Tweet
At 11:16 this morning, 62 senators who believe all taxpaying Americans–even African-Americans in Washington, DC, deserve to be represented in Congress–voted to override 34 rightist loons (+ Robert Byrd) who attempted to stifle a vote. That was 32 Republican obstructionists plus their ally Max Baucus (D-MT). Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) smelled the roses and switched votes from 2007, joining fellow Republicans George Voinovich (R-OH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dick Lugar (R-IN), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) to shut down the filibuster. The only Republican who supported the bill in 2007 and opposed it today was Robert Bennett (R-UT). All the die-hard, good-ol’-boy Republicans–Vitter, Burr, Bunning, Shelby, Coburn, Isakson, et al.–voted against equal voting rights for DC residents. (Jim DeMint missed the vote.)
The bill, S.160, placates Republican partisans by also giving an extra vote to the most reactionary state in the Union, Utah. The racist-right wing of the Republican Party doesn’t care that Utah’s guaranteed Republican vote will balance Washington, DC’s guaranteed Democratic vote. Only 27% of DC’s population is white. Enough said?
Washington has 550,000 residents–more than Wyoming, which has a member of Congress plus two sad excuses for senators. In April 2007 the House passed this bill 241-177, with 22 Republicans joining all the Democrats except a tiny handful of racists (you know, Dan Boren, Chris Carney, Gene Taylor… the regular Blue Dogs suspects). A few months later, with Bush screeching he would veto it, the Senate only managed to round up 57 votes, not enough to defeat the de facto GOP filibuster. It died. At the time only one reactionary Democrat, Max Baucus (MT) voted with the GOP. Both the Utah Republicans plus Norm Coleman, Susan Collins (R-ME), Dick Lugar (R-IN), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) voted for the bill.
In the ensuing election, the nay sayers lost several members who have been replaced by supporters of voting rights for DC: Mark Udall for Wayne Allard (R-CO); Kay Hagen for Elizabeth Dole (R-NC); Tom Udall for Pete Domenici (R-NM); Jeff Merkley for Gordon Smith (R-OR); Mark Begich for Ted Stevens (R-AK); Jeanne Shaheen for John Sununu (R-NH); and Mark Warner for John Warner (R-VA). Which meant that even if none of the Republicans who had crossed the aisle last time changed their positions, even without Coleman’s vote, there were enough votes to invoke cloture and pass the bill this time. Co-sponsors of the bill up for today’s vote included Republicans George Voinovich and Orrin Hatch, plus semi-Republicans Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman.
If I could find someone to take the bet, I’d put money on DC having an elected representative in the next session of Congress, although it is likely that Republican racists will go running to one of the right-wing courts Bush left behind to get them to declare it unconstitutional. It will be a lot harder to get them a couple of senators… like Wyoming has. Yesterday Markos over at DailyKos tried to drill some sense into Harry Reid’s head about why it’s crucial to make the GOP obstructionists actually filibuster and show the American people, viscerally, just what they are.
(A version of this post cross-posted on Down With Tyranny.)
41 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
thanks for the good news howie.
p.s. hasn’t markos got the memo? calling the gop the party of obstructionists wouldn’t be bipartisan.
History in the making. Thanks Howie.
What is the stated rationale for the GOP blocking DC from getting representation? I dont get why anyone would want to challenge this in court if it passes.
Yay! Next time she visits, we’ll get to say hello to Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, instead of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
I wonder what Colbert will say tonight. You know he won’t be able to let it go.
Digg!
All good except for giving an extra vote to Utah, which seems entirely unwarranted.
unconstitutional, i think they say.
Yeah, let them filibuster this. Betcha we’d see the highlights during a few key hours on MSNBC.
The reason that Utah was the state to be given the seat was that it was the next in line according to census data. All of that could change after the 2010 census where representative seats will be reapportioned based on data.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
i think that’s what oppnonents argue. it ain’t a state. i think turley said it was good policy but blatantly unconstitutional.
ok. now i’m bummed.
but still glad to have the info. thanks.
oops. my @12 was meant to be in reply to BFL @11
Hate to be the skunk at the garden party but despite this movement forward I don’t think I’m going to have a vote in Congress anytime soon – this will be challenged on very simple grounds and eventually decided by the Supreme Court, which in its current makeup I believe will side with those who will say that voting representation can only be granted through a constitutional amendment making DC a state. Those in favor of this bill will argue that the Constitution gives Congress the power to run all DC affairs, including granting voting rights – not exactly a great testament to self-government when you think about it. Nor is the fact that even if this bill survives, DC residents still won’t have Senate representation.
On the other hand, if this bill is struck down by the Supreme Court over the exact designation providing for representation to the residents of the “several states” in the Constitution, then so long, federal income tax from DC residents!
Yup, them Mormons breed like Duggars. ;)
Utah has been growing like crazy. Bet the extra seat is fully warranted when the next census comes in.
Immigration from more expensive places like CA.
When my ex was a judge on the Pine Ridge Reservation she had quite a bit of trouble with illegal adoptions by Mormons of Native American kids. She wound up shutting down a pipeline.
Huh? Mormons were adopting Native Americans, but the adoptions were illegal? That sounds pretty complicated, but it seems your ex did the right thing.
art I, sec 1.
US Indian Rights law. Dictates very special standards.
Thanks.
OT
Jindal liked federal unemployment funding after Katrina.
We’ll see how long he refuses the stem dollars.
He’ll accept the whole thing right after his Obama rebuttal tonight.
He will claim the
devildems made him do it.Actually with some justification. Schumer sez it’s all or nuttin.
I applaud that Washington DC will get, I hope, long overdue representation in the House.
The question of Senators is another matter. If you take a look at the US either geographically or in terms of population, does it make sense that both California and Nevada should have the same number of Senators or that New York should have as many as Rhode Island or Vermont? That large but empty states like Alaska and Montana should have as many as large but not empty states like Texas, California, or Florida?
In England by the 1800s, the Parliament had been around for centuries. During this time, some boroughs, like Old Sarum once a thriving community reduced over time to 3 houses, had largely gone out of existence but still retained their representation in Parliament. These were haply called “rotten boroughs”. Well, the Senate structure in the US is much like these rotten boroughs. What made sense historically long ago does not make sense now. States do not remain static. At some point, they need to re-adjust to reflect the modern realities to stay relevant. If you think about it, there are 300 million Americans and 100 Senators. If we went with the current method of pairs of Senators, this would mean 2 Senators per every 6 million Americans. A state like California would have 6. In other areas, Senators would come from regions to make up the 6 million number.
What I am getting at here is that the Senate is an anachronism. It doesn’t reflect the country or its people anymore. It has become rotten and unrepresentative, and needs to change for our form of republican democracy to function.
OT Obama to name former WA Gov Gary Locke to Commerce Dept post tomorrow
Exactly. What is the unemployment rate in his state?
wooohoooo
80 aye; 17 nay
HILDA!!!!!!
I understand that the Japanese diet is also pretty rotten in the same way. It seems historic design or accident rules the day.
5.9% in December (latest) vs. 7.2% national. Guess those Katrina folks never came back.
What a shock. Sad and f’ing disgusting.
I’m a little confused as to why this is going down the way it is.
It seems to me that we need this to happen as a constitutional amendment to either the status of D.C. as a state, or the requirements necessary for having voting representation.
That would be the proper way to go about this in so far as I can tell, and I don’t like the government (regardless of who’s in charge) doing an end-run around the processes of the republic.
Agreed. Make the Senate like the House of Lords in GB. Ceremonial and advisory. Strip it of it’s power. Why does Wyoming have the same number of Senators as California? It’s ridiculous.
The State of Idaho is more reactionary than Utah.
We don’t make DC a State. That would place the nation’s capital under the jurisdiction of a lower-level entity. That is to say, State Governments are subordinate to the Federal Government in all sorts of ways.
The Constitution made provision for a National Capital that wasn’t a State. Virginia and Maryland each donated some prime swampland that wasn’t being used for anything else. And that’s how Washington, District of Columbia was born.
Here’s what we do. The important chunks of the Federal Government are all located in a single corner of Washington, D.C. Almost no-one lives in that piece of D.C. Give the rest of D.C. back to Virginia and Maryland, leave the Mall, the Federal Triangle and the surrounding area as Washington, D.C. and under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate.
Now, (almost) everyone has their appropriate voting rights. Problem solved.
That’s because Idaho has the volatile mix of LDSers in the south and skinheads in the north. Anytime those two groups agree on anything, you know it has to be a bad idea.
You are kidding in asking your question right? If not, read the Consitution.
“The bill, S.160, placates Republican partisans by also giving an extra vote to the most reactionary state in the Union, Utah. “
I don’t understand this at all; is what is being indicated is that Utah will gain a representative in the House?
If such is the case, then I’ll again point out the the number of Representatives is the same -435- as it was in 1945 despite the population being three times longer. the supreme Court has previoulsy ruled that the President has the authority to tell the House to increase it’s representatives to reflect population changes BUT “The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”[2] Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[1] The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.” From here
So if we are going to demand representation for DC why not go for it and demand REAL representation for ALL States? Currently, a Representative supposedly represents 600,000+ people; sorry but such is effectively unreasonable from just a demographic principle.
And with technology being what it is, what is the argument against having the ‘one per 30,000 people’? Don’t you think you would be better represented?
Read the Constitution. It’s old history and it’s racism and it’s giving power to people who live in DC and work in government. Of course, it also goes against everything we stand for as a Democracy to NOT let them vote.