Functional D. C. Statehood - More Movement, More Confusion
By Marion Edwyn Harrison (04/24/07)
As anticipated, on April 19, 2007 the House of Representatives passed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. The vote was 241 ayes, 219 Democrats and 22 Republicans, to 177 nays, six Democrats and 171 Republicans. One of the many fascinating opportunities in Washington is analysis of causality - that is, real reasons - to account for a Senator or Representative’s vote (often, but not invariably, coinciding with the stated reason).
In this roll call there is no apparent consistency of motivation. In addition to the ever-present possibility of an individual quid pro quo or trade-off, one might think that a Member would vote upon the issue of (highly doubtful) constitutionality, of appearing in a rather easy and perhaps meaningless sort of way to appear more liberal, or of party loyalty - i.e., installation of a guaranteed liberal Democratic House Member. Analysis of the 2006 election or re-election margins of the “dissident” 22 or the “dissident” six and of their ratings by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (“ADA”) offers no broad clue although ADA ratings on the average are higher for the dissidents than for all Republicans.
Republicans voting to guarantee another liberal in the House were Burton of Indiana (re-election total vote, 65%; ADA rating, 0%), Cannon of Utah (58%, 5%), Castle of Delaware (57%, 40%), Thomas F. Davis, III, of Virginia (co-sponsor) (56%, 15%), Dent of Pennsylvania (53%, 30%), Emerson of Missouri (72%, 15%), English of Pennsylvania (54%, 15%), Gilchrest of Maryland (69%, 40%), Issa of California (63%, 5%), LaHood of Illinois (67%, 5%), LaTourette of Ohio (58%, 20%), Pence of Indiana (60%, 15%), Platts of Pennsylvania (64%, 25%), Porter of Nevada (48%, 10%), Renzi of Arizona (52%, 15%), Ryan of Wisconsin (63%, 0%), Saxton of New Jersey (58%, 20%), Shays of Connecticut (51%, 65%), Smith of New Jersey (66%, 30%), Upton of Michigan (61%, 10%), Wolf of Virginia (57%, 10%).
Democrats voting nay were Boren of Oklahoma (73%, 25%), Boyda of Kansas (51%, elected in 2006), Carney of Pennsylvania (53%, elected in 2006), Holden of Massachusetts (58%, 60%), Kanjorski of Pennsylvania (72%, 70%), Taylor of Mississippi (80%, 40%).
Excluding, of course, one voting “Present” and 14 not voting, the actual vote produced only 58% ayes. In the Senate 60 votes would be required to invoke cloture, which most informed prognosticators consider possible but unlikely. Finally, President George W. Bush, veto-shy though he has been, strongly would be advised to veto. Nobody anticipates Senate and House two-thirds votes to override were he to do so. President to veto it, two-thirds to overturn the veto. Beyond legislative proceedings, “finally” would arise the Constitutional question. While not without doubt, the more convincing scholarly analyses to date are that the enactment, a mere bill and not a Constitutional amendment, would be unconstitutional. There also is the curious and unprecedented creation of an additional House of Representatives seat for the State of Utah, at large, raising two additional Constitutional questions - an obvious attempt to snatch some GOP House votes under the guise of bipartisanship.
An amendment would require a two-thirds vote of each House and ratification within the designated time limitation by 38 States. Amendment XXIII, to accord D.C. residents a Presidential vote, was proposed on June 17, 1960, ratified by March 29, 1961, by the required 38 States. New Hampshire the next day ratified, the same day rescinded its ratification. Alabama ratified out of time, on April 16, 2002. Thus, XIII almost did not make it. (The Arkansas Legislature actually voted it down - a superfluous act inasmuch as failure of a State legislature to ratify is equivalent to voting against ratification.)
More pertinent as history, in 1978 Congress sent the States a proposed Constitutional amendment to accord D.C. a voting House Member. It decisively failed of ratification although the relatively long period of seven years was allowed for ratification.
The District of Columbia votes more strongly Democratic than any State of the Union - e.g., 89% for Senator John Forbes Kerry for President. It also has a population smaller than any State of the Union except Wyoming (which is growing slowly while the D.C. population has shrunk immensely and now is more or less holding).
Having written extensively in these columns as recently as April 17, I conclude. However, there doubtless will be more effort and more confusion. The left is persevering - probably the more so for a cause which superficially and without historical or Constitutional analysis or evaluation of the retrocession alternative might appear to some as fair and just.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
(Printer friendly version) 
Send Feedback
