The Hill reports that a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Represenatives, which would increase the number of Electoral Votes from 538 to 539, has stalled out in the House after and is unlikely to become law:
Hopes have evaporated for passing a bill giving the District of Columbia voting rights in the House, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday.What's a bit unusual is that this bill has already passed the Senate, which is presumably the more difficult chamber to get legislation through. In fact, it did so with a little bit of room to spare, getting 65 votes for cloture and 62 votes for the underlying bill, with several moderate Republicans defecting to vote with the Democrats. (Democrats Max Baucus and Robert Byrd, on the other hand, voted against both cloture and the bill text).
The district's leaders can't reach consensus on what to do about an amendment that would gut D.C.'s gun laws, according to Hoyer (D-Md.), the bill's patron in leadership.
“There is not a consensus among leaders in D.C.,” Hoyer said. “I don't think we're going to be able to move the bill at this time.”
The bill has been stalled for months, but today represented Hoyer's most dismal assessment since the Senate passed the bill with the gun amendment attached. Previously, Hoyer had said he was confident the bill could pass this year.
The complication is that the version of the bill the Senate approved was passed with an unrelated amendment, introduced by Senator Ensign of Nevada and accepted by a 62-36 majority, that would limit the District's ability to set its own policy on gun control. The amendment is opposed by some Democrats in the House and has created more of a stir there, as it has a proportionately somewhat larger and more empowered contingent of progressive and minority Democrats.
So why can't they simply remove the gun control provision and start over? The Hill explains:
The gun amendment is backed by the National Rifle Association and supported by conservative Democrats, particularly Blue Dogs from the South and the West. Together with Republicans, they form a strong majority in support of gun rights.Emphasis mine. Even if the gun control provision is completely removed, the NRA appears poised to treat a vote on the revised bill -- a bill on whether the District of Columbia should have a vote in the U.S. House -- as a gun control bill, and would score a yea vote on the bill as ruining the "perfect" voting record for the roughly 50 House Democrats who had NRA ratings of A or A+ as of the 110th Congress. Absent those 50 votes -- and maybe another half-dozen or so from conservative freshman Democrats who have not yet been rated by the NRA -- the Democrats would be stuck on about 200 votes out of the 218 needed for passage. Although the Democrats could expect a few Republican defections, particularly from among the six Republicans who represent Virginia or Maryland, the House Republicans are more organized than the Senate ones and presumably have other reasons to vote against the bill since it would essentially lock in an additional House seat for the Democrats. Although the bill would balance the situation out in the 112th Congress by giving Utah an additional seat as well (Utah came up just short of adding a 4th House seat based on the 2000 Census), there is no guarantee that Utah would keep the seat once the lottery balls were reshuffled again after 2010.
[...]
Democratic leaders have been flummoxed by the drive by the NRA and Republicans to add the gun provisions to the D.C. vote bill.
Lawmakers believe that the NRA would “score” any procedural motion that brought up a D.C. vote without the gun amendment. That means any member who voted for it couldn’t have a perfect voting record with the NRA.
But it has long been expected that if the D.C. vote came to the floor with the gun amendment, Republicans and liberal Democrats would both vote to defeat it. That's because Republicans oppose giving the District a vote in the House, and liberals oppose NRA efforts to loosen gun restrictions.
In any event, Steny Hoyer seems to have concluded that he doesn't have the votes for either version of the bill.
As a piece of political maneuvering, this is pretty darn brilliant by the NRA. And more power to the NRA if they want to lobby to pass the Second Amendment provisions on their own accord; based on the votes on the Ensign Amendment, they'd probably have the votes if they could get it to the floor. But as a window to how the sausage gets made in Washington, it's fairly revealing -- and it's a pretty disgusting sausage.

41 comments
What would happen to this site if it did become 539?
No doubt somebody (not Nate) already owns that URL. Nate would simply have to go out of business...LOL
I think www.fivethirtyeightplusone.com is still available.
Or, www.fivethirtyeightplusdc.com
How the fudge would such a law even be constitutional?
What madness in any event to confer voting rights on such a lawless jurisdiction. These people have a tradition of electing and re-electing crack heads and drunkards as their Mayor.
The only dignified Rep they have ever had is their Congressional delegate, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, a most educated, soft-spoken African American woman. You have never heard of this charming lady because she hardly fits the mold of what is expected of AA legislators -- stealing, cheating and conflagrating (think Maxine Waters).
petekent01 (on twitter)
As a lover of fine sausage, I resent your use of this analogy! No sausage would ever take part in such corrupt business!
:-)
Have you considered that a few people may have voted against this measure precisely because it is unconstitutional? I suspect Senator
Byrd likely voted against it because he knows it is unconstitutional--he is one of few (in either party) who actually understands the Constitution.
As to the "how the sausage gets made in Washington" comment, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. This is the way the game has always been played. It's nothing new. If you want to win, you have to be ruthless.
Although the process may have been disgusting, the result is right. Giving DC a vote in the house is clearly unconstitutional.
The right solution to this problem is for the parts of DC where people actually live to be returned to Maryland. DC would then just contain the White House, the Mall, Congress, etc. The current residents of DC would then have Congressional and Electoral College representation via their Maryland representatives.
Unfortunately there are two obstacles to this solution:
* The 23rd amendment (giving DC 3 electoral college votes) would have to be concurrently repealed.
* Maryland doesn't want DC back, apparently.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_(District_of_Columbia)
I still think the extension of a seat in the House to DC would not withstand a constitutional challenge. Had this bill passed, no doubt some state would have sued over the unconstitutional dilution of their representation.
The Constitution clearly says that the seats are apportioned among the several states -- no seats for special districts or federal districts or anything other than states.
Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.... Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers. . . ."
In short, this was all political fun and games with very little chance of success no matter what the NRA did.
WV: surie (yes surie I feel certain about this)
Any other comments I was considering flew out of my head upon seeing Mr. Kent's disgusting and overt display of bigotry.
All I have to say to you is: seriously?
It's 2009, not 1969 and certainly not 1869. Racism is lame, and you sound like an ignorant hick dinosaur.
PeteKent's infantile posts and overt racism is a deplorable thing. But typical of the lowlife he has shown himself to be.
Do
Not
Feed
The
Trolls
Trolls are people who do not intend to present cogent and intelligent points of view to the discussion, but to derail the discussion.
Sometimes the viewpoints are cogent and intelligent, but are not what the rest want to see and hear. It could be a different perspective on the subject, or it could be someone playing Devil's Advocate. That is NOT trolling.
Trolling, on the other hand, is a definite attempt to derail the discussion, or to bring attention to the poster for no reason except to bring attention to the poster.
Please remember, people:
DNFTT
Do
Not
Feed
The
Trolls
DNFTT
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
For all the "unconstitutional" commenters -
Don't be so sure. IIRC, the bill wouldn't give the DC Delegate a vote at final passage, just a vote up until then. Congress has plenary authority over its internal procedures.
Second, given that there was no federal district at the time of the founding, and that it certainly wasn't expected to be bigger in population than a state, its not a difficult argument to make that DC is effectively a state. Indeed, we already effectively treat it as such for many constitutional purposes (just to pull one out of a hat, we apply Amendments that by their language apply only to states against it.)
And in the area of making sure some people get a vote in Congress - I don't think Courts will want to come down on the "you can't vote because of a technicality" side.
Could someone please speak to why totally unrelated amendments are allowed to be tacked onto other bills--indeed, usually huge, jam-packed, must-pass bills???? Is this simply a matter of Congressional rules, and could they be changed? I know California, for example, cannot have ballot propositions that are about more than one thing, though I don't know how that extends to legislation.
I am extremely dismayed every time I read about something positive failing or something negative passing as a result of this tactic. But even without assigning value judgments to any legislation, it disturbs me greatly that this practice is not only allowed under Congressional protocol, but rather the norm.
Thanks for any discussion...
Why can't we get any goddamn legislation without Republican poison pills attached? The stupidity of this conservadem congress is beyond my ability to comprehend. Even with 60 Democrats in the senate, there is still a working conservative majority. We have a long way to go.
"pretty disgusting sausage"
Time to address the NRA as a wing-nut org. and cull these DINO's from the pack. We can't get anything done with politicians worrying about a perfect score when voting on an unrelated non-gun so non-NRA bill.
I think this shows a lack of leadership and crass manipulation by a lobby we don't need messing with our politics.
@Ezzie: I think it would be very difficult to establish that the District of Columbia has the status of a state. There is just far too much argument and evidence to the contrary.
Here's the simplest evidence. If DC was in fact a state all along, how is it possible that Article I, Section 2 was never complied with when the DC was established?
All of the states joined the union in a federal compact -- becoming one country called the United states. The principle of federalism, is reflected as well in the 10th Amendment's "reserve clause": "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That is to say, States retain the residual powers not granted to the federal government, and the people (as individuals) have all rights and powers not expressly ceded to the (federal) government.
So if I'm a state government, I might object to DC representation both on the basis of Article I, Section 2 and on the basis of the 10th Amendment.
wv: colatle (something I'm having a hard time coming up with to get the loan that I want)
The irony is amazing, as his consistent responses on the matter are generally predicated around someone else's (sometimes my own) ranting, but Mike in Maryland has indeed outed himself as a flaming troll.
Pretty amazing he would go to such lengths to discribe himself and his own behavior, but I think it's obvious to anyone who reads his drivel that his sole purpose is to not present cogent and intelligent thought and simply derail the discussion. And to draw attention to himself with his smarmy insults.
All the wonderful things the USA has done in its past why is it that it can't find the political will to give all of its citizens represnetation. Yes I know the Republicans don't want to give one vote to a solid democratic region but have the Republicans ever thought that instead of constantly opposing DC representation that if they came out for it they might make some head way into being more competative - Oh wait a second, I realized what a putz I was, Republicans don't think and seem to want to only have certain people in their treehouse. Still it is such a shame that something so basic as giving well over a half a million people representation has become so politicized. And more so double shame on the NRA! Another red mark on your already corrupt existence.
BTW those who want to carve up DC and make sections of it Federal and others to give back to MD obvisiously don't live here!
Wow...cool! Nate's relieved and impressed while some of his fellow Americans remain discriminated against with no hope in sight!! Whoopiii!!
Mr. Silver,
Here's a novel idea:
How about committing some of your BIG BRAIN to helping end location discrimination in the district rather than amuse yourself over the NRA's obnoxious and cynical moves? It just might be a productive use of your time, your insight, and of this popular virtual space, dontcha think??
Regarding the DC Voting Act's constitutionality, while I prefer solutions like a new state or reunification w/Maryland, the arguments for and against the act are equally valid. It all depends on how you, or more importantly, a judge views the constitution.
Peese,
CT
Dammit, Democrats. Yeah, the NRA are bastards for maneuvering this way, but I think you folks can make some concessions on your liberal pride to give people a vote in Congress considering that we already have the Second Amendment (and we have for a while) as our guide on gun rights.
Really disappointing. I was hoping this would work out for D.C.
Come on,people.Make your lives more pleasant by blocking trolls like PeteKent and Casual Observer!
From http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43818
"538TrollRemover
By nicksuserscripts — Last update Mar 8, 2009
Installed 127 times.
Script Summary:
Removes troll's comments fromfivethirtyeight.com.
Pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble.
This script works at the website http://www.fivethirtyeight.com and prevents the comments of trolls from appearing on your screen.
I do not mean for people to use this script to create their own echo-chamber on fivethiryeight.com, but as a stop-gap measure to remove the trolls from the comment section in order to increase the signal:noise ratio and improve the level of discourse.
That being said, it comes pre-populated with PeteKent and Jack-be-nimble - you'll never have to see their comments again!
To add trolls, from your firefox browser select 'Tools'->'Greasemonkey'->'Manage User Scripts'. Select '538TrollRemover' and click 'Edit'. Add any new trolls to the trollList array near the beginning of the script.
Send comments/bugs/feature requests to nicksuserscripts+538TrollRemover@gmail.com
I am busy with other things, but I will attempt to fix bugs in a timely manner.
P.S.
This script works with Google Chrome (see http://mashable.com/2008/12/15/google-chrome-gr... for instructions on running Greasemonkey scripts on Chrome)
I'm working on getting this to work with one of the IE extensions."
If DC can't have representation because it isn't a state, does that mean VA should lose it's representation as well? VA is a commonwealth, not a state, and I haven't seen anything in the Constitution about granting representation to commonwealths.
Crikey people, isn't the fact that we have a huge number of people being disenfranchised contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? At the very least, the people living in DC should be exempt from taxation like PR and Guam. Oh, but they'll never let go of the golden goose that provides over $20 billion a year in federal tax revenue.
DC has a population larger than the population of Wyoming. It provides more tax revenue than 19 other states. It is simply wrong that so many people who are contributing so much are being left without a voice.
Come on,people.Make your lives more pleasant by blocking trolls like PeteKent and Casual Observer!
"538TrollRemover,
Absolutely hilarious. I've never seen a group of people more committed to a finger-in-the-ears, head-in-the-sand, echo chamber approach to life.
Your closed-minded, bigoted ideological ways serve as your own detriment. I could care less. I come here specifically to see/hear opposing points of view. Looks like you only want to shut them out.
Can we put a relatively mild firearms measure in a universal healthcare bill and force a bunch of conservative republicans to vote for it or loose their NRA rating?
Or would the NRA juts not score that, since it makes conservatives look bad?
Evan, I like the way you think!
Given that DC is fully part of the USA, it should have representation. I know that besides statehood there is the option to retrocede it to Maryland, but it has been over 200 years since it was last part of it. There is hardly any Marylandish spirit left in DC. You might as well retrocede the USA to the UK. Although you'd outnumber the British, I guess you still wouldn't want that because of what you have become in the meantime.
PeteKent said:
"These people have a tradition of electing and re-electing crack heads and drunkards"
Exactly how does this distinquish DC voters from Texas voters?
The NRA just wants Washington DC to regain the title of the Murder Capitol of America.
Give DC statehood or nothing, none of this in between nonsense.
Democrats Max Baucus and Robert Byrd, on the other hand, voted against both cloture and the bill text
I wish Reid had the balls to institute a rule in the Democratic Caucus that would allow any Democrat to vote their conscience on a bill but would penalize any Democrat who voted against a cloture vote with loss of committee assignments.
But I guess that Head Eunuch Harry is incapable of it.More's the pity!
Well, ya gotta fix it somehow. There's half a million people in DC being taxed without representation.
DC-Residential should just secede from the District and form a new state and ratify the Constitution. It is as simple as that and no one could really complain. After all, there is still a Federal District. :)
The speed at which people have forgotten how exactly we got control of the presidency and Congress is quite amazing.
Culling DINOs? Ideological purity tests? Utter lunacy. I fail to see how the Republicans' 2002-2006 playbook is something we should emulate.
"Absolutely hilarious. I've never seen a group of people more committed to a finger-in-the-ears, head-in-the-sand, echo chamber approach to life."
Clearly you haven't been watching the GOP since the last election.
I didn't read all the comments but in the original post about this Nate mentions that the site will stay as 538 not move to 539.
Also, addressing the unconstitutionality, according to CRS "it would appear likely that the Congress does not have the authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the Delegate from the District of Columbia." So, I am forced to agree with Congressman Chaffetz that this is unconstitutional and, further, applaud the NRA for successfully halting this insanity. I admit that I wish it had been halted using reason rather than a clever legislative maneuver but, nevertheless, it was halted.
Rather than give DC representation in Congress, which is almost certainly unconstitutional, Congress should simply pass a law allowing residents of DC to register to vote in federal elections in any existing congressional district in the country. That way, every DC resident gets a voice in Congress. No more "taxation without representation."
Now what could be easier than that?
For all those arguing giving the residents of the District of Columbia a right to vote is unconstitutional, I invite you to review a couple of the comments of legal scholars (borrowed from http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/dc-voting-rights/dc-vra-2006.html)
1. Congress' Broad Authority Over D.C.: To fully protect the interests of the federal government, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority over all matters relating to the new federal district under Article I, § 8, clause 17 (the "District Clause"). Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress "extraordinary and plenary power" over D.C., with "full and unlimited jurisdiction . . . by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end," subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution. Any legislation affecting D.C. - including H.R. 5388 - must be understood in this context.
2. Congress has let Citizens Vote for Congress Even When They Aren't State Residents: While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected "by the People of the Several states," Congress has not always applied this language so literally:
* After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later became the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 - even though, legally, they were no longer residents.
* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in Congressional elections in their last state of residence - even if they no longer are citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return.
3. Congress has Treated D.C. as a "State" in Other Contexts: While many provisions in the Constitution refer only to "states," Congress has validly treated D.C. as if it were a state in a number of cases, and could likely do the same for purposes of representation. For example:
* Article III provides that courts may hear cases "between citizens of different states" (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, D.C. residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating D.C. as a state for this purpose - a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949).
* The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states," which, literally, would exclude D.C. But legislation treating D.C. as a "state" for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889).
4. The 23rd Amendment Doesn't Suggest Otherwise: The fact that it took a constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents a role in Presidential elections does not mean that one is required to provide Congressional representation. The 23rd Amendment affected Article II of the Constitution, an article in which Congress' authority is greatly limited - unlike its broad powers, including the "District Clause," under Article I.
Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.... Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers. . . ."
If this makes it unconstitutional for DC to have a representative in Congress, how is it constitutional for us to pay federal taxes.
Here we are arguing over constitutioanlity, which in my mind is important, but not an obstacle that is too big to solve for our fellow Americans.
Three points-
1.(Made up but highly possible anecdote) Man born in DC, drafted into Vietnam. He is injured and has limited employment opportunities especially before ADA of 1990. Luckily he gets a job as a janitor of the Cannon House building cleaning of the crap of your representative. His son goes to Iraq and is killed. At no point did he have a say, yet he was just as much an American as you or I.
2. Giving sovereignty, by first taking it away for guns is evil; no matter what you say about gun control.
3.I can't see any spin that one could put on a case challenging the change because it decreases their representation by a small fraction in the house.
My feeling as a resident of Maryland (in Silver Spring, just outside DC) is that DC will not get representation in Congress until residents undertake regular demonstrations outside the Capitol. Something like the demonstrations near the South African embassy about apartheid, or the protests near the Soviet embassy about the treatment of Soviet Jewry.
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Margaret
http://lotterymegamillions.net
Post a Comment