The July 15 issue of National Journal has this interesting article about voting rights for citizens who live in the District of Columbia. The article mentions Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher’s HR 665, which would provide that for voting in Congressional elections, D.C. would be deemed to be part of Maryland, so that Maryland would have an additional U.S. House seat.
Ah, a logic first step to a 200 year old ‘problem’ and so much better than DC as the 51st state ……….
—- Donald Raymond Lake
The Rohrabacher bill (HR 665) would also apply to senate and presidential elections and include the DC population with Maryland for purposes of apportionment of representatives.
The senate version of the DC representation bill was quite explicit that DC was not a State and would not have senate representation. I wouldn’t be surprised that the real reason for the hangup in the House wasn’t over that provision, and not the 2nd Amendment provisions.
Under HR 665, until Maryland redistricted, the District would form the 9th CD for Maryland, and there would be 436 representatives.
Once Maryland redistricted, presumably following the 2010 census, the District would be required to be wholly within a single CD. Following 2010, there would permanently be 437 representatives to preserve the odd number of members in the House and for presidential electors.
A particularly interesting part of HR 665 is the Findings section which provides the legal rationale for re-enfranchisement of District voters within Maryland, as had been the case from 1791 to 1801.
Under terms of the 23rd Amendment, Congress would direct that no presidential electors be appointed for the District of Columbia if HR 665 became law.
Perhaps, instead the 3 electors should be appointed on the basis of the national popular vote. Congress could provide for a system of national candidate qualification, and then only count popular votes from States that had all such qualified candidates on their ballot.
Attention any and all MORONS — D.C. is NOT a State.
14th Amdt – Sec. 2
Proper constitutional amdt —
Uniform definition of Elector in U.S.A. elections.
P.R. — legislative bodies and A.V. nonpartisan executive / judicial offices.
Way too difficult for the party hack MORONS in the minority rule gerrymander Congress to understand.
Words Have Meaning
For example:
“Governments…[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Those words meant something when the colonists spoke them to their British countrymen. They still mean something when DC denizens speak them today to their American countrymen. Compare the Declaratory Act of 1766 with the District Clause of 1789. Each asserted the unwarranted absolute authority (in eerily similar language, i.e., “in all cases whatsoever”) of the national legislature over an un-represented minority of the national population.
Legitimate power depends on the consent of the governed. The opportunity to grant or withhold such consent (via regular free and fair elections) has been denied residents of the District for over 200 years. That omission of any opportunity to grant or withold consent, of any opportunity to be counted when consensus is sought, undermines the justice and even the very legitimacy of the Congress, the Courts and the Constitution itself in exercising power over the District.
Voting in the affairs of one’s native country is an inalienable right. “Inalienable†means something like innate, or inherent or intrinsic. One cannot sell it or give it away, and no one can take it away.
So it really is irrelevant whether someone would like to trade voting rights for the absence of taxation: it can’t be done.
Whether taxed or not, DC denizens HAVE an inalienable right to vote. It is innate, inherent, intrinsic to their unarguable identity: citizens of the nation, part of the posterity of the original colonists.
It is the OTHER citizens of the nation who must at some point come to respect and recognize that inherent right of their fellow citizens in DC, stemming from their equal membership in the nation.