Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia introduced HR 51 on January 3. Already it has 155 co-sponsors. See it here. Thanks to Mike Drucker for this news. There have been similar bills in many past sessions of Congress, but none of them has ever had that many co-sponsors, and it is very early in the session, so it will probably gain additional co-sponsors in the coming weeks.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Much simpler to just retrocede most of DC back to Maryland as was done years earlier with the Virginia side.
2 more RED communist USA Senators ???
— DOA in Blue USA Sen and Blue White House.
See also 1-8 clause about DC — can NOT be made a State ???
How many more RED communist machinations in 2019-2020 in the minority rule gerrymander Congress ???
Per Jeff, retrocession is the constitutionally prescribed approach. Making DC a state could only be done by amendment, not bill.
And, I see Demo Rep got him a fresh drug supply for 2019.
@SocraticGadfly – Although you’re probably right about the need for a constitutional amendment since there is no existing state to form DC out of, don’t put it past Congress to do the wrong thing. They got away with it creating [West] Virginia from Virginia when Richmond was still the lawful seat of government and would not have approved. Don’t get me started. I live in the eastern panhandle.
BTW, if retrocession is used, I would like to propose that part of the deal is that [West] Virginia acquire Garrett, Allegany, and Washington counties from Maryland. It would allow me to drive to my other property in Preston County via expressway without having to leave the state. Also makes up for our loss of population and makes Maryland all the more blue. And it removes the Cumberland pinch. The folks in the western counties better fit our demographics anyway.
How about expelling it from the USA and building a wall around it?
Congress should meet in the states. Representatives could be housed in college dorms or man camps. The mall area could be made a national park. D.C. would be returned to Maryland.
Jeff, true dat; that said, that was in the Civil War; in that same war, with an eye on Nixon’s re-election, Nevada was admitted as a state when it was almost surely below the constitutionally required 60,000 population.
Jim: Even better, if the Capitol Dome hadn’t been built during the Civil War, maybe we would have followed an idea of Horace Greeley and moved the capital west to St. Louis. Then, as today, near the geographic center, etc. Today, also near the population center, which Greeley of course saw continuing to move further west. I have an alternative history blog post related to that idea and WWI: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2014/06/100-years-ago-today-madness-began-at.html
@SG,
Would that have been Abraham Nixon?
It was the Apportionment Act following the 1870 Census that set the requirement that no new state could be admitted with less than the ratio of population. If that somehow had been applied to eliminate failed states, Delaware, Nebraska, Oregon, and Nevada would have been eliminated.
That apportionment act also set the uniform election date for Congress (which was not uniformly applied until 1958), and the requirement that paper ballots be used (this was not a requirement for Australian ballots, but rather outlawed viva voce elections which were used in some states).
Congress may not bind a future Congress, and the population requirement was ignored when Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming became states (washington, South Dakota, and North Dakota did exceed the ratio)
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.
Abolish the minority rule USA Senate.
PR and AppV — even in DC and the USA colonies.
Jim, you got me on that one. I think I was thinking about the minimum size of House districts, which is of course in the Constitution itself.
That said, I’m not sure Nevada had even 30,000 people in 1864. And thus, by extension, Nevada could have been denied.
That said, I don’t understand what you’re getting at in your second paragraph with the “ratio of population” statement. Makes no sense … ratio of population to WHAT?
Per the Constitution, that House districts are supposed to be at least 30,000, per the 1870 Census, every admitted state met that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_Census
So, I need a link back so I can understand what you’re talking about. It’s clearly NOT about actual population of states, and without that, I don’t know what you mean, with what you wrote in that second paragraph, as phrased.
1787 POPULATION STATS — LATE DARK AGE MATH.
ALL the new States after 1860 = machinations by the Elephant hacks to get *forever* CONTROL of the USA Senate.
—
Voting Electors = 2019 math —
NO children, NO foreign, NO outer space critters.
PR and AppV
Put USA central regime on a circus train near population center of USA ???
— local boom towns of looter gangs.
Move the circus train each 2/4/6 years ???
— local ghost towns of ex-looter gangs.
—
Option – put the gerrymander hacks in Wizard of Oz balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_center_of_United_States_population
also weighted center
Richard,
Jesus H Christ can you install a filter for Dumbo Rep? Some if us are trying to have an intelligent discussion here.
Perhaps install one of those infant crib play-mobiles for him to keep him occupied somewhere else on the site.
I feel like I’m in a Big Lebowski scene. “Shut the f*** up Donnie!”
@SG,
Here is the legislation. See Section 5.
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1870_Apportionment.pdf
The ratio of representation (also called the quota) is the population needed for one representatve. If the ratio is 100,000 then a state with 200,000 would be apportioned two representatives. A state with 280,000 might be apportioned three representatives, etc. Since only whole numbers of representatives are possible there has to be a rounding procedure (though some would be delighted with quartering representatives).
Historically, apportionment legislation only gives the final result (see Section 1), and you have to go through the debate to understand the actual calculation. Typically, they would play around with different numbers to get a result they liked. A state that was going to lose a representative might favor an increase in the size of the House. Different ratios would be proposed and the size of the house determined. But if they didn’t like the total number they changed the ratio.
Later they would determine the size of the House and then the ratio would be population/size. Rounding would be done in a way that would produce the desired result.
The modern method does not formally use a quota, because an algorithm was devised that does not require its calculation. An alternate algorithm would recursively adjust the quota until 435 representatives were apportioned.
I estimated the ratio by dividing the US population (minus DC and any territories), by 283.
This was the first Census following the Civil War and the end of slavery. The North (the winners) was concerned that southern states (the losers) would gain representation due to the obsolescence of the 3/5 rule. They had hoped southern states would disenfranchise freed slaves by literacy tests, poll taxes, etc., that they would lose representation under the 14th Amendment. But because the southern states were under Reconstruction this did not happen.
There was a proposal that the 1870 Census would report the number of male citizens over 21 whose right to vote was denied or abridged. This did not make it into law. There was a directive that estimates be made of such persons. Some states reported zero, while Massachusetts carefully tabulated illiterates, imbeciles, and idiots. I think they determined it would not make any difference, such that some could say an adjustment had been made and others said that the raw numbers were used.
Frustrated, they repeated the apportionment language from the 14th Amendment (Section 6). This is still part of the US Code (2 USC 6).
Congress eventually increased the size of the House so that few states lost representation. A few months later, they passed a new apportionment that ensured that no state lose representaion. There is no known algorithm that would produce such an apportionment. It is a case of Congress passing a law.
Section 2 provided that added members could be elected at large. Some state legislatures may have already adjourned.
Section 3 set the uniform election date. Section 4 provides that states may have elections that require a majority. If a state tried to elect someone and failed to do so they could hold another election. Each of these elections were referred to as a trial (try to elect). Without government-printed ballots, there was no way to conduct a runoff. Sometimes a district kept trying and never managed to elect someone.
I was wrong about the requirement for paper ballots. That must have been a separate bill passed at that session.
14-2 NOT enforced – 1868 onward.
Half ass 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Now 2019 HR 1 machinations.
—
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of USA.
PR and AppV
1-8-17
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;
How many square miles in Devil City – ex MD part ??? About unlucky 7 sq mi ???
Smaller regime — Vatican City in Rome, Italy ???
See Federalist about the reason for a separate area for the FEDERAL USA regime
— means ZERO to RED communist robot hacks like Norton.
@DR,
It is 10 miles square, not 10 square miles.
Persons resident to other federal forts, etc. are permitted to vote in federal elections for those states.
If the authority over federal military bases is like that over DC, then the jurisdiction over DC is like that over military bases.
DC is discretionary, may means may not shall or must.
@DR,
How would you enforce 14-2?
I stand math corrected —
about 70 sq miles in Devil City part of ex-MD ???
How many SMALL nation-States on Mother Earth ???
—
14-2 — Obviously – get affidavits / testimony from Electors (USA Citizen males over 21) whose right to vote was DENIED / ABRIDGED.
Force statist HACKS to pay for Census of USA Citizen males 21 plus in State.
Do the loss of USA Reps math — esp in larger States – like Texas, Florida, etc.
—
Again – the 1866 *radicals* knew that the slavery oligarchs had limited the RIGHT to VOTE in their rotted evil regimes — esp. used lower class whites as Confederate cannon fodder in 1861-1865.
Sec. 2 had been worked on in Dec 1865-June 1866 — multiple versions in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction — made to apply to ALL States – EWNS.
See the 2 main speeches on the 14th Amdt —
Sec. 2 was deemed much more important than Sec. 1.
—
The current RED communist scheme to NOT have a question about being a USA Citizen in the 2020 Census is one more subversion of 14-2.
—
Too many USELESS lawyers and SCOTUS HACKS to count.
google –
DC area = 68.34 sq miles
elite in NW.
ghetto in SE- about 2 blocks east of USA Capitol and SCOTUS.
USA Regime buildings and special interest looter gangs in middle.
Old NW Territory townships = 6 mi x 6 mi = 36 sq mi.
>>> DC bit under 2 old townships.
How many zillion folks in DC metro area ???
— Regime hacks / looter gangs / *normal* folks.
@Jim, appreciate it, and now I see where you’re coming from. Yes, one-third of states would have lost statehood if strictly enforced.
That said, I think we need a bigger House today. 500-550 single-member districts, which would also slightly smooth redistricting discrepancies. Then, 150-200 “national” Representatives elected on an PR basis.
==
And, I may have been wrong about Demo Rep getting new meds. Instead, I think he’s off his old ones. Wow.
“ghetto in SE- about 2 blocks east of USA Capitol and SCOTUS.”
How recently have you been in DC? There’s still a ghetto in Southeast, but it’s a lot further from the imperial seat of power now. DC has been heavily gentrified with many former poor residents pushed out to suburbs and wealthy suburbanites moved in to former slums in the district proper.
@SocraticGadfly – RE: House size. What I would like to see is to use the population of the least populous state as the benchmark. Wyoming’s is currently lowest at 586,107. Then divide that number into the populations of all other states and round the numbers up to determine the specific number of US Reps they should have. When I put the info from this website https://state.1keydata.com/state-population.php (2015 estimates) into a spreadsheet, it showed 547 as the new number, so you’re not far off. And only five states (Alaska, Vermont, North and South Dakota and Wyoming) would have a single at large Rep.
1873- mob scene in USA H Reps [due to higher pct of Reps in ex-slave States)
— downhill since in respect – esp with 1913 super mob scene – 435 Reps
— basically about top 5 gerrymander HACKS dictate laws
— rest of gerrymander hacks are very well paid under-worked robots
— Tues-Thurs partial weeks, often vacation breaks
— NO need to read 10,000 page bills, etc. etc.
ARJ — how many staff stooges for each gerrymander Rep/Sen MONSTER in USA Congress x zillion special interest gangster lobbyists — aka bribe givers — NOW residing in Devil City [with how many public and private rent a guards per square mile] ???
IE — how many walking to/from Capitol complex [having how many square miles of office/hall space ???] to *work*
— being watched 24/7 by police state security cams ???
How many zillion tons of junk bills, reports, etc. produced per second in the Capitol complex ???
— becoming toilet paper at best ???
—
ANY SCOTUS folks walk to work — with their guards ???
@ARJ,
We know from the experience of the California blanket primary in 1998 and 2000 that there is little difference in the political support between the primary and the general election. It is erroneous to characterize those who vote in primaries as “political junkies”. More civically engaged, might be a better characterization.
It certainly is not rational to forgive someone for not voting. It would be arrogant to go up to a non-voter and say you were personally hurt by their not voting, but now that you have rationally considered their possible reasons you forgive them. If you want potential voters to vote for you or the candidates you support, you need to energize them.
Was Jesse Ventura elected in Minnesota because of “Reform” next to his name? If so why were no legislator with the same label elected? What about Angus King in Maine?
You seem to be ignoring that nominations are eliminated in Louisiana and Washington. This thread is about the phony baloney parties that “exist” under New York’s con-fusion system. If you are concerned about the power of labels, eliminate them.
Ranchers run cattle, it is offensive to characterize candidates as being run by parties. A ward boss is not the same as a trail boss.
Jeff, that sounds like a good option for single-member seats.
As a third-party voter, I still want those “national” reps, too!
@SG,
The ratio in 1870 appears to be 135,000. They liked to choose round numbers like that. There are two conflicting constraints. Lower the quota, and citizens will have more local representation, but the House itself will be more unmanageable. Delaware, Nebraska, Oregon, and Nevada were under 135,000. They probaly realized by then that Nevada was a mistake, even with its expanded borders.
The reason the House is “fixed” at 435 is that Congress failed to reapportion after the 1920 Census. As the 1930 Census was approaching, Congress agreed on a procedure where the President (as head of the executive branch including the Census Bureau) would transmit to Congress the number of representatives based on the method used by the last preceding apportionmen (1910) and two specific methods. If Congress failed to enact apportionment legislation, it would automatically take effect.
Congress is really good at doing nothing.
I like the system proposed in California where legislators would be chosen.from small districts (5000 for Assembly, 10000 for Senate). Groups of these legislators would choose committee members who would serve in Sacramento. The full body, roughly 8000 assembly members, and 4000 senators would vote on final passage. Expenses of the legislature would be reduced by 1/3.
To get more exact apportionment for Congress, representatives could be apportioned to the nearest 1/5 representative. The apportionment for a state would vary through the decade.
A state entitle to 3.6 representatives would have 4 representatives for three congresses during the decade, and three during the other two decades.
@DR,
Who determines if the 14-2 affidavit is legitimate?
Who determines if ANY affidavit is legitimate ???
Why do Notary Publics and COURTS exist ???
—
Having ANY State lose ANY USA Rep will END all the HACK machinations about subverting 14-2 —
and related *RIGHT to Vote* Amdts — esp in larger States – CA, TX, etc.
Census stats = instantly obsolete — 10-15 percent of folks moving around per year.
Voters vote.
Total Votes / Total Members = RATIO
— IF each member is having ONE vote.
Voters vote — NOT non-voters – children, foreign.
SG —
How about a Congress to fill up the nearest sports stadium [with a roof] ???
2 seats per hack – 1 aide [who knows what’s going on] / 1 HACK — perhaps 25,000-40,000 HACKS.
— lots of booze/drugs/beer/hot dogs sales in aisles — 10/15/20/30 minute breaks — NO sleeping – spy cams watching 24/7.
——-
Gee – how did the below item get in the SG post ??? !!! —
“Then, 150-200 “national” Representatives elected on an PR basis.”
ANY DR effect ???!!!
I agree that that the most honest (Constitutional) manner would be reversion of most of the District of Columbia back to Maryland. However, for the remainder of the District itself, if workable, it would be interesting to see if using the corridors of the Federal Government buildings for the District boundaries, an area encompassing 13, 17.76 or 17.87 square miles could be drawn with a minimum of population residing within. Those voters could be allocated to their previous state of residence similar to foreign residences of current citizens, where applicable. Lifetime District residents within the prescribed District would need to be dealt with in a different way.
Now as far to membership in the Federal House, in a manner of speaking there already IS one formula available. In the original 1790 census the House had 65 members representing the 13 original colonies, giving an average of 5/state. By 1910, when there was the last change in the House to 435 seats representing the soon to be 48 states, the ratio was 9.125/state. An increase of slightly over 4 seats in 120 years. Since 2030 will be 120 years from the last change in the number of House seats, an increase to 13/state would give us 650 members assuming, of course, that Congress doesn’t add Puerto Rico or any of the other 4 dependencies to the states before then. This would give Congress more than enough time to build a new Capitol building capable of comfortably holding 1,000 people on the House floor and 150 on the Senate floor.