New Bill for D.C. Voting Representative in US House

On May 11, Congressman Thomas Davis (R-Virginia) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC’s Democratic Delegate to the US House) held a press conference to announce their co-sponsorship of a new bill. The bill, which doesn’t have a number yet, would give D.C. a voting member of the U.S. House. It would also give a new member to Utah (the state that was closest to deserving an additional seat after the 2000 census). It would also permanently enlarge the size of the U.S. House from 435 to 437 members. The new Utah seat would be at-large for the remainder of this decade.

The reason for giving Utah a new seat is that it is the only way to persuade Republicans to vote for the bill. Since it is considered virtually certain that the new D.C. seat would be a Democratic seat, giving Utah another seat balances the partisan change, since it is assumed the new at-large Utah seat would be Republican. The reason for making the new Utah seat at-large is that it avoids a messy fight in the Utah legislature over drawing new districts.

Congressman Davis had introduced a somewhat similar bill last year, but this bill is considered likely to pass, since it has the support of Eleanor Holmes Norton, whereas the first bill didn’t have her support.


Comments

New Bill for D.C. Voting Representative in US House — 16 Comments

  1. I agree with some sort of representation for DC, but not an extra congressional seat for Utah. Just because Utah was close perecentage wise to getting an additional seat (at the expense of another state) that shouldn’t mean they get another full seat just to let DC get there’s. Let’s right a wrong correctly. Although, Utah would probably stand a better chance of getting a Dem congressperson.

  2. The Washington Post story on this explains the Democrats are worried that if Utah got another district, the Utah legislature would redraw the districts to put Jim Matheson (D-UT) in a Republican-dominated district.

    Utah does have the argument that the census bureau didn’t count missionaries living abroad. Of course Utah has an unusually large number of missionaries abroad because missionary work is so prevalant among the Latter-Day Saints. There are good arguments on both sides of that one.

  3. Surely this will also effect the Electoral College when it comes to the Presidential election.

  4. I oppose this bill because it sets a terrible precedent. It does nothing to address the “status” of DC and opens up a constitutional can of worms with regards to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and other places which have Delegates.

  5. In 2001, Utah had drawn two maps, one with three districts and one with four – the contingency was based on the supreme court case hearing whether overseas residents should be counted. They lost that case and therefore used the three-district map. Why couldn’t they just use the four-district map that was already approved?

    BTW, North Carolina received the seat that Utah would have gained had the overseas residents been counted.

    Of course, in 2011, the state that gets the extra seat is not yet known (its almost certain that Utah, due to population growth, will have a fourth seat regardless).

    Lastly, I’d prefer a direct approach to the lack of representation for the citizens of DC – either give DC statehood or cede the populated territory to Maryland.

  6. Hasn’t any person in this effort read the Constitution?
    Giving the District of Columbia a member of Congress will require an amendment to the Constitution. It can’t be done with just a bill by the constitutionally illiterate current members.

  7. The new Utah seat wouldn’t be “at the expense of” anyone else. The method used to calculate congressional apportionment assigns priority to seats in order, after every state has been allotted one seat. So one can calculate what the apportionment of Congress would be for any arbitrary U.S. House size (and, since it was set decades ago and is not mandated by the Constitution, House size is, in fact, already arbitrary).

    The “51st” seat in the present Congress is Texas’s second seat, followed by Texas’s second, California’s third, New York’s second, and so on. The 435th seat in the present Congress is North Carolina’s thirteenth; If the present Congress had 436 house seats, Utah would get a fourth. The 437th would be New York’s 30th, followed by Texas’s 33rd and Michigan’s 16th, etc, etc…

    Who gets the last seat varies with each apportionment. Following the 1990 census, Washington state got the “last” house seat (its ninth), beating out Massachusetts. According to current projections, following the 2010 census, Louisiana would beat out Minnesota for the 435th seat (using pre-Katrina estimates, of course).

    So why not use an arbitrary, but politically convenient fact to help right a wrong that has persisted for over 200 years? This debate wouldn’t even be possible if it were, say, Massachusetts battling Oregon for the 435th seat.

    Incidentally, this wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. House had had 437 members. When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union in 1959, their new representatives were added to the body “on top of” the already-present 435 members. I presume the extra two desks are stored in a closet somewhere in the Capitol. 🙂

  8. I thought there was also a Constitutional reason that a state could not have an at large rep and districts. I seem to remember a state wanted to do this and could not. It may be only a federal law not a Constitutional provision.

  9. First: The Suprememe Court has in the past struck down “At-Large” districts.

    Second: People know that by living in DC that they are not “represented”, if this bothers them they can move.

    Third: Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands & other Territories, should be allowed to vote to determine whether they become States or become independant.

    Fourth: The US Congress should return to the Constitutional rules set for apportionment of Congressmen. Although doing this would increase the number of Congressmen to roughly 1,500

  10. (1) Congress enacted a law some time in the late 1960’s banning the usage of proportional representation. The law came and went throughout the decades and Illinois at one point used some type or pr for state legislative race.

    (2) I am pretty sure that their is a const. amend that allows Congress to make the DC delegate a voting member.

    (3) Can some one tell me about what the Const says about the appoitnment of Congressmen?

  11. (1) Congress enacted a law that bans multimember districts and at-large elections in congressional races, NOT proportional representation per se. This was to prevent states from using multimember districts to exclude minorities after the Voting Rights Act. As this is a federal law, not part of the constitution, Congress can choose to make exception for Utah for a few years.

    (2) This will increase the Electoral College by 1, reducing the chance of ties.

    (3) I’m not convinced that giving a voting rep to DC requires amending the Constitution. Giving a Senator or 2 might, although people make arguments about how DC is already considered a “state” for many purposes.

    (4)I agree that ceding DC to Maryland would make everything cleaner. Until then I think this would be a good measure. And who cares if Utah gets an extra seat out of it for 4 years? That’s not so terrible. If that’s what it takes to fix a wrong, than so be it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.