I am really torn on the issue of D.C. getting a seat in the house. I understand that they people there are taxed and receive other rights that are given to "states" under the constitution like trial by jury, interstate rights, etc. I can understand both sides of this debate. What I don't understand, and maybe you who have lived in D.C. can help me out, is why they can't vote with Maryland? They do pay taxes and deserve to be represented.
So here are some questions that I'm hoping some people that contribute to or read the blog can help clarify.
Why does Utah need to get an extra seat in the House? Is this just for political reasons to get the votes they need? If it passes that Utah gets one seat representing the entire state I will be very disappointed. I'm actually disappointed it was even been brought up, who votes these people in?
Why is there no talk of adding two Senate seats? It seems like the inevitable next step, but I haven't heard any mention of it.
I'm counting on you law students to help me better understand this.
5 comments:
well, I don't know much about the way seats are allocated except for this-- there is a cap at 435 seats in the House as prescribed by law. Because the seats are allocated based on population, there is a review after the census every 10 years to re-allocate seats. Some states gain, some lose.... So, for DC to get a representative, either the 435 cap has to be raised, or a state must give up a seat. Nobody wants to give up a seat obviously because it means less representation.... I don't know if this answered your question...I may have just repeated what you already knew. I think its funny that the DC license plates say "taxation without representation."....haha
Oh, also I suppose that maryland could represent DC, but DC would never accept that-- they would argue that they have too many unique issues for Maryland to adequately represent them...and because DC is all Federal land, there's probably alot of truth to that...
OK, so they will be raising the amount of seats. I get that but why are they raising it to include Utah (who would likely get another seat when the new census comes out since they only missed it by 80 people at the last census)?
Are they required by law to increase it by 2? or are they just increasing it to add a likely Rep seat with the likely Dem seat to get the votes?
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I think that you hit the issue exactly-- if DC gets a seat, it will likley be filled by a democrat-- and stay that way indefinitely.... So, of course the political right is not exactly excited by this idea, even if they individually support congressional representation for DC. So, what's the solution? Get one of the most powerful members of Congress (Orrin Hatch), who is from one of the most conservative states in the nation (Utah) to sponsor the bill that gives DC a representative(something that most everyone agrees is the right thing to do) AND that also happens to give Utah an extra seat (Something that Orrin Hatch, Utah, and conservatives agree is the right thing to do) It's a balance that looks really good politically. I bet that it passes. The # of reps will be raised from 435 to 437 (I looked this part up), so no state will have to lose.
So then Utah gets a seat, not because it is right, but because it will get votes. What are the rules to adding two more seats to the Senate? If they are represented in the HR shouldn't they be in the Senate as well? There will be no balance of adding 2 Rep seats, but it seems it would be the same argument and the right thing to do. If giving them a seat in the HR is the right thing to do.
I don't think anyone will be pushing for DC to get senators anytime soon, but it's possible I guess. I think the rationale is that DC really isn't a state, but people live there and deserve representation-- but if the District has a representative and Senators, then why not create a state out of DC? then what's next-- Puerto rico? guam? virgin islands? Some of these may eventually achieve statehood, but a piece at a time...
Post a Comment