White House Threatens Veto On D.C. Vote

Administration Says Bill To Give District Of Columbia A Vote In Congress Violates Constitution

(AP)  The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto legislation giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, possibly prolonging a two-century-long wait for representation in Congress.

The bill, the White House said in a statement, violates constitutional language saying the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the people of the states. “The District of Columbia is not a state,” it said, and if the legislation reaches President Bush's desk, “his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.”

The House is to vote Friday on the legislation that would give a vote to the D.C. delegate while creating, until the 2010 census, a new at-large seat for Utah.

That would increase House membership to 437, with the seat from overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. offset by the extra vote from Utah, a predominantly Republican state. Utah narrowly missed obtaining a fourth House seat after the 2000 census.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who worked out that compromise with D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, said he hoped Bush would override the advice of his aides and approve the legislation if it reaches his desk.

“I hope the president's legacy isn't vetoing democracy in the District of Columbia” while the United States is spending huge sums to promote democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, he said.

Davis, who said there are equally compelling arguments that the D.C. a vote is constitutional, said he expected it to pass the House. “Members will vote their conscience on this.”

“The fight has just begun,” added Norton.

It would still have to pass the Senate before going to the president, and the constitutional question is also likely to be an issue there.

The White House cited Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says the House “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” It said the Constitution also contains 11 other provisions expressly linking congressional representation to statehood.

Others look at language in Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation” over the federal capital, in arguing that Congress can, if it chooses, give D.C. voting rights.

“The difference between the House and the Senate is clear,” Davis said. “The Senate represents states, the House represents people.”

The White House said only a constitutional amendment could give D.C. a vote. Congress in 1978 approved a constitutional amendment extending voting rights to the District, but it died when it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Norton, a Democrat, has full voting rights at the committee level, and, like delegates from territories such as Guam and American Samoa, can vote on amendments on the House floor as long as the votes do not change the outcome.

[mysticorca]

Or we could just make DC a state and avoid the whole Constitutional issue altogether. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming.

[mysticorca]

Or we could just make DC a state and avoid the whole Constitutional issue altogether. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming.

[bdfriedman0]

Do the Democrats in the U. S. House of Representatives (along with Republican Tom Davis) not have in their possession a copy of the Constitution? If Congress can, by law, award to the District of Columbia a seat in the House, couldn't it also, by law, have awarded the District some presidential electoral votes? No, I guess not, and that's why Congress proposed the 23rd Amendment in 1960, specifically giving the District, essentially, three electoral votes. What the Democrats and Davis propose to do is unconstitutional and a waste of time, and, of course, President Bush should veto any such act that reaches his desk. The Democrats know how to amend the Constitution. They also know that they don't have enough votes in Congress and in state legislatures to do it legitimately. But let's say that the Democrats COULD obtain such an amendment. How far behind could yet ANOTHER amendment be to give the District two seats in the Senate? The people of Washington, D. C., have a luxury that the rest of us don't have: They have handy access to the headquarters of the national government. What a privilege! But, still, if a resident of the District can't live without voting representation in Congress, there is a simpler answer: Move.

[rafterman1]

Now suddenly Bush cares what the Constitution says.

[pakaal]

bdfriedman0 wrote: "if a resident of the District can't live without voting representation in Congress, there is a simpler answer: Move."

Your post was interesting, but the last sentence just doesn't feel right. I know, who cares? But the thing is, I just keep thinking "No voting representation for half a million people? In America?"

I don't really know enough about the DC situation to make any kind of reasoned judgment, but if they pay taxes there, isn't it sort of an obligation on the part of the Federal Government to give them representation equal to the rest of the US? Didn't we fight a war of independence a few hundred years ago on similar grounds?

[noaanhc]

Washington DC deserves Statehood.Her citizens have been treated unfairly and getting screwed by the federal government for too many years.

[hsinco-2009]

Maryland should just take back the land that DC is situated on and then it (Maryland) would get the electoral college votes and more House of Reps seats.

[glidescube]

Ammend the Constitiuion and then DC will be able to vote. Liberals belly aching and crying about voting rights are totally uncalled for and untrue.

[bdfriedman0]

Reply to pakaal: Hi, pakaal ! Well, I was just saying that, as best I can tell, the Constitution has to be amended to give the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress. There is a process for doing that, and it's described in Article V. For Congress to just enact an act of Congress, knowing full well that the act is unconstitutional, is cynical and obviously done to make some political hay. The Constitution may be inconvenient sometimes, but its provisions are a fact of life in the United States. And if the District is given one voting seat in the House of Representatives, would it not logically follow that it ought to get two voting seats in the Senate? And if not, why not? I think that the sponsors of this bill are being intellectually dishonest in pretending that the one voting seat in the House will appease them. The one action will simply set the stage for the next and the next. This issue ought to be addressed in its entirety.

Note to Rafterman1: You are cynical, and funny.

[randalds]

I have no problem with D.C. becoming a state and I think it certainly should. One Congressperson and two Senators, the whole thing.

[bopstinger]

Why wasn't this done under the Clinton President. If its just a big issue.

[bigdadpatrio]

"Why wasn't this done under the Clinton President. If its just a big issue. " I agree. You could also argue, why wasn't it done under ANY Democrat administration since ever? It is because it wasn't an important issue. It only is now because the Democrats have become power hungry and they are trying to take advantage of the current political climate. If they want it so bad then all they have to do is make DC the 51st state, and there would be no Constitutional argument.

[nynative1340]

What does Bush care about the Constitution? Our fearless leader believes the Constitution is little more than a worthless piece of paper. This diatribe was recorded when Republican Congressional leaders met with Bush to talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act"

%u201CI don%u2019t give a g o d d a m n,%u201D Bush retorted. %u201CI%u2019m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.%u201D

%u201CMr. President,%u201D one aide in the meeting said. %u201CThere is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.%u201D

%u201CStop throwing the Constitution in my face,%u201D Bush screamed back. %u201CIt%u2019s just a g o d d a m n e d piece of paper!%u201D

Anyone who would say the Constitution is "just a g o d d a m n e d piece of paper%u201D is un-American.

Bush is un-American and doesn't deserve to live in this country, let alone be president of it.

[bigdadpatrio]

what an ignoramous.....

[randalds]

Posted by nynative1340 at 01:13 AM : Mar 21, 2007

Bravo! I couldn't agree more! It's time this as*shole in the White House found out he is the president, not a King and that he works for US, not the other way around. It's his job to do exactly what WE the people tell him to do or get out!

[abbe7]

The White house finding something unconstitutional ... funny.

[farmerbb]

.."like delegates from territories such as Guam and American Samoa, can vote on amendments on the House floor as long as the votes do not change the outcome".... This is too cool. To me this reads as "You can vote, as long as you vote with the majority, and it makes no difference". Well, I just got really excited about this kind of democracy !

[huskerarmy]

"The White house finding something unconstitutional ... funny."
Isn't it though. The same bunch that treats the Constitution like an old dish rag, the president that said "It's just a piece of paper," finally finds something of value in it... Of course it's really about a district with a large minority population that therefore votes Democratic.

[huskerarmy]

"It only is now because the Democrats have become power hungry"
So what is it exactly that we've seen from the Republicans over the last six years?

[webdepot]

"It only is now because the Democrats have become power hungry...."

This has got to be the dumbest freakin' post I've seen here today.. Just how do you justify saying a Democratic power grab when the same freakin' legislation creates another(offstting.. at least for now) vote in the largely Repukicon bible belt.

Wassa matter, you afraid the hypocrits will go blue on the next election cycle..?

[Razzl]

As Howard Dean says, all red states will turn blue eventually since modernity can't be held back, and Utah is not the solid red state its homeboy Karl Rove thinks it is, but it would be nice if the party that liberated the slaves in 1863 would follow through on its long-neglected promise and allow their descendants to finally exercise their right to vote...

[Syndicate]

Give DC a vote but move the Capital of the United States Somewhere else. Make the new capital a buisness district with no residences so that they can't *** about voting.

RandalDS thats great and all but who should he listen to me or you? I don't think DC should vote. If it that important then give dc back to the states from which it came. I don't think anybody should live in DC.

[omega39-2009]

I somehow doubt that if Washington DC were predominantly rich, white, and Republican that the constitution would be much of a deterrent.

[omega39-2009]

I somehow doubt that if Washington DC were predominantly rich, white, and Republican that the constitution would be much of a deterrent.

[clemenhagen1]

When we passed the 23rd Amendment during the Civil Rights Movement, giving Washington D.C. the right to vote in presidential elections, that should have included senate and house representation. The city has a larger population than Wyoming: to continue to deprive that segment of our population representation is simply unconscionable. That Bush's motives for threatening veto in order to perpetuate disenfranchisement is based on skin color (brown people)? Equally unconscionable. Republican attempts at moral clarity? Priceless.

[randalds]

I somehow doubt that if Washington DC were predominantly rich, white, and Republican that the constitution would be much of a deterrent.
Posted by omega39 at 10:50 AM : Mar 21, 2007


Hits the nail right on the head. The last thing this White House wants is one more Democratic congressperson and two more Democratic Senators in Congress. Of course the republicans could always solve that problem by actually doing something to help the residents of D.C. instead of just mouthing platitudes at them every four years.

[pakaal]

bdfriedman0, hello back!

Like I said before, I don't know enough about the constitutionality to make any judgment, and considering the other political issues on the table right now, I'm not as sure as you that this is simply making "political hay" - it's certainly not a top-tier story right now, IMO. Still, if you're right and this is ultimately unconstitutional, there should be a better way to address this. Sure, it does say "representation for States" in the Constitution and DC isn't a state, but was it really the intention of those who framed the document to separate "DC" from the "States" in not giving them Congressional representation? Just seems strange.

Thanks for the reply.

[me4prezz]

The one thing that makes America so different is that our leaders are voted in by the people. The right to vote is one of the most cherished and time-honored responsibility of Americans. If Guam and America Samoa can vote on the floor, why can't Americans living in America get voting rights? This nation has some serious problems with hypocrisy, starting with our dubious leader who needs to study again the phrase that the government is of the people, by the people, for the people: Not, of the President's personal agenda, by the President's personnel, for the President. Ugh.

[pakaal]

RandalDS wrote: "The last thing this White House wants is one more Democratic congressperson and two more Democratic Senators in Congress."

Hey there RandalDS! Considering the political horizon looming for '08, I doubt stopping three newcomers is going to make a whit of difference. Nary a whit, I say!

It's such an odd situation here. Maybe the poster who said "fold DC back into Maryland" is right. One way or another, it's just bizarre that 500,000 people living here in the US don't have Congressional representation.

[us_infidel]

Please......these idiots can't run a city (except into the ground), where should they have representaion and a voice that would affect the rest of us. Eleanor Holmes Norton is a race baiting, Jesse Jackson a**kissing nutcase.

If she has ANYTHING to do with it, it isn't even worth discussing.