http://www.msnbc.com/id/29362689
http://www.time.com/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html
This week in Washington, the senate passed a vote 62-34 to allow talks to increase the house to 437 members, and in doing so giving a seat in the house to the democratic District of Columbia. The other seat would be given to Republican Utah giving it it's 4th seat until 2012 when the next redistribution of seats would occur. D.C. has had a non-voting delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton) in the House since 1971 in which allows the delegate to vote on committees but not on bills. The major argument against D.C. the idea is that D.C. is just that, a district, and the constitution clearly states that representatives are chosen by people of states, not districts. However, D.C. in most all other aspects behaves as a state. It's citizens can be drafted for war, it's commerce is controlled by the government and it pays federal taxes. In protest of the last issue the people of D.C. even have put "Taxation without Representation" on the license plate to show that they are not represented in congress.
D.C. has been fighting for voting rights since 1801 when they were no longer allowed to vote in the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia. The 23rd amendment which was ratified in 1963 gave the district of nearly 600,000 people the right to vote in presidential elections.
If passed in the Senate, the bill will go to the House for ratification and then to President Obama who is said to support the bill. However, it will probably go through several revisions before that happens and it will probably face a large republican opposition in both the House and the Senate.
" Taxation without representation"
ReplyDeleteI think that D.C Should be able to vote. It's not a state but then again so many people live there and they have the right to representation. But I don't think that there should be an automatic republican inserted. The belief that this is just so the Democratic would have one more vote... it scares me that people think that way.
I agree with Adam, D.C. should have the right to vote. It is the capital of the U.S. and although I understand why it wasn't able to vote in the past because it was a question of higher prestige than the rest of the country, it is now the question of whether or not these people have the same rights as the rest of the American citizens do.
ReplyDeleteI agree With Adam and Quinn, it's ridiculous that the citizens of the capital of the United States of America does not have one of the most fundamental and fought over rights; The right to vote and to have someone they find applicable run their district (should be state) in their best interest and in the way they find best.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why they shouldn't have all the same rights as the rest of the countries. It's like we're discriminating against them just because they live in a certain part of the country. I mean yes it's the capital but who cares they are still Americans and they should have the same rights as the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteDC citizens should have the right to vote! most DC citizens work for the government or are politicians, how hypocritical must they feel when they work directly for the government, but have no say on who is the president and who represents them in congress. they should have representation in congress!
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking the same thing as Adam and even am reporting on this matter because this has to do with peoples rights and in my opinion if peoples rights are not up held then the people shouldn't have to obey the governments laws because of that.
ReplyDelete