D.C. voting rights bill may be unconstitutional

[ColbertWatcher]

From the Los Angeles Times
Justice Department lawyers deem voting rights bill unconstitutional
Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, who supports the measure that would grant Washington, D.C., a seat in the House for the first time, overrides that opinion and seeks backing from other department counsel.
Washington Post
April 1, 2009

Washington, D.C. — Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion this year that the historic Washington, D.C., voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered a second opinion from other department lawyers and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

(...)

Holder rejected the advice and sought out the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.

(...)

Questions over the constitutionality of a D.C. voting bill have dogged the proposal throughout its journey through Congress. Some legal experts say that because Washington, D.C., is not a state, the proposal does not square with a constitutional requirement that House members be chosen "every second year by the people of the several states." Others argue that the Constitution gives Congress broad power over the district, including the power to grant it a full House seat.

The measure would create two new permanent seats in the House, one for Washington, D.C., and one for Utah, although that seat could transfer to a different state based on the results of the 2010 Census.

--Los Angeles Times

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Hopefully TWO seats will be for DC...

Not Utah. Fuck Utah. 2010 will show that it is full of morons and doesn't justify a seat. (Excuse the progressives in Utah - I live right next door)

[ColbertWatcher]

2. I think the deal to get D.C. a vote including giving Utah a vote. n/t

[New Dawn]

3. Washington DC should just be made into the 51st state.

There is nothing unconstitutional about doing that. The boundaries of the current "District of Columbia" could be redrawn to only include the capitol building and the White House.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. I don't understand why the rights of a citizen's representation is dependent ...

... on whether they live in a place that is called a "state."

Aren't a few of our "states" technically not states? Aren't some of them Commonwealths? Does that mean their representatives should be demoted to Eleanor Holmes Norton-level status?

Someone help me here.

[Romulox]

8. Because that's the structure laid out in our Constitution.

This is the same reason that Utah and California both have two senators, despite the vast disparity in population.

[vadawg]

7. i would just roll the non federal building area into maryland, would be the easiest solution.

[mwooldri]

10. Alternatively there's retrocession... MD and VA claim back parts of DC.

Historical precedent: Alexandria, VA was part of DC but went back to VA in the 19th century.

[babylonsister]

4. Hasn't that always been the claim? If I lived there, I 'd want to be represented. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Me too.

But, Congress tried to do something about it with that bill.

[Romulox]

9. Congress doesn't have the power to give a non-state voting rights in Congress

any more than it could grant the same to the Chinese Communist Party.