White House Threatens Veto On D.C. Vote

(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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...