pudge's Journal: Idiots and a DC Vote

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) is trying to pass a bill that would give a vote in Congress to the Representative from Washington, DC.

This could not be more clearly unconstitutional. Article I specifically denotes that Representatives are elected by the people of the different States. There is no question whatsoever about this.*

But for some reason, the Constitution is not a good enough to vote against the bill according to Davis, who said on NewsHour this week:

You have a lot of members who are opposing this saying it's unconstitutional, we need a constitutional amendment. So when you go up and say, well, will you join me then in supporting a constitutional amendment to give the city a right to vote? They say "Oh, no. I won't do that." So it's kind of an excuse as you go.

Um. Whatever the motives of people are for using the argument, the argument is completely sound. You are sponsoring an illegal law.

I wouldn't actually mind an exception carved out in the Constitution, in the form of an amendment, for the District. The District was not envisioned as a population center, so fine, let's fix the problem: but only by amending the Constitution. The District has been Constitutionally special since the beginning.

I don't know what form that exception should take, exactly. I don't like trying to "balance" it by giving an extra representative to Utah: each state should have its proper representation. I figure the most logical thing to do -- that would have a chance of passing, and would follow existing precedent -- would be to determine its representation in Congress the same way their electoral college representation is determined as per the 23rd Amendment, so they would get one.

*Sure, some lawyers disagree, and every one of them should be disbarred for being idiots, including Ken Starr. Starr had the gall to claim that the same people who wrote and passed the Constitution, and who established the District, somehow actually intended for the District to have voting representation ... but just never got around to it. And certainly the people of the U.S. don't think the Constitution should be interpreted that way, because at the time of the 23rd Amendment's passing in 1960, they could have rectified this situation by simply adding it to the proposed amendment.

An idea...

[Jhon]

Wouldn't it be easier to declare residents of D.C. to be "citizens" of VA or MA for purposes of federal representation? And let congress budget the necessary money to cover the costs of having VA and/or MA include them in federal elections?

Granted, it would definitely change the district makeup of either or both states...

Re:

[Jhon]

Ug... I meant MD. Duh.

Re:

[johndiii]

No, I think that your original idea was sound. Put them in Massachusetts. Perhaps Marion Barry would run against Ted Kennedy. That would be a circus worth seeing. :-)

Re:

[SiliconJesus]

Speaking on behalf of Maryland, we don't want 'em. We gave the land to make DC sure, but I'll be damned if I want DC's problems.

In reality, the congressional districts adjoining the District have traditionally voted *for* the district.

Re:

[bofkentucky]

GMontag and I discussed this once, everyone south of the Potomac is already a Virginia resident, so it's just a matter of making everyone north of the Potomac a MD resident.

Re:

[pudge]

As I mentioned above, simply declaring it by fiat seems unconstitutional. However, you could change the borders so that the population centers of the District are part of Maryland. That would be Constitutionally acceptable.

Re:

[pudge]

Wouldn't it be easier to declare residents of D.C. to be "citizens" of VA or MA for purposes of federal representation?

Not without amending the Constitution, no. The Constitution says Reps are elected "by the people of the several states," and I don't think it is reasonable on its face to say a person is "of a state" that they have never established residency in. We do carve out exceptions for some people who work in states other than where they have established "residency," but "residency" still remains the requirement, however defined, and this is stretching that concept way too far.

Second, this would still end up bein

Interesting question

[ces]

I suppose one could argue Congress is doing this under the provisions that allow the House to set its own rules. However that may be stretching past the point of constitutionality.

The clean way to do it is by the same way DC was given a vote for President. Pass a Constitutional Amendment granting DC 2 Senators and a Congressional Representative. Though you could also just make them residents of MD for all purposes of Federal representation (including allowing DC residents to run for MD House and Senate seat

Re:

[pudge]

I suppose one could argue Congress is doing this under the provisions that allow the House to set its own rules. However that may be stretching past the point of constitutionality.

I certainly think so. DC is not a state. Reps are elected for States.

The clean way to do it is by the same way DC was given a vote for President. Pass a Constitutional Amendment ...

Exactly.

Though you could also just make them residents of MD for all purposes of Federal representation (including allowing DC residents to run for MD House and Senate seats).

I mentioned this in my entry ... you can't do that, because no one living in DC would be able to run, so they would still not have full representation. The Constitution is explicit that you can only run for Rep if you are an inhabitant of the state. It is not reasonable for someone to be called an "inhabitant" of a state they have never been to. Only if the Maryland borders were actually changed to include those areas would

Re:

[ces]

I mentioned this in my entry ... you can't do that, because no one living in DC would be able to run, so they would still not have full representation. The Constitution is explicit that you can only run for Rep if you are an inhabitant of the state. It is not reasonable for someone to be called an "inhabitant" of a state they have never been to. Only if the Maryland borders were actually changed to include those areas would this be reasonable.

I meant pass a Constitutional Amendment making residents of DC residents of Maryland for purposes of electing Federal offices. I presume that would include the ability to run for those offices even though they don't technically live in Maryland.

In any case, short of handing everything except the Federal Property in DC over to MD the only way to solve the problem is by some form of Constitutional Amendment or by granting DC statehood.

Re:

[pudge]

I meant pass a Constitutional Amendment making residents of DC residents of Maryland for purposes of electing Federal offices. I presume that would include the ability to run for those offices even though they don't technically live in Maryland.

Ah. Right.

I think the other possibility is better: just extend the 23rd Amendment to include the House and Senate. Same deal.

In any case, short of handing everything except the Federal Property in DC over to MD the only way to solve the problem is by some form of Constitutional Amendment or by granting DC statehood.

Agreed.