‘DC and US Flags’
courtesy of ‘Mr. T in DC’
House Democrats are attaching the DC Voting Rights Act, which would grant a full House seat to the District and an additional seat to Utah (to keep things nice and even) to a defense appropriations bill, under the theory that Republicans won’t want to vote to hold up appropriations for the troops.
House Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) opposes this move “because it would be showing a propensity to use our men and women in uniform to carry controversial legislation.” Which entertains me, because I’m pretty sure that using our men and women and uniform as a political football is one of America’s most time-honored traditions.
Tiffany Baxendell Bridge is an Internet enthusiast and an incurable smartass. When not heckling the neighborhood political scene on Twitter, she can be found goofing off with her ukulele, Bollywood dancing, or obsessing about cult TV. She is That Woman With the Baby In the Bar.
Tiffany lives in Brookland with her husband Tom, son Charlie, and two high-maintenance cats. Read why Tiffany loves DC.
Did the Republicans attach the ANWAR drilling amendment to a Def Approps bill about 2-3 years ago? Held up the Def bill for weeks as I recall, thank you patriotic American Ted Stevens.
Sorry, that was supposed to be “didn’t” not “did”.
Good point Brian. It’s a very strategic move by the Dems. Shows that both political parties can and will use strategery ;) to get important partisan policies passed.
Such a common practice that is pretty ridiculous to anyone outside of Congress, but it’s unfortunately how bills get passed. Republicans call Dems out on playing politics when Dems do it and Dems call Republicans out when they do it. Yay politics!
This is a completely pointless exercise. Even if the bill passes both chambers, there’s still that pesky, pesky thing called the Constitution that explicitly states that DC cannot vote. It’s so cut and dry that it wouldn’t even be worth hearing arguments in court. DC voting rights requires an amendment, and nothing less.
No, the Constitution says that the States will have representation. It does not specifically exclude DC, since Article 1 was adopted before there was a District of Columbia to exclude. The 23rd Amendment grants electors equal to the number DC would have if it were a State, but the power to admit DC as a state is still squarely within Congress’ power, just like it could admit Alaska and Hawaii.
I agree that there are constitutional issues with just handing over a vote to Eleanor Holmes Norton, but as a tactic to force the issue, it makes sense.
There are reasonable policy concerns about any state housing the federal government, but those are questions that can be debated and settled without disenfranchising a million people.
Kirk…We will not know if it is unconstitutional unless a bill is passed. Do you mean to tell me that Congress has NEVER passed a bill of questionable constitutionality?? Come on…get real!! There is absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic. Besides, I am sure the Supremes look forward to this too!
Think about the individual justices sitting on the Supreme Court. As easy as you can count to five, you can be sure the D.C. Voting Rights Act would be overturned in a heartbeat.
Like it or not, there’s no remotely constitutional way DC can get a representative without either full statehood or a constitutional amendment.
Pingback: DC Voting Rights Provision Unlikely » We Love DC