Baucus filibustering DC voting rights |
10th March 2008
That’s right. A Montana Senator, presently up for re-election, is actually out there filibustering a voting rights bill. Something that hasn’t happened since the 1960’s.
The phone number is 1-800-332-6106. Please give him a call today.
You see, the people who live in our nation’s capital, Washington D.C., have never had representation in the Senate or the House, and for the first time, we are only 3 votes away from getting the legislation passed to right a 200 year old wrong. And your senator, Max Baucus, is one of the ones stopping it from passing.
DC Residents are citizens of the US, who pay taxes, yet have no representation in their own government. Wait a minute, isn’t “taxation without representation” part of what we fought with the British to establish this country about? DC Residents are citizens who serve and defend this country in times of war. There are more residents of DC, than there are in the state of Wyoming. Imagine all the citizens in Wyoming being unable to be represented in the House and Senate, just because they live in Wyoming. Now imagine Max voting to keep Wyoming from having representation. Not hard to do, he is doing it right now.
Why is Max, a democrat, refusing to vote for a bill that defends the most basic principles of democracy? I honestly can’t think of one good reason. And it calls into question for me, whether or not I want to support a Senator, who doesn’t even appear to support democracy.
I can think of two reasons fairly quickly; one pretty good, and one, not so much.
The Bad: DC representation would further dilute Montana’s influence in the legislature. That’s pretty goofy on it’s face value. Regardless of whether one believes Montana to be over-represented (federal spending suggests that we are) or under-represented (in the House, we most certainly are, and not just because Rehberg is useless) our Representation in the Congress is diluted by our population, not the number of folks we send to the big building as a proportion that others send. It’s a stupid argument. Also, keep in mind, when one looks at a chart of who gets the most federal dollars in return for each federal tax dollar payed, Montana already fares pretty well (about $1.50/dollar.) But leading the pack, by far, is the city of Washington DC (about $1.70/dollar.) It’s hard to imagine that giving those folk direct representation is gonna hurt or help Montana on that score, the one that really matters.
The Good: Allowing Representation to an area that is not a state supercedes the Constitution. It should well be illegal, and open to challenge thereby, if Congress passes such a law. There are ways around this difficulty, but passing laws that appear, for all the world, to be un-Constitutional just ain’t among them.
And just for the record, Cece, I’m currently attempting to write a post about why I won’t be voting for Max this autumn. This action of his is on the list.
I knew that “The Bad” is the reason that Max had given to the press, and frankly it is embarrassing. Worrying that Montana will lose influence or money is quite frankly an appalling reason for failing to vote to protect the rights of the citizens of the US.
The Good: I am not going to agree that this is a good argument, because frankly it conflicts with several other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified in 1789 when all citizen’s lived in states, because DC hadn’t been made yet. That’s right, didn’t even come into existence until Virginia and Maryland donated some land in 1801.
The point is, DC is a loophole that the framers of the constitution never intended, and they gave Congress the power to correct it, and they should.
Cece, you are right that it can be changed, but you are wrong as to how. Where is the authority for congress to just ignore the Constitution? The way to change it is by amendment, which, I am sure you know, would have to go to the states.
That is the ‘power’ they have.
I agree that Max is doing the wrong thing here. And wouldn’t it be exciting to see Max filibuster on even weightier matters like: the Iraq War, Medicare, tax cuts for the rich — oops, I forgot, he voted for those.
However, I’m not opposed to imagining “all the citizens in Wyoming being unable to be represented in the House and Senate, just because they live in Wyoming.” That might be worth some study.
Cece runs a post better titled “Better Know Your Senator”. ‘Bout time you knocked the log from your eye.
I’m not opposed to representation for D.C., but I have to side with the view that it must be changed in a lawful manner. Congress doesn’t have the ability to change this by simply passing a law. Colby is correct in his observation.
Note that there are U.S. possesions whom also have no representation. Been to Puerto Rico lately?
See below.
I haven’t been to Puerto Rico since about 1998, but while I was there I had an interesting convo with a tour guide about how most Puerto Rican’s are not interested in becoming a state, because they don’t want to pay income taxes. Where as in DC, they already pay. Not quite the same now is it?
sure, and amendment would be better, but congress has the power to govern dc, therefore a law would work.
For a law-oriented person, you seem perfectly content to generalize here. Specifically, where is Congress endowed with governing power that supercedes the constitution? And when does the power to govern mean the power to allot congressional representatives? Hell, if that is all it takes, I think our state government (those who govern us) should just add a few dozen more senators from Montana; that sounds good, who cares if the Constitution says otherwise!
Just in case you want to read the 22 page report by two actual attorneys with the time and resources to adequately answer your questions, go here.
Yes in 1961 the right to vote in presidential elections was given to citizens of the district by the 23rd Amendment, because it involved the electoral college and powers outside of the Article 1 authority granted to Congress, and must be ratified by the states.
In 1978 the Voting Rights Act would have repealed the 23rd Amendment, and made DC a state. It was only ratified by 16 states, and died. Again, and Amendment was involved because in making DC a state, it would have involved the electoral college.
The DC Voting Rights Act is about congressional districts, not statehood, and has nothing to do with the electoral college. Its about representation of citizens of the US, and completely within the power and the duty of the Congress to protect.
“Imagine all the citizens in Wyoming being unable to be represented in the House and Senate, just because they live in Wyoming.”
Not letting the Dick Cheney have a voice in our government? Cece, you make me feel all warm inside.