2009.02.27
Give DC full representation in Congress
In an editorial that we're writing for Monday, we'll urge Congress to give the District of Columbia full representation. After years of work, the Senate finally passed a bill that would give the district a voting seat in the House of Representatives. It's paired with a bonus seat for Utah, so there would be a new Democrat and a new Republican vote, at least until the 2010 Census.
That's a good first step, but it's not good enough. Members of the district deserve representation in the Senate, too. There's also good reason to worry that the Supreme Court might toss out the House seat because the constitution limits representation to the states.
The real solution is obvious: Make DC a state. It is unfortunate Republicans place partisanship ahead of giving taxpaying American citizens the same rights as everyone else.
On a side note that we probably won't have space to get into in the editorial, with Utah getting another representative, that will kick up it's electoral votes by 1. That means the Electoral College also will grown from 538 to 539 members. And that means that the odds of a tie, which was within the realm of possibility last year, goes way down.
RSS feed 
Better yet, just absorb DC into Maryland. Having DC as a state is ridiculous.
Comment by Henry — February 27, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Why is it ridiculous, Henry?
Comment by c. trejbal — February 27, 2009 @ 11:34 am
When you consider the significance and the importance of D.C. I agree that it is fair and important for them to have their own representation.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 27, 2009 @ 11:40 am
That's one of the many things foreigners find fault with in this country. We claim to have a "democracy", but don't allow the residents of our national capital to vote! They can't understand that, and neither can I.
Comment by Ed H — February 27, 2009 @ 11:48 am
ED DC does vote in presidential elections and has 3 electoral votes.
Comment by BUD — February 27, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
What else do you left wingers want to do to destroy the constitution.
It states that only states have the right to have representation in congress.
Comment by HERB KREBS — February 27, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Um, yeah, Herb. That's part of why we are calling for it to receive statehood.
Comment by c. trejbal — February 27, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
If states only have the right to representation, i guess we're up tinker creek without a paddle what with being a commonwealth and all.
Comment by scott — February 27, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
So you want 51 stars on the flag.
Please just say you guys want more votes in congress.
We all know which way the people will vote.
Please dont think of us as just getting off the boat yesterday.
Dont hide the true fact why you want statehood.
Can you tell the truth just once?
Comment by HERB KREBS — February 27, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
I'm not following what you are driving at Herb. Can you elaborate?
Comment by HCS — February 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Wow thats a lot of jobs created in China to sew that extra star on those flags.
Guess we will know what state has the highest murder rate from now till eternity...
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — February 27, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
If they were to eliminate the representation of those living in the 540 area code in congress, how would you feel Herb?
Comment by scott — February 27, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
The problem with your assertion Scott and Hcs
is that D.C is not a state and has never been a state.
The have the most powerful people living right there
representing them.
Congress wants to give them a vote to help the Democrats and that is IT.
Problem is scott my reprsentation has allready been eliminated by pot smoking hippes from the 60's that want to take this country down in ruins.
Comment by HERB KREBS — February 27, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Try it, Scott. I'd like to see them pull that off.
Absorb DC into Maryland. There is no point making a single city into its own state.
Sheesh, people.
Comment by Henry — February 27, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Herb...
How is it destroying the Constitution when supposedly all citizens are guaranteed representation under the Constitution? If you're not giving representation to the citizens of the United States, then you're not supporting the Constitution.
You either need to support the Constitution or be against it...you can't have it both ways. Your arguments tends to be more on convenience rather than logic.
Comment by Will — February 27, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Has the Constitution suddenly become 'partisan'?
" It is unfortunate Republicans place partisanship ahead of giving taxpaying American citizens the same rights as everyone else"
Could one of you on the EB explain that quote to me? This is supposed to be a country run by the rule of law as defined in the Constitution, not the rule of whim. There are plenty of taxpaying citizens in territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands who are not represented in Congress. So what's the big deal about DC? Being represented in Congress is not all that it's cracked up to be, especially now. Lately, it seems like those in the Congress and Senate do a better job of representing themselves.
Comment by Nick — February 27, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Will,
It states that only states are allowed representation.
D.C. is not a state.
You will need a contitutional amendment for this.
You can bet that if they try this by just passing it in congress
that it is going to the supreme court and D.C will lose
with that amendment.
Then to get the amendment 3/4 of the states nee to ratify this.
Not Going to Happen.
Comment by HERB KREBS — February 27, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Herb, Congress has wide latitude in accepting states into the union. It would not require a constitutional amendment to make DC a state. That said, they'd probably want to repeal the 23rd Amendment afterward.
Comment by c. trejbal — February 27, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
c. makes an interesting point -- but, Congress might have to give up DC's status as federal district, wouldn't it? But that would revert ownership of the present DC to Maryland, which would then have to approve making it a state.
Comment by Ed H — February 27, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
In all likelihood, some of the district would remain. The White House, Capitol and Supreme Court -- and maybe the National Mall -- would become the District of Columbia. Those are not inhabited by citizens of the district. The surrounding city would become the new state.
Comment by c. trejbal — February 27, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Herb is right. DC statehood would only leverage the Democrat vote, and that is precisely why this blog brought it up. Henry has a good suggestion if you liberals are really concerned with representation. Otherwise, it's clear your seeking to pad the liberal votes.
Comment by Jim — February 27, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Christian,
Exactly what would be the big advantages of DC becoming a state? It appears that now the folks in DC are better off with their current status. They have their own local government and can pass their own un-constitutional gun bans and the like. They even re-elect convicted crackhead mayors like Marion Barry. Life in good in the District. Why mess up a good thing?
I like Henry's idea of giving DC to Maryland. Birds of a feather.
Comment by Nick — February 27, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
To hear these guys talk, you'd think the RTEB just made up this idea on their own this morning.
Comment by Ed H — February 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Christian
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Just incorporate it into Maryland if you want them to have "rights".
Turning that tiny little bit of land into a state doesn't make sense. How are they going to fund themselves? Their horrible schools would absolutely implode.
Comment by Henry — February 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Just because you don't like the politics of the DC area doesn't mean that the citizens should be without representation. I'd bet you a good bottle of Maker's Mark that if the area was Conservative (Republican), there'd be a massive undertaking to get those folks a vote in Congress.
Comment by Will — February 27, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Will,
I doubt that because one thing that us Conservatives have always
done is live by the constitution, not change it to benefit our party,
which the Dems do on all points.
Comment by HERB KREBS — February 27, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Will,
That was exactly my point earlier. If we in the 540 area code reaching from Purcellville to Bristol were not allowed representation (but surely taxed on our income), there'd likely be an armed insurrection.
Nick,
"There are plenty of taxpaying citizens in territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands who are not represented in Congress. So what's the big deal about DC?"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but these territories do not pay federal income tax to the US Government, Washington D.C. does. I think I learned that in 7th grade civics.
Comment by scott — February 27, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
actually Herb, I believe republican wish to add a constitutional ban of same sex marriage. that's a change to the constitution to benefit your party's wants is it not?
Comment by HCS — February 27, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
The Democrats are just wanting to grab more power and votes, pure and simple. Washington, DC will be a safe, secure Democratic stronghold until Hell freezes over. Of course, the Constitution means little when it comes to desires for ultimate political power. Where are the Statesmen any more?
Comment by Roger — February 27, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Christian,
I zipped through the bill. If I skimmed it correctly, it only gives DC a vote in the House (not the Senate)? I think it said DC would *not* be a state.
I would have to do more research on the issue. My assumption is that DC is a federal territory to give "neutral" ground for the representatives of the States to meet at. In that way, no voting entity would have "home field advantage" over the shared resources or place of legislature/judicial/executive. (Yes, I know someone is going to reply we're a shiny happy world that does not need such protections in place any longer.)
Carving out the main federal entities (executive, legislative, and judicial centers) and making the rest a separate governed territory might make sense. Are there other issues to consider? Embassy land? National monuments? Something else?
Comment by Ed S. — February 27, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Will, #25: Truer words were never blogged! You rock!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 27, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
HCS,
I never agreed with the republicans on that.
I believe that should be a state issue.
Comment by Herb Krebs — February 28, 2009 @ 8:15 am
It goes on ballots then voted on by the people,
but in California's case.
The left decided to get violent because it didnt go thier way.
The election didnt go our way should we turn to the same violence as they are doing in Calif.
That is one thing I have noticed.
If something doesnt go the way the left wants they turn to violence.
Immigration, same sex marriage, abortion, Irag War.
Left better be careful the right my pick up on this and figure it is o.k.
Then it's all out war.
Comment by Herb Krebs — February 28, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Herb...
Until you can point to a specific area in the Constitution that denies representation to legal United States citizen, I'm afraid you're just pandering to your own ideologies that just happen to be 180 degrees different from those that you wish to deny representation.
I believe there are certain words in the documents of this nation that read "of the people, for the people and by the people." Even though their political leanings are different from yours, they're still people and still pay taxes and are deserving of votes in Congress.
It surprises and saddens me at the same time as to how we go all over the world touting the benefits of a democracy and our Constitution and that it's "the people's government" yet we deny simple representation. We come across as a bit hypocritical.
Comment by Will — February 28, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Will,
Our nation was formed by states and not cities.
This would be uncostitutional as only states have voting rigths on the floor of congress.
The only way I know this would be allowed is to redistrict the city and
split it between Md. and Va. as it was in 1846 before the land now called
D.C was ceded by the two formentioned states.
If this is allowed this is going to open a whole new ball game as to what is a state and what is not.
If one place in the state does not agree with the other, they will go and leave that state and creat there own if D.C is allowed.
Now we have a whole new civil war, which I dont think is a bad Idea right now to put everything back in prospective.
Even Pres. Jefferson, which I see quoted in here by the left alot,
Said this:
Thomas Jefferson seemed to welcome Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts: "god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
Comment by Herb Krebs — February 28, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Herb, you obviously have not been paying attention to your compatriots at CPAC this week they have advocated taking to the streets type of protests, "Boston Tea Party" etc for several days and those commercials saying "tell government to get off our backs"...I think your insult will swing both ways yet again.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 28, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Will, "of,by and for" is from the Gettysburg Address, not exactly a "document of this nation".
Comment by Bradford Wiles — February 28, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Well well well Bradford...
The true colors are now really beginning to show. Apparently there is a true part of the conservative movement that doesn't believe in the representation of all people.
I had a feeling of that after listening to the ramblings of Dick Morris the other night...but it really does appear that there is an elitist movement in the Republican party.
And by the way, if the Gettysburg Address is not a document of this nation, I would be hard pressed to come up with reasons as to why not since it was in fact delivered by and is taught (or at least was in my day) as being one of the most influential documents in this nation.
Hypocrital is all I can say.
Comment by Will — February 28, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Washington D.C. is the nation's capital and is only a city. It should remain separate and apart from the states as it has always been. This is only a typical liberal power grab. Now that the democrats are in complete power we will likely see some very bizare things being done to our constitution. Add socialized health care and a huge increase in the size of government to the mix and the country as we know it will cease to exist. Thye republicans screwed up big time the last eight years, but I beleive we will see far more damage done in the next eight based on what I've seen so far. Pelosi and Reid would not even allow the stimulus bill to be read by anyone before voting (and for good reason). Adding DC as a state is only part of the strange changes they have in store for us.
Comment by Jim W. — March 1, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Jim...
How do you deal with the issue of people not being allowed representation? Do you prohibit people from living in an area that does not allow representation?
To me, Democrat or Republican, it goes against the issue of a "People's Government."
With regard to the Stim Bill...when the Republicans have an idea that they want to promote, I'd be happy to hear it; however, thusfar all they've done is to throw rocks at whats been put forth. If you don't have a better idea to put forth, I suggest seeing what you can do to advance what's been put out.
It's the old "Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way!" case to me.
Comment by Will — March 1, 2009 @ 11:23 am
RT doesn't care about taxation without representation. Anyone living in DC right now lives there voluntarily knowing that they do not have Federal representation. If they don't like it, they can move. DC was not intended to be a place where people live, it was intended to be a place where the nation's business gets done.
Does any of use really have a say about where our tax dollars are spent? Representation and statehood isn't going to change that for DC at all.
Comment by BobH — March 2, 2009 @ 3:47 pm