB on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (3.00 / 1)

There is certainly a legal mechanism for returning the District of Columbia (note spelling) to Maryland: the same retrocession mechanism used to return Arlington to Virginia in 1846. Now, that solution doesn't seem very workable politically, but it does exist. Of course, no other mechanism seems very workable politically either.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

From a districting point of view, the implications of apportioning DC to Maryland for Congressional purposes are quite interesting. On a numbers alone, DC would give Maryland enough Democrats for a 9-0 delegation. The maps for that would probably look like an octopus Bacchanal, though. An 8-1 split, achieved (perhaps) by moving part of CD7 into CD1, shifting everything else north, and throwing some of Calvert and St.Mary's (and PG) into the DC district, seems easy.

As far as Maryland taking on DC for governance purposes, I think the opinion of Marylanders would be that the school system alone is enough of a cesspool that no rational person would want to assume responsibility for it. But the DC governance problems go far deeper than the schools. Just how long did you wait in line to get your driver's license, pray tell? Pretty much every DC government department, as far as I can tell, is unspeakably ossified and corrupt.

by Jay on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Halfhearted support. (3.00 / 2)

This plan is beneficial to DC residents, but I think the plan is morally reprehensible. It's OK to give black representation only when it's balanced out by white people get more representation. Why do Utah residents get another seat? They don't deserve it. Evidence: the previous census. Why do Utah residents get special treatment? Because they are white and Republican. We should not rest until DC gets two representatives and at least gets to vote in contests for senate.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:21:17 PM EST

Re: Halfhearted support. (1.50 / 2)

Well, I think that's going overboard. DC has never had congressional representation, even when most of its population was white. This is because under the constitution, House members can only come from states. (In fact, I don't see how this bill can fly, anyway.)

Utah is given the extra seat not because it's white, but because it's next in line given its population, and because it's reliably Republican.

by steveh2 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's not. (3.00 / 1)

Are you telling me that if DC were white and Republican they wouldn't have representatives and senators right now? This situation is a national embarrassment. Again, why doesn't Utah have to wait for the next census for to get a seat?! Why do they get special treatment? Yes, I know they were close to a fourth seat - but they didn't have enough. So now we have to give me white people extra votes so that black people can vote at all. I suppose the blacks should be thankful for it too. It's immoral, despicable, and I still support it. But I hope we can do better when the Dems get a chance at the helm.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Halfhearted support. (none / 0)

This issue of constitutionality was pretty much hashed out several months ago in another MyDD thread. Basically, it became clear that this proposal would likely be constitutional under Congess's sweeping powers to legislate DC affairs. Congress has previously decided by mere statute to treat DC as a state for a variety of constitutional purposes, from having a militia to enjoying sovereign immunity, and the Supreme Court is okay with that.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

Congress runs DC, that much is for certain, and can do whatever they want in regards to trash pick up or zoning laws or anything else. However, that's not the question here-Congress does not decide who gets to be in Congress-the Constitution does, and the Constitution says The People from the States decide who gets to be in Congress, and voters in DC aren't from a state.

Maybe the Supreme Court will decide it's fine, maybe they won't. We won't really know until they decide, if they ever do.

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Constitutionality (none / 0)

I asked Eleanor Holmes Norton a couple of months ago how sure she was that the bill was constitutional, and she said "not sure", but she's definitely in favor of it.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Halfhearted support. (none / 0)

Actually, that's not true. There was a time when DC was represented in Congress.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two representatives? (none / 0)

If DC were a state it would get one representative and two senators, same as Wyoming (which is a little smaller in population) and Vermont (which is a little larger). Where would a second representative come from?

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the population of DC? (3.00 / 1)

I was under the impression that it was big enough for 2 reps, or at least 1+. One person one vote.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the population of DC? (none / 0)

Less than 600,000. It's less populous than every state but Wyoming, though it wasn't that long ago that there were five or so states below DC in population. In any case, it's a long way from getting a second rep, though certainly any solution needs to allow for the possibility that it could eventually grow enough to get one (I fear the Davis bill doesn't provide for that, but I'm not 100% sure).

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the population of DC? (none / 0)

In the 2000 Census, it was 572,000. More than Wyoming, not too far below Alaska or Vermont.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAF FPopulation?_event=Search&_name=& ;_state=04000US11&Submit.x=15&Su bmit.y=13&_county=&_cityTown=&am p;_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pct xt=fph

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, sorry. (none / 0)

You were right. It is closer to one representative.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Halfhearted support. (none / 0)

Why should DC get 2 House members when its population doesn't justify that? We actually are below the national threshold required for 1 district.

I agree with the rest of what you said though. It's just that in a Republican Congress especially, Norton and Davis had to find a plan with bipartisan support in order to actually pass it. I heard Norton recently say that will still be the case because of Republican opposition in the Senate.

I have a friend who thinks DC should take back its portion of Virginia. HA! That might entitle us to 2 House seats though. It would also make VA more Republican.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

Interesting idea. Webb would never have won, though.

There are 200,000 people in Arlington, so I don't think it would be enough for another rep. Montana has 917,000 people and still has only one.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talking of unrealistic ideas... (none / 0)

If DC and the surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia came together and became a state, it would greatly simplify handling of regional issues like Metro. Besides, the rest of Virginia doesn't like Northern Virginia anyway (and same with the DC suburbs and the rest of Maryland).

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talking of unrealistic ideas... (none / 0)

But if you do it for Metro, do you also do it for MARC and VRE? Where do you draw the line...

The WMATA Compact area isn't static either. Loudoun County joins and will start paying in when rail service starts there. (I did a serious amount of transit activism in DC!) Other jurisdictions could also join, like Howard and Anne Arundel Counties.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talking of unrealistic ideas... (none / 0)

Obviously it'll have to be a constantly expanding state.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

Oh, but it's not just Arlington! Remember that originally there were concrete markers placed along the DC border at every mile. The western point marker is still there--in Falls Church. DC would get not only Arlington, but most of Alexandria and parts of Falls Church and Fairfax County.

Whether that would give us enough for a 2nd seat I don't know. MT is the biggest state to have 1 seat; a couple like HI and RI are just over a million and have two. Of course whether the House has 435 or 437 members would make a difference.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure it's just Arlington and a bit of Alexandria. I haven't found a good map online, but the District was a complete square, and the northwest and southwest borders of Arlington follow the sides of that square.

And what's this "us"? Didn't you move to Canada or somewhere?

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

Nono, if you look at the city and county boundaries in NoVa, you can see where the original District was. The Post had an article a while back on those old DC boundary markers that were placed every mile, and some of the ones that are still around. A bunch of them are in VA. At least one is definitely in Falls Church (excluding only 3 stops max of that end of the Orange Line).

Hey, I lived in DC for 6 years. And I'm still registered to vote there, as I did this year. I know DC better than any other city at this point. I read the Post addictively, listen to WAMU all the time, and get the DC Politics Hour weekly from iTunes. I was one of the founders of a PAC for DC voting rights, and I pushed the issue when I worked in the Senate. I was also one of the authors of the Sierra Club letter to Metro that led them to create the Riders Advisory Council, among other things. I'm still on a bunch of DC email lists. I'm pretty up on what's going on in the District. :)

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

I have looked at the boundaries. It's obvious from a map that the west corner of the old District is what is now the west corner of Arlington. It's at the boundary, of course, where Arlington meets Fairfax County and Falls Church, but it doesn't go into Fairfax County or Falls Church unless we're talking about a few yards due to surveying error or boundary changes or something. It's not far from the West Falls Church Metro (which is in Fairfax County) and past the East Falls Church Metro (which is in Arlington).

You are right that in my initial comment I neglected the bit of Alexandria at the south tip of the old District, but that's all. I know Wikipedia isn't perfect, but this article about the retroceded portion says that it became Arlington County and part of Alexandria.

But I think it is true that all of that land was part of Fairfax County before Virginia ceded it, which would be before the District or Arlington existed.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

Good points. Also, DC is projected to lose population in a big way over the next several decades, with WY surpassing it within a decade. A second vote wouldn't last long.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back Arlington (none / 0)

What's the source for this projection? Most people agree that DC is gaining population; Mayor Williams set an official goal of increasing the city's population by 100,000 residents to 675,000. I don't see why DC would be losing people at this point. The latest Census estimates are even disputed heavily. And Wyoming doesn't even have 500,000 people. Unless a sudden influx of Californians are moving to WY, it's not about to surpass DC's population.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:19:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

I don't know how much Matheson is "loved" statewide. He's a Republican, and I know several people who refused to vote for him this year because of his vote to allow the President unfettered discretion to indefinitely imprison anyone he wants.

That said, the redistricting map that Huntsman proposed makes a lot more sense than the current god-awful gerrymander. Salt Lake City is a relatively small city (pop. 180K), yet the city is split into two different congressional districts.

by steveh2 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:22:38 PM EST

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

I am sorry but Matheson is far for a "Republican." He may vote very conservatively, more than I personally would like, but he did vote for Pelosi (and Hoyer) and he is a supporter of lots of progressive things like a woman's right to choose, unions, no nuclear testing, etc.

Matheson got a larger percentage of the vote than any one else up in Utah this year save Orin Hatch. That says something, discontented liberals notwithstanding.

Also Matheson won't have to vote on conservative issues with Dems in charge now, so his score will probably go up these next years.

by DaveB on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

Matheson can win. Good luck getting Jim McDermott or Maxine Waters elected anywhere in Utah.

by lorax on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's all unconstitutional (3.00 / 1)

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1 reads:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17 reads:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

So, the House is chosen by people from the states, and DC is made up of territory that is no longer a state. Therefore, DC can't get a House seat without a constitutional amendment. If this is passed, DC's House seat will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court-but Utah may get to keep thier bonus Republican seat. This is a horrible, horrible, horrible plan which I am strongly against.

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:34:26 PM EST

Wow. (none / 0)

What a rope-a-dope that would be. I certainly would not put it past this Supreme Court. We all know that their hands are tied when it comes to full, equal voting rights. These types of things make me embarrassed to be an American. I really hate having to explain these things to supportive foreigners.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep in mind... (none / 0)

...all non-state American territories don't have representation in Congress, not just DC. Puerto Rico is part of the US, for instance, yet they have no Congresscritters as well. However, the way the constitution is written, DC can never become a state, while Puerto Rico could eventually become one.

The United States constitution has many, many flaws, this being but one.

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keep in mind... (3.00 / 1)

The residents of those territories do not pay federal taxes. The residents of DC do. So DC residents are the only Americans who have the worst of both worlds, paying taxes but having no say in how those taxes are spent.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all unconstitutional (none / 0)

It does appear to be unconstitutional, but then why would they be putting this bill forward? You have to figure the proponents of the bill know about that part of the constitution. Do they maybe know something that we don't or that we are overlooking here?

by kfc colonel on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

I believe it came from a Republican. The plan may be to do this "fair" trade off, the morons on our side agree, and whoopsie, the DC seat is found unconstitutional, but the Utah seat is fine, add +1 for their side.

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

It's because they know that if the Democratic Congress passed a DC representation bill, it would grant Del. Norton a vote without compensating Republicans with an additional seat.

by lorax on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

And how exactly would a Democratic Congress sneak such a proposal by a filibuster in the Senate?

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:44:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

I don't think Republicans could sustain a filibusted in the Senate. It would be extremely unpopular and we could peel off enough votes.

by lorax on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

Yes, this proposal was suggested by Republican Congressman Tom Davis, who represents suburbs of DC. He optimistically said, "Congress ultimately will grant voting rights to the District of Columbia because -- and it's really no more complex than this -- it's the right thing to do."

Delegate Norton is on board, outgoing Mayor Williams is on board, and it probably could have passed the House last session. The only ones who weren't on board were Jim Sensenbrenner, and a handful of MyDD commenters.

The notion that we can pass a bill giving DC a vote without the Utah clause is also misguided. Even though we have majorities in both houses, the 49 Republicans in the Senate can block essentially any legislation through filibuster.

Democratic opposition to this plan is either ill-informed (concern about constitutionality) or goofy (a bill supported by Eleanor Holmes Norton is a Republican conspiracy).

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

Incoming mayor Adrian Fenty is on board as well, as is DC Vote (a major group lobbying for DC voting rights).

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So DC is a state? (none / 0)

If I live in DC, I am a citizen of a state?

The constitutional question seems quite valid to me.

I agree that it's the right thing to do. However, there are plenty of "right things to do" that are also unconstitutional.

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So DC is a state? (none / 0)

Under the law, you are considered to be a citizen of the state of District of Columbia. This ia a legal fiction, but one that the Courts have upheld consistently.

"I've been a critic of NAFTA, CAFTA, and I'll be a critic of SHAFTA."

by Ryno on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So DC is a state? (3.00 / 0)

No, DC is not a state. If you live in DC, you are a citizen of the United States, and of the District of Columbia.

The constitutional question is valid, but it has been amply answered. Congress has broad power to treat DC as a state for constitutional purposes. See http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/smithsimplele gmemo052202.pdf for the relevant constitutional case law.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wasn't this suggested by a Republican? (none / 0)

It might not even take a filibuster. Don't forget about holds in the Senate. One racist Republican like, oh, John Cornyn or Saxby Chambliss or Jeff Sessions, could singlehandedly block the Davis bill. I'd say Conrad Burns but he's GONE BABY!!!

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all unconstitutional (3.00 / 1)

Interpreting the constitution is just not that simple (unless you are Scalia). Looking at court precedent, the intent of the framers, etc, DC has received the opinion from a number of scholars and attorneys on the matter, and strongly believe this will be found constitutional.
Here is one opinion, for example; http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/smithsimplele gmemo052202.pdf

While it would clearly be ideal to get a Constitutional Amendment, it just is not a reality. (The majority of DC citizens are for Statehood, not retrocession to MD, and there was an amendment in 1978, but it failed to be ratified.)

Also, DC's Delegate did have a vote in the early 90's, along with the Delegates of other "territories". But, in 1995 (when republican's took control of the house) they voted to eliminate all of those votes...without distinguishing DC's, who pay taxes, and the other territories that don't.

DC has been struggling for voting rights for generations, and while mixing voting rights with politics seems distasteful, I think this is a pill we must swallow.

by andersej on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1993-95 vote (3.00 / 0)

The vote in the Committee of the Whole that Norton and the other delegates got in 1993-95 was really just symbolic. If their votes ever made a difference in the outcome, then any member could call for a re-vote in which the delegates were excluded. So their votes only counted when they wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It may or may not be unconstitutional (none / 0)

That's why it's critical that the bill include a non-severability clause, so that if it is found unconstitutional, both DC and Utah would lose 1 House seat.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DC Deserves Full Representation (none / 0)

in both the House and the Senate. Whether that is on their own, or voting as a part of MD or VA, the people of DC deserve the same level of representation as everyone else has in the 50 states. And if they voted for Senate as a part of MD or VA, those would become 2 truly safe Democratic seats in the Senate.

It is absurd to link #436 Utah to DC's situation. The issues are unrelated, but certain folks in Utah are trying to do an end-around of the constitution to gain an additional seat in Congress. And if we add #436 for Utah, what about the next state - the one that was #437. Aren't they deserving of representation, too? Where does it stop?

There is no way to guarantee this is anything but a 1-1 split between the parties. And what if Matheson retires? Don't we stand to lose his seat in Utah as well? This is just a bad idea.

Enough is enough!

by Bear83 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:46:11 PM EST

Re: DC Deserves Full Representation (none / 0)

Matheson won't retire for decades, although he might run for Senate or Governor in the future in which case we would lose his seat if he ran in a non-new 2nd district. But I think trading a House seat for a Senate seat or governorship is worth it.

As to the constitutionality, why not try and give DC its representation? Let SCOTUS on the record against full representation and see what people think about that.

by DaveB on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

If I remember correctly, and it is ver possible I do not, the compromise bill was written so that the House of Representatives would revert back to 435 after the next census, and also if the SCOTUS did find it unconstitutional, utah would lose its 4th seat as well. Also I actually have heard that the 4th seat would be added to be an Atlarge seat so there would be no change to Mathewson's distrcit until the next redistricting anyway. Does any of this sound familiar to anyway?

by steburke on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:26:10 PM EST

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

The idea of reverting to 435 after 2010 was in the original plan but was abandoned in favor of permanently enlarging the House because otherwise some state would end up losing a rep in order to give DC one.

The at-large seat for Utah was also in the original plan but was shot down by Sensenbrenner. It's now a normal seat, which is why the redistricting is necessary.

I don't know whether it would be possible for the DC seat to be found unconstitutional while letting the Utah seat stand.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

The 4th seat should be at-large, and maybe we can make it at-large now that Sensenbrenner won't be chair. However, it's a small point compared to the main issue of getting representation for DC.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At-large seat (none / 0)

Why do you say the seat for Utah should be at large? I don't think we should care either way, as long as Matheson is happy.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At-large seat (none / 0)

I don't think it's a terribly major point, but here are three reasons:

1) It prevents the Utah legislature from getting another crack at taking out Matheson. Even though Huntsman seems happy to give Matheson a safe seat, members of the Legislature (some of whom may be interested in challenging Matheson) might not agree to Huntsman's map.

2) This bill should include a severability clause, which I think would be easier to write in the case of an at-large seat.

3) Redistricting can be painful to the people and communities who get moved around. Any time you redistrict, you take away from a large number of communities a representative who they have experience working with. I'd rather not inflict redistricting on people in Utah in 2007, only to make them redistrict again four years later.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At-large seat (none / 0)

Sensenbrenner "vetoed" an at-large seat. That is why the Utah legislature is going to create a new map.

by DaveB on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At-large seat (3.00 / 1)

Yet they have to do an end run around Sensenbrenner to bring the bill up for a floor vote in the House anyway. I kind of don't see the rush at this point; wait until we're in charge and pass a better bill. The House Dems will give Norton her Committee of the Whole vote back anyway, even though it probably would only be symbolic again as KCinDC pointed out.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

House seats must all represent the same number of people (in each state, since you can't balance it properly over the nation as a whole).

by Geotpf on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

The Constitution says the number of House seats is determined by the population of the state. It doesn't say anything about how the mapping between residents and representatives occurs. Ohio had an at-large seat (in addition to normal ones) for quite a while.

I agree with you that the proposed DC seat seems unconstitutionally questionable, but I don't see why an at-large representative for Utah would be.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

Illinois also used to elect its House members at-large. Ohio had 1 for a while, and 2 for another period. I think the bigger question is whether at-large House districts are permitted under the Voting Rights Act. I thought it banned them because they pretty much ensured that minorities couldn't get elected to them (witness the thin history of non-whites in the Senate vs. the house) and deprived them of additional districts in which they might be able to win election.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

If I recall correctly, Congress banned at-large seats a few decades ago. However, Congress can always amend that law in this one instance.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

Does that provision of the VRA apply to all states or just the ones that are singled out?

Some people have actually suggested at-large representatives (or multi-member districts) as a way to increase representation of minorities (both ethnic and political), but the idea would be to have multiple at-large members and a voting system that would allow people to cast multiple votes for candidates they especially like rather than one for each of N candidates on the list if they wanted. I found some about it on the FairVote site.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's also unconstitutional (none / 0)

Yeah, I've heard such ideas too. And I think they merit consideration, if legal.

Good question, I don't know the answer.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

That's what I heard.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!

by X Stryker on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No electoral ties (none / 0)

One interesting side effect of the bill would be that it would eliminate the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College (or at least make it much less likely -- there could still be one if some electors vote for a third candidate).

The number of electors would be raised from 538 to 539, so winning would still require 270 electoral votes but there would be no possibility of a 269-269 split.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:51:22 PM EST

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

Actually, since DC already votes in presidential elections by virtue of the 24th Amendment, this bill's effect on the Electoral College could be interesting. It would add 2 House seats, but would it add just 1 Electoral College vote (to 539)? Otherwise DC would be overrepresented in the Electoral College in 2008 since we already have 3 electoral votes.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 06:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

It's the 23rd Amendment, and it's pretty clear in stating how many electoral votes DC gets, so I don't see where there would be any real confusion. I'd forgotten that it says DC can never get more electoral votes than the least populous state. That seems unfair, but it's not likely to come up any time soon, I guess.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

That could really only come up if DC drastically expanded its population (unlikely given its small physical area), or if the size of the House of Representative increased.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

At this point, with 435 seats, you'd need over a million people to get two. DC had that many during WWII, but it was really a temporary emergency type situation. You don't really need land area as much as density to get more population. Our cities are far less dense than they should be. But yeah, DC is not about to have a million residents anytime soon.

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

This might not be a good thing for Democrats. The extra electoral vote would go to Utah, and thus to the Republican candidate. The only scenario where this would matter would be if the Democrat got 269 electoral votes. As things stand now, Democrats control the majority of state delegations in the House 26-21 (with AZ, KS, and MS split) and thus might win; however, with the extra electoral vote for Utah, the Republican would win.

Having said that, I don't think this is sufficient cause to oppose the DC/UT plan for the following reasons:

1) Contingency elections in the House have historically been disastrous. Even if it's bad for Democrats right now, any patriotic American should want contingency elections gone for good. Constitutional reform would be nice, but I'll take this.

2) In the long term, Republicans are more likely to control a majority of state delegations most of the time. Just for starters, KS, MS, NC, TN, ND, SD, IN, AZ, CO, WV, and IA could fall into the Republican column any time. On the other hand, looking at current population projections, the 436th seat (and thus the 539th electoral vote) after the 2010 census could easily be a Democrat in PA, CA, AL, NY, or MA. Preserving a slight Democratic advantage for just the 2008 election is foolish.

3) A contingency election in the House would be painful for the Democratic Party, and there's no guarantee that we'd win. When such a vote seemed possible in 2000, some southern Democrats said that they would vote for George W. Bush because their states had voted for him. I think Gene Taylor would vote for a Republican, and Democrats in NC, TN, IN, and the Dakotas would be tempted as well.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

I knew we'd taken the majority in 8 House delegations, but I didn't realize that put us in the majority of a majority of House delegations. The GOP had more at least from 1994-2006; had the 2000 presidential race been an electoral tie, the House would've elected Bush. (Though the Democratic Senate would've made Lieberman VP).

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

Up until this year, I thought the Republicans had a lock on delegations. Going into Election Day, we had 15: AR*, CA, HI*, IL*, ME*, MD, MA, NY, ND*, OR, RI*, SD*, TN*, WA, WV*. On Election Day, we picked up 11 more: CO*, CT, IN*, IA*, MN*, NH*, NJ*, NC*, PA, VT*, WI*. An asterisk means that one Democratic defection would take the state away from the Democratic candidate. Note that NJ had been split because of the Menendez vacancy, and VT had been held by Sanders who caucused with the Democrats.

Here are the Republican states: AL, AK*, DE*, FL, GA*, ID*, KY*, LA, MI, MO*, MT*, NE, NV*, NM*, OH (pending results), OK, SC*, TX, UT*, VA, WY*.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

We did pick up MN and WI which were ties. And we tied AZ and KS which had been Republican. NJ was already Democratic; no seats changed hands there. The fact that the 13th district was temporarily vacant is more of a technicality; Menendez had it before, and it's a solidly Democratic district. NJ hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1988 or a Republican senator since the 70s. I wouldn't count VT as a pickup either since we functionally had it already. Like Bernie Sanders would ever vote for a Republican president? His state voted for Kerry like 60-40.

Isn't KY 5R-2D? Who do we have there besides Chandler and Yarmuth? If so it shouldn't have an asterisk. Or does KY only have 6 seats...

Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject

by Sandwich Repairman on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No electoral ties (none / 0)

Yes, I know about the special situations in NJ and VT, which is why I pointed them out. KY is 4-2 Republican.

Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.

by bschak on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Utah 4th/DC seat bill (none / 0)

Why not pass the bill to grant immediate representation pending court action and also move a Constitutional amendment. I would think that enough states would support a bill to grant voting representation for fellow taxpayers from DC.

Of course, DC residents should also have voters in the Senate, but that is never going to happen. Historically, the Senate was to give states representation - not citizens.

I think a compromise to give DC a member of the House without Senators is a reasonable compromise that even Republicans could accept.

by Francis Vecellio on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 05:59:25 PM EST

Impartial Redistricting (none / 0)

Might look like this:

That's from running my own redistricter on the 2000 Census data for Utah. It's not a perfect solution every time so I'll let it keep running all weekend in case something better pops up.

Start Running Better Polls

by bolson on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:03:14 PM EST

Re: Impartial Redistricting (none / 0)

non-partisan redistricting in Utah would separate the urban/suburban centers (Odgen-Salt Lake-Provo-Park-City) from the rural areas.

I think it is unfair for the people in unpopulous counties to compete for attention from their congress[wo]men with the Wasatsch front. With 4 seats, you could make one Provo/ S. SL County centered, One SLC/Park City centered, one Ogden/ N. SLC suburbs centered, and one rural district.

The end result would be fairly close to Huntsman's map. Better for Utah and better for Democrats. Afterall, 35-45% of Utah votes Democrat, they should have about that many members of congress.

by DaveB on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 04:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.