Opposition Centers on Constitutionality of Measure
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Proponents of the D.C. voting-rights bill plan to target several lawmakers who helped sink the measure on the Senate floor this week, hoping to change their minds so the legislation can be revived.
On Tuesday, supporters fell three short of the 60 votes needed to begin action on the bill. Unless they can convert several opponents into allies, the legislation is dead for the 2007-08 Congress.
Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a prominent supporter of the bill, said the group will carry out a grass-roots advocacy campaign aimed at eight senators, some facing reelection.
"At the end of the day, there is real likelihood we'll be able to get enough of them in support of the bill to achieve the objective," he said.
But the effort won't be easy. The Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has rallied his party to oppose the bill, calling it unconstitutional. Eight Republicans voted in favor of starting action on the measure, and 41 voted against it. All but two Democrats voted to proceed with the bill.
The legislation was crafted as a bipartisan compromise. It adds two seats to the House of Representatives: one for the heavily Democratic District and another for the next state in line to pick up a seat. For the next several years, that seat would go to the mostly Republican Utah.
Yesterday marked the first time in almost 30 years that the Senate had taken up the D.C. vote issue. The bill passed the House in April.
McConnell has argued that the bill violates the constitutional requirement that House representatives be chosen by residents of states.
"To vote for it would violate our oath of office, in which we solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution," he said in a floor speech this week.
The Republican leadership succeeded in peeling off several senators who had been counted as allies by the bill's supporters.
"When we went to bed Monday night, we had 61 votes," said Ilir Zherka, executive director of the advocacy group DC Vote. But the following afternoon, he added, "we had 57."
Henderson said his group's targets would include four senators who voted to block consideration of the bill after initially indicating support. He identified them as Republicans Thad Cochran (Miss.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) and the lone Democrat present who opposed proceeding to the bill, Max Baucus (Mont.)
In addition, Henderson said, the bill's supporters would try to win over Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who was not present for the vote but has indicated his opposition to the bill.
The activists will try to use electoral campaigns next year as an opportunity to apply pressure.
"Our issue certainly will not be the major issue" in those campaigns, acknowledged the District's nonvoting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). "But we think our issue can be joined with other issues to make a point about the senator" in question.
It will be difficult to budge some of the senators, though. Warner and Byrd are seen as ardent constitutionalists and have shown little sign of wavering on the bill.
"We broadly share the view that representation in Congress is important," said Carter Cornick, Warner's chief of staff. But, he added, "it has to be done right." That, he said, means a constitutional amendment, which Warner is drafting.
The last effort at a constitutional amendment granting the District full congressional representation failed in 1985, after ratification from only 16 of the required 38 states.
Supporters reject the charge that the bill is unconstitutional. They note that the Constitution gives Congress vast powers over the District and maintain that those powers are sufficient to create a D.C. seat.
Although debate has centered on the constitutionality of the bill, there are other concerns. Some Republicans fear the measure could lead to the District getting two senators, who would probably be Democrats.
The bill also has revived fears that the District could become a sort of city-state with outsized powers. Baucus, in a statement Tuesday night, called the legislation "a slippery slope."
"If we expand the playing field now, then who is to say where it will stop? Will we give votes to territories, protectorates and commonwealths?" he asked.
Some of the bill's supporters said they suspected strong White House pressure on McConnell to fight the legislation. President Bush's advisers have urged a veto if the measure reaches his desk, because of constitutional concerns.
McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, denied such White House pressure. He said McConnell has taken strong stands on other constitutional issues, such as when he opposed an amendment against flag-burning last year.
"He's got a long history of this sort of thing," Stewart said. "If he feels it's unconstitutional, he's just not going to support it."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.