* The bill is S. 160, which was introduced by Sen. Lieberman and which was already cosponsored by three Republicans (Voinovich, Specter, and Hatch).

* S. 160 passed cloture by a vote of 62-34. The Republicans voting for it were Hatch (UT), Lugar (IN), Voinovich (OH), Specter (PA), Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Murkowski (AK), and Cochran (MS). Democrats voting against were Byrd (WV) and Baucus (MT).

* According to the legislation, the House would be permanently increased in size to 437 members from its current 435. This would have the side effect of increasing the electoral college by 1 member; this means that there would be an odd number of members of the electoral college, so ties become much less likely. If I believed this bill were remotely constitutional, I would consider this a definite plus.

* The new seats wouldn’t appear until January 3, 2011: the new members would be elected as part of the general election of 2010.

* Utah would have to redistrict for the 2010 House elections, then redistrict again for the 2012 House elections.

* The bill contains explicit provisions for challenges to its constitutionality, specifying that any such challenges would be heard in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, that such challenge could only be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are supposed to expedite any such case.

* The bill contains explicit provisions to abolish D.C.’s “shadow representative” upon its passage. I would actually root for this to pass and then be found unconstitutional just to get rid of this farce, were it not for the fact that the bill contains a nonseverability provision that basically repeals the whole bill if any part of it is found unconstitutional.

* Right now, the state that would have the strongest standing to sue against this law is … New York. If the House were to be expanded to 437 members, then seat 436 goes to Utah and 437 is supposed to go to New York. Now, it’s reasonable to assume that a New York state government run by Democrats will support this new law instead of trying to grab the seat for itself (although stranger things have happened). However, this only applies for about two years; after the 2010 Census, seat 437 will almost certainly belong to another state and it is possible that that state will have a Republican government eager to challenge it.

Ever since the SCOTUS filibuster, etc. there is no rule of law. Weak a$$ RINOs will never think to file suit in the “9th Circuit Court of Appeals” or anywhere else to fight against the unconstitutionality of anything. We’ll just make it up as we go along, it’s called anarchy. The way it works, the ruling party makes all the rules (if their Democrats) and they get to do whatever they want; then when the opposition wins the ruling party (Democrats) scream bloody murder about unconstitutionality about things that aren’t unconstitutional and weak a$$ RINOs set up the Gang of 14 and do whatever the ruling party wants to do.

Get it?

Stephen Colbert and Eleanor Holmes Norton – Better Know a District

This is one of his best and relevant to the post. Even if you don’t like Colbert, it’s worth it in many ways.

nottakingsides on February 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

When I first heard of this . . this is exactly where my mind went. And for that alone I say no.

If DC gets one then every territory should get one as well. . . oh that’s what’s next I tells ya.

- The Cat

capitulus on February 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Your religious bigotry aside, what they are offering here is simply vapor.

Utah narrowly missed getting the seat in 2000. Now, I don’t know about you, but, I’m willing to wager that the population of Utah has increased since 2000 which means they’d be getting that state through Constitutionally appointed means in 2010 anyway.

So, what you have here is Democrats saying, “Give us a guaranteed vote that we wouldn’t have in 2010 and we’ll give you a vote that you’ll have in 2010 anyway.”

It’s not exactly a fair trade.

And it’s definitely not constitutional.

Even if they can make the case that the Constitution gives Congress the right to appoint a congressman for D.C., it definitely does NOT give them the right to give Utah (a state) another one.

The GOP has only 37 votes and no influence. Be thankful that the Utah cultists are getting a seat too to balance things out.

To balance out the seat Sodom and Gomorrah are getting.

Don’t look back at DC when it is rightfully smitten.

Is there any reason that D.C. needs to be its own nonstate entity? Couldnt we just roll it into an existing state and be done with it?

Who in their right mind would take the crime-ridden, idiot politician-ridden basket case that is D.C.?

The only reason DC is not Camden, New Jersey or Gary, Indiana, or East St. Louis, Illinois is because of the Federal Government.

For sale cheap: Craphole City full of demanding, drug addicted layabouts. See how that sells on e-Bay.

Like having House seats apportioned based on the population of LEGAL residents. Remove illegals(sorry) undocumented Americans from the count and several states change count. And it would be hard to argue that states that lax in helping enforce legal requirements should benefit.

Counting only citizens for purposes of apportionment would shift about 9-10 seats. Mostly from California.

all of you racist conservative bigots are just trying to enact jim crow laws and disenfranchise minority voters! Don’t forget who won the election! D.C. should have a voice!

(yes, I’m being facetious)

I’m not being facetious. It sounds like a good idea to me.

Anyone not physically disabled and on welfare has proven themselves mentally incompetent, and should be disenfranchised.

This might reduce the number of voters in DC quite a bit.

It is comming time very soon for an uprising..

and it wont be peceful..

I like johnsteele’s suggestion. Is there any reason that D.C. needs to be its own nonstate entity? Couldnt we just roll it into an existing state and be done with it?

Conversely, there is nothing to stop congress from giving any region/group they want representatives – Guam, PR, the UN, Mars, etc.

As someone who visits the D.C. area every holiday let me say that they SHOULD have a voting member of Congress. They pay federal income taxes like everyone else.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 24, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I went to the Dominican Republic for Christmas last year. Guess that makes me an expert on Dominican politics.