DC Vote Responds To Spakovsky’s Claim That District Representation Is A ‘Raw Grab At Political Power’
DC Vote Responds To Spakovsky’s Claim That District Representation Is A ‘Raw Grab At Political Power’
Today, the Senate began debate on S. 160, a bill to “provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.” DCist reports that the chamber will likely hold the cloture vote tomorrow.
In a new piece in the National Review, former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky tries to make the case that D.C. residents don’t deserve full federal voting rights. Spakovsky, of course, has a history of vote suppression allegations while serving in the Bush administration.
In his piece, Spakovsky goes beyond the traditional constitutionality claim made by opponents, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He claims that D.C. residents don’t need a full voting member in Congress because every federal lawmaker is supposedly looking out for their best interests. Toward the end, he also claims that this bill — supported by Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — is nothing more than a “raw grab at political power” by Democrats.
ThinkProgress contacted DC Vote Communications Director Jaline Quinto, who offered her response to Spakovsky’s claims:
SPAKOVSKY: And while statehood supporters cite the famous American rallying cry “no taxation without representation,” that is a false analogy. The entire Congress represents the interests of the District, because every single member of Congress works in the District.
QUINTO: Members of Congress are accountable to the people who elect them – their constituents. DC residents have no voting member in Congress and therefore no voting members who are beholden to them. The assumption that all members of Congress act in the best interests of DC residents simply because they work in the District is vastly untrue. In many cases, it’s been quite the opposite. Congress routinely tries to overturn laws that DC residents and the District government have tried to implement. When DC attempted to use its own tax revenue to combat the rising HIV infection rate through a needle-exchange program, Congress stepped in to stop it even though DC residents supported the measure. That’s just one example of many.
SPAKOVSKY: Every year, Congress appropriates millions of dollars for the District. D.C. did so well under the stimulus bill that Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s nonvoting representative, crowed on her website that “Norton’s stimulus package puts D.C. ahead of seven states.” The District has a smaller population than 49 of the states (Wyoming being the exception).
QUINTO: District residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the nation, only Connecticut pays more. DC residents pay their taxes, fight and die in wars and serve on federal juries. On top of this, the District loses out on millions of dollars in critical revenue each year by its inability to levy taxes on federal properties. The bottom line is that more than half a million tax-paying Americans are being denied their right to voting representation in Congress.
SPAKOVSKY: It will establish a new, permanently Democratic seat in the House of Representatives. The bill attempts to balance that by adding a second seat as well (bringing the total number of representatives to 437), and giving that seat to Utah. But unlike D.C.’s seat, Utah’s extra seat is guaranteed only until next year’s Census — after which each state will be assigned seats in proportion to its population. The extra seat will almost surely be transferred to a Democratic state like California or New York.
QUINTO: The bill does permanently increase the size of the House by two seats – the first increase in nearly 100 years. One seat is permanently for the District of Columbia and the other goes to the next state in line based on census. At this time, that additional seat is granted to Utah based on population. The general assumption made is that the seat will remain with Utah even after the 2012 census but only the population count will tell. The issue of Democrat or Republican though, is besides the point. All Americans deserve a vote in Congress – regardless of their party affiliation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ah yes… Spankovsky…
Another one of those, pudgy, chinless, epicene white men that ARE the GOOP these days…
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pmLessee, it was no taxation without….er…umm…wait, wait, it’ll come to me……………..
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 pmits 1 f—ing Rep…not exactly a monolith of political muscle.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 pmTRoS ~ epicene?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 pmOops! Misread, I stand corrected. 2 reps…
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 pmYeah, it would totally upset the delicate balance of power in the House to have two more Democrats.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 pmLucking Fooser.
TRoS, OK, I just had to look it up.
Definitions of epicene on the Web:
bisexual: having an ambiguous sexual identity
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 pmhermaphrodite: one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made
effeminate: having unsuitable feminine qualities
Why do people like this get a platform to spew their stupidity? Who is paying for this bulloon?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pmI disagree that it;s a raw grab for power.
More like medium well.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pmNot only is this guy a partisan hack…he also has no clue about political trends. Yes…DC’s Rep-at-Large will be a democrat. Utah’s will be a republican…but to suggest that NY will get an extra seat in 2012 is idiocy. NY has been LOSING seats in the past couple of censuses and 2012 will be no exception.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pmIf the people of DC would be voting Republican, he’d be screaming that they should have retroactive votes all the way back to 1776.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pma “raw grab at political power”?
America was founded in part ont he slogan “no taxation without representation” and these people lack voting representation in congress though they have more people than Nebraska.
Let them have a Congressman and no Senators and lets be done with it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pmThe sky is falling, again. Adding one more democratic vote out of 437 will likely upset the delicate balance of power that congress has established. Bwahahahahahaha. If these people would only look in a mirror, they would see who their real enemy is.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pmI wish the sacless Democrats WOULD MAKE A RAW, NAKED POWER GRAB–and give D.C. not only a Representative in the House, but STATEHOOD–and TWO AFRICAN AMERICAN SENATORS from now until the end of America.
Why the heck NOT? Wyoming has been sending neocon nutjobs to D.C. for DECADES, but the good people of D.C. have had to make do with the crumbs white politicians from every other state in the Union see FIT TO ALLOW THEM…
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 pmRUCerious Says:
TRoS, OK, I just had to look it up.
Definitions of epicene on the Web:
___________
Someone else used it here several weeks ago… mebbe Bilbo?
It… just… SOOOOOOO seems to fit the GOOPer men.
I find the women, like Malkin or Coulter, to be FAAAAR more threatening, in their own way.
But the men? Rove? Beck? Spankovsky? Definitely epicene.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 pmNice blog
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 pmGay
Emil Seidel says:
To give the African American population of DC this amount of representation in our National Government would lead to a disaster of unprecedented proportions.
And you don’t think giving the Mormons in Utah another representative wouldn’t be?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 pmIt will establish a new, permanently Democratic seat in the House of Representatives.
And here, in a nutshell, is the explanation to the stubborn, irrational Republican opposition to giving DC a voting seat: They believe its residents will vote reliably Democratic.
Of course, being reichwingers, they have to evidence to backup their belief.
What is more appalling to me, is that this issue should be about granting US citizens (DC residents in this case) the ability to exercise their constitutional right.
Of course, being a reichwinger, Spakovsky’s only interests are his own and his party’s.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:02 amjacambece Says:
Emil Seidel says:
To give the African American population of DC this amount of representation in our National Government would lead to a disaster of unprecedented proportions.
And you don’t think giving the Mormons in Utah another representative wouldn’t be?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
February 24th, 2009 at 12:17 am~~~~~
Ok, I’m calling you on this one: it appears to be fictitious. “Emil Seidel says…”
It most certainly isn’t from a posting on this particular thread. Please enlighten us as to its origin.
They’d only be in favor of it if the whole of the voting population were Republicans… apparently they don’t need no more stinkin’ Democrats.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:53 am.
Sucks to be an American without full Representation in Congress…
… NO?
Q U E S T I O N:
When will Congress allow ALL AMERICANS full Representation in their own Government?
… Or is this a club or something special, like that?
.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:01 am.
So…
… People who live in D.C. don’t have to pay Federal Taxes, YES?
.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:03 amIf DC is represented why are DC residents fighting for RePrEsENTATION?
repugs, of course, are starting the debate on a false premise. repugs, listen up shirley, DC residents don’t have representation in any shape or form. If this is not true Prove that they do dumbass. Ya can’t…bs…time a wastin.
Ya damn straight DC should have the same rights as everybody. And it’s about damn time.
Is that Mormon thing working in UT? Teehee.
spaky should just STFU and be happy that his ass ain’t sittin in prison.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:15 amIs that the Republican congress only or the Democratic congress as well?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:57 amNo taxation without representation! Only a republican could actually see this as a power grab. These people have no voting members in congress… to me it’s black and white- just like DC..
http://plunditry – my blog, feel free to visit it and tell me what you think.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:17 amNo taxation without representation! Only a republican could actually see this as a power grab. These people have no voting members in congress… to me it’s black and white- just like DC..
http://plunditry.com – my blog, feel free to visit it and tell me what you think.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:17 amUmmm, it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is supposed to be a Constitutional issue, left to the States to decide, not a majority act of congress.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:26 ammchamma Says:
Ummm, it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is supposed to be a Constitutional issue, left to the States to decide, not a majority act of congress.
_________
I’m not so sure about that. I just checked over at Wiki. There have been Reapportionment Acts passed by Congress in the past, and I couldn’t find anything about this being a Constitutional issue in what I read.
If you can cite something credible, please do so.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:54 amKeep in mind this is the party that got where it is by suppressing the black vote.
Myst
February 24th, 2009 at 5:27 amThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
There have been Reapportionment Acts passed by Congress in the past, and I couldn’t find anything about this being a Constitutional issue in what I read.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:54 am
___________
It comes from a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, which clearly states that members of Congress shall be chosen from the several states. As the District is not a state, it is not therefore entitled to representation.
As a consequence, Virginia and Massachusetts should also lose their members in the House and Senate, since they’re Commonwealths and not States.
Oh, and all women should lose their voting rights and become British subjects, since the Declaration of Independence clearly stated that “all men are created equal” and obviously didn’t apply to the fairer sex.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:21 amYes, people of Washington D.C. should be represented.
50 states + D.C..
Add 2 senators and adequate number or reprentatives.
It is a realistic,fair and democratic solution to this problem.
After all the city of Washington has more population that some other small states who enjoy represetations in the US Congress and Senate.
We are the only country in the world that denies its capital citizens a true representation.
If we sell democracy abroad, then we should start at home first,and in our nation’s capital.
Republicans do not like such talk. They are afraid of gains of more seats by Democrats,but sooner or later they will have to face reality on this issue,because this issue will not go away,and it is here to stay until a final and just solution.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:43 amHe claims that D.C. residents don’t need a full voting member in Congress because every federal lawmaker is supposedly looking out for their best interests.
Sort of a “Great White Father, loves, and protects all his children” -type argument.
Political condescension.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:46 amToward the end, he also claims that this bill — supported by Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — is nothing more than a “raw grab at political power” by Democrats.
But of course , gerrymandering , like that done by Bug Man Delay , was simply to BENEFIT constituents and not a vehicle used by the GOP ?
Republicans are such lying , hypocritical worms………..
February 24th, 2009 at 8:00 amSince ThinkFast isn’t up yet, I’ll post this thought before heading to work.
If the cap on SSI earnings had been lifted, say, when Bush was reelected in ‘04, and high-income people had been invested in the system as much as the rest of us – literally, on every dollar we earn – the crash of the financial system might have been averted. Those folks wouldn’t have had so much money to invest, and to ultimately lose. I wonder, if those whose stock portfolios had been decimated in the last year, were polled, how many would have preferred to have had it invested in Social Security, if it would have meant actually keeping some of the cash for retirement, albeit at a lesser rate of return than on their (tanking)investments.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:21 ambarfly Says:
Since ThinkFast isn’t up yet, I’ll post this thought before heading to work.
If the cap on SSI earnings had been lifted, say, when Bush was reelected in ‘04, and high-income people had been invested in the system as much as the rest of us – literally, on every dollar we earn – the crash of the financial system might have been averted. Those folks wouldn’t have had so much money to invest, and to ultimately lose.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Interesting theory, but I don’t know if it would have averted the crash. Much of the money flowing into CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities was foreign, not domestic. That money probably would’ve found its way into bad assets, cap or no cap.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:31 amAs a current resident of DC who has taxation without representation, I’ll take the no taxation.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:51 amSPAKOVSKY: “The entire Congress represents the interests of the District, because every single member of Congress works in the District.”
First off, didn’t this pansy openly admit to suppressing voter’s rights during the ‘04 election cycle? Why isn’t he in federal prison then?
Secondly as we have all witnessed since January 20th, the Republican minority does NOT vote in the interest of the Nation. They ONLY pander to there constituents and do not give a shit about the Nation’s needs as a whole. Spankedoften would like us to believe that the Rep minority is all of patriotism and “kumba ya” and shit but the truth of the matter is they vote for party over Country EVERY TIME!
February 24th, 2009 at 9:48 amFounder George Mason said, “No free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
February 24th, 2009 at 10:01 amJames Madison said “The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the Bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to.”
Our Constitution is a document written in an attempt to “form a more perfect Union”. One of the basic, bedrock fundamental principles upon which democracy and its variations (such as a democratic republic) are based is “Consent of the Governed”. Consent is determined by majority consensus, with special protections afforded to the rights of minorities. One of the most basic implications of this approach is that “the people” consist of ALL of the people. If a minority of the people are excluded from even participating in the process of decisionmaking by the majority, that exclusion tends to erode the legitimacy of the entire system.
Such is the situation of the long-suffering residents of the District of Columbia. Excluded from participation in the national decisionmaking process nearly from the begining of the Republic by the tyranny of the majority (those living in the fifty states), their exclusion (along with the now-corrected one-time exclusion of blacks, women, and young adults under the age of 21) has tended to erode the legitimacy of the rule of law, under self-evident, bedrock, fundamental democratic principles such as Consent of the Governed.
Consent of the Governed has not been afforded denizens of the District since 1801. The current Constitution is hardly even their Constitution today, since they have not been afforded an opportunity to participate in decisionmaking that resulted in Amendments 12 through 27 (since 1801). The Courts, likewise, are hardly even their courts, since they have not had representatives with an opportunity to participate in decisions (advise and consent) regarding their staffing and operation, since 1801. Finally, the Congress is hardly even their Congress, since they have had no vote, and precious little voice, in either chamber, since 1801.
The denizens of DC, as part of the original thirteen colonies, are unrebuttably the same posterity, the same progeny, as those currently residing in the fifty states, for whom, as an indivisible Nation, the Founders pledged their “Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor” to secure Liberty. Of that there can be no argument. Other territories (Puerto Rico, Pacific Islands, etc have a more tenuous claim on that position).
The Declaratory Act of 1766 was an attempt by the British nation to arrogate to itself an Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority “in all cases whatsoever”. Similarly, the District Clause attempts to arrogate to the American nation Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority “in all cases whatsoever”. Both cases are highly rebuttable, since both seek tyrannical Absolute Power by the majority (and we know what Absolute Power does) over an unrepresented minority. The bedrock principle of “Consent of the Governed” is violated by such unwarranted assertions.
“VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.”
Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776
Continued, persistent violation of this fundamental, bedrock, first principle of modern democratic government undermines and erodes the very legitimacy of the rule of government over those excluded from participation in our representative, democratic, republican system of government. The nation must address this deficiency in our Constitution, with the goal of forming a More Perfect Union.
mchamma Says:
Ummm, it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is supposed to be a Constitutional issue, left to the States to decide, not a majority act of congress.
_________
In 2000 this issue was brought forth and was rejected. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this verdict, writing: “The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.” The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.
Also, liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes:
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District. It would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for new voting members.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:26 amWhat I can’t understand is that no one in the media seems to be examining the reason for the current situation to see if it still holds true or not.
As I remember my civics class, the idea was that voting rights (representatives) in the newly created DC area would give the populace undue influence. Plus it was a govt city so only a few people would live there full time. Of course the argument for representation is the disenfranchisement of the population.
Well, far from a small city, DC is a significantly populated city (would actually be in the ballpark of some state populations).
A portion of folks in DC have undue influence. They are called K Street lobbyists.
I’m sure the repubs are looking at the demographics of the DC population. There is a very real possibility that these folks will vote dem. And I ask you, compared to other states, are these people who are likely to be used to using political clout ? Or is there a skewing towards minorities and lower incomes ?
So is there a good argument why they shouldn’t have representation today ?
February 24th, 2009 at 11:08 amYes. It is a “grab at” political power. They don’t have any, they are making the case that they deserve some. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
.
“The entire Congress represents the interests of the District, because every single member of Congress works in the District.”
B.S. I’ve never heard of a Congressperson who claims to “represent” D.C. They all represent their home districts only.
.
mchamma Says:
Ummm, it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is supposed to be a Constitutional issue, left to the States to decide, not a majority act of congress.
Actually, I agree with this. As far as I know, the Constitution doesn’t provide for it.
Article I, Section 2:
While reapportionment acts might change the proportional representation between states based on the latest census, there’s nothing in the Constitution itself that allows voting Congressional Representatives to come from anything that isn’t a state. I wouldn’t call this an overly “strict interpretation.” It’s pretty clear.
There’s also the consideration that if D.C. gets House represenation, what do we do about Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, etc? All of the arguments that apply to D.C. apply just as well to them. It would create precedent for seating all of them, and then that precedent would eventually be applied to the Senate, as well as to voting for the Presidency, since those are natural follow-up questions. And if we give all of them all of that representation, it then leads us to ask – what’s the remaining difference between a state and a territory anyways? As far as I can see, there wouldn’t be one.
Look, the philosophical case for giving D.C. representation (cited many times above) is a strong one. But the legal case just isn’t there, and the consequences need to be considered.
I think that this issue is definitely worthy of an Amendment, but I see no other appropriate way to pursue it. You’re talking about making a structural change to a fundamental (arguably the fundamental) institution of the U.S.A. That’s never to be done lightly, no matter how much our sense of fairness would indicate that it should happen.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:13 amTurley isn’t a liberal. He’s a “keep a check on power” advocate.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pmLike I said, I don’t want representation in Congress. I wouldn’t really be represented anyway. Just stop making me pay the federal income tax and I’ll be fine.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:12 pm41. El Bruce, a slight technical hair to split. There is the congressperson Eleanor Holmes Norton (?sp?). DC does have congressfolk, just they can’t vote.
She has done some of the best Colbert interviews ever.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72238/july-27-2006/better-know-a-district—district-of-columbia—eleanor-holmes-norton
One of the few people who can appear on Colbert and still look good.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pmnice nice
sikis
April 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos