District of Columbia non-voting Delegate to the U.S. House Eleanor Holmes Norton says she will re-introduce her D.C. voting rights bill, and it will be virtually identical to last year’s bill. This means it will include a new seat in the U.S. House for Utah, and one for the District of Columbia. See this article.
She also says it is virtually certain to pass. Last year it passed in the House, but failed in the Senate. This year, she says 65 members of the new Senate support the bill.
Her decision to reintroduce the old bill was not obvious. Some D.C. voting rights advocates wanted the bill to include two U.S. Senators. Others wanted her to introduce a bill to make D.C. a state. It seems no member of Congress wants to introduce a bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, to put D.C. back into Maryland.
D.C. is NOT a State.
14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
Much too difficult for the party hack EVIL Donkey MORONS in the gerrymander Congress to understand.
One more NO brainer case if and when the Supremes get the bill/law.
There is also Article One, section 8, which says “The Congress shall have Power to…exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.”
The 14th amendment, section 2, says, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers”, but it doesn’t say that only states shall have members.
Mercy.
Also —
Art. I, Sec. 2. [para. 1] 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.
[para. 2] No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
14th Amdt, Sec. 2 replaced the old EVIL 3/5 slave language in Art. I, Sec. 2, para. 3 (just after the above language).
—-
Sorry D.C. is NOT a STATE of the Union.
It was established as a federal special area NOT under the control of ANY STATE.
—
See the special 23rd Amdt regarding D.C. in the Electoral College.
Thus – a constitutional amendment would be required to let D.C. have a LEGAL U.S.A. Rep. in the Congress (plus any U.S.A. Senators).
Again —
uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and A.V.
—— to END all the special junk — D.C., colonies, gerrymanders, etc. etc. This stuff AIN’T atomic physics.
HR 1858 is a Maryland retrocession bill.
Actually, try Article I, Section 2..
———————————————————-
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.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
—————————————————–
I think that makes it very clear, only states were EVER intended to have voting representatives.
However…interesting thought here…WHO exactly would even have standing to sue over this. A suit is filed by someone who has been harmed, and who is seeking action by the court to redress the harm done. While one might be able to argue that DC getting a vote is illegal, how could any citizen or group of citizens claim that such an action harms them in any way?
If you can’t claim harm done, you have no standing….period.
Why doesn’t Congress simply “deannex” all of DC, except for the land parcels on which government buildings actually sit? Then, given the population required, a new Congressional district can created bringing the House to 436 or 437 members, as the case may be, from Maryland. I’ve never understood the convoluted posturing over this other than adding a Democrat to the House. But the Democrats haven’t done it!
It’s not even a constitutional issue. The Constitution does not compel the Congress to govern all the land permitted – “not exceeding ten miles square.” It could be ONE square mile. Enough time wasted on this – deannex and give the people a seat.
“Why doesn’t Congress simply “deannex†all of DC, except for the land parcels on which government buildings actually sit?”
Good question. Part of is that many D.C. residents probably see themselves as being somehow socially or
culturally distinct from Maryland and would probably not want to be a part of the State.
They might take it as would say, the Dakotas being deannexed into one State, instead of a North and a South. Yes, I realize that DC is not a State, but my gut tells me that is the negative response that people assume would occur.
Compare the cultural, socio-economic and political demographics of both States? Would their be conflict or frustrations if D.C. basically became a city of Maryland?
How far does the regulatory powers of Congress go over the D.C.? I would probably prefer a Constitutional Amendment — one of the three I been pleading for — but if it passes and gets challenged finding standing will be tough.
A very large share of the Maryland legislature was born in Washington, D.C.