D.C. House Seat

Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill that would give the District its first full voting seat in Congress. Post reporter Mary Beth Sheridan was online Friday, April 20 at 12:30 p.m. to discuss what this means, and what to expect as the bill advances to the Senate.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Mary Beth Sheridan: Hi everyone,

Thanks for your interest and for joining the chat!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How does the process for this work, now? What happens if the White House vetoes the issue?

Mary Beth Sheridan: The bill now goes to the Senate. It's expected to go first to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which would vote on whether to send it to the Senate floor. If passed, it then goes to the White House. IF it's vetoed by the president, it dies, unless two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate vote to override the veto.

Supporters of the legislation note that the White House has said Bush's aides would recommend a veto -- not that he WILL definitely veto. That's an important distinction. So they're hoping he wouldn't use his veto power on this; he's used his veto pen rarely.

As you can see, there's a long road ahead before the bill becomes reality. And if it does finally become law, it almost certainly will face an immediate legal challenge.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. So says the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If D.C. gets full voting rights like the other states, then won't they have to start paying federal income taxes?

Mary Beth Sheridan: D.C. residents already pay full federal income taxes.

_______________________

Petworth, DC: I've lived in DC my whole life, and I'm beginning to think we'll never get representation in Congress, even the half measure of having a representative. I saw a poll that 70 percent of Americans think we already have representation. With such widespread ignorance, why would any politician care about giving us a vote?

Mary Beth Sheridan: That's a very good point. Most Americans don't know about D.C.'s lack of representation in Congress. The League of Women Voters has launched an educational campaign to try and change that, but they have a long way to go. A number of national civil-rights, good-government and liberal groups are also trying to get their members at the grassroots level to contact local representatives about the issue. But I think it's safe to say there's little pressure on many representatives around the country on this issue.

_______________________

Lee, N.Y.: Why not require Utah to redistrict? Every other state carves out specific districts for all members of Congress. If Utah has an "at-large" representative, would that not violate the equal protection under law requirements of the 14th amendment?

Mary Beth Sheridan: That's an interesting question. Under the bill, the "at-large" seat would be temporary -- until the next redistricting in 2012. The reasons given for doing it are protecting the Democratic seat in Utah from gerrymandering and avoiding the expense and hassle of special elections.

As for the equal-protection part: Some Republicans have argued that, under this system, Utah residents would get more than one vote -- i.e. one for their local congressional rep and one for the statewide rep. The response from the other side is this: representation isn't based on how often you pull the lever in the voting booth, but on the weight of your vote.

In other words, for Utah citizens, their local rep would count for three-quarters of their vote; the other quarter of their vote would go to the statewide person.

At-large reps have been used occasionally in other states, and the Congressional Research Service said the set-up would probably be constitutional. But some people are clearly uncomfortable with the idea.

_______________________

Cap Hill: Why was the vote different on the two bills, the bill expanding the house by two seats was 241 to 177 and the bill paying for the two seats was 216-203. Considering that the first bill would die without passage of the second bill, was this just politicians being politicians; voting for voting rights but trying to defeat it by voting against the tax bill??

Thanks for doing the chat.

Mary Beth Sheridan: That could be. Some other motives: some reps seemed leery of voting for something that looked like a tax increase. Others seemed generally annoyed that Democrats used unusual parliamentary rules and procedures that kept Republicans from adding amendments or other changes.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Now on to the Senate, with a much closer vote likely as well as a possible filibuster. Then on to the White House, which promises a veto. THEN, on to the Supreme Court, which will rule on whether it is unconstitutional to allow citizens to vote and be represented. (What a country!)

AND, THEN, as soon as the majority changes hands in the future, expect repeal to be a top priority.

How about: "The Consent of the Governed, being necessary to the legitimacy of governance in a free society, the right of the people to vote and be represented, shall not be infringed."

(YUP, WHAT A COUNTRY!)

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for your comment.

_______________________

Retrocession, Anyone?: If it is imposed on Maryland, it would be just another case of governed without consent:

U.S. House Readies for Vote on D.C. Seat (Post, April 18)

Republicans are trying to get Congress to consider another option for the District: ceding the city back to Maryland, with the exception of federal land. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) have introduced bills with that proposal.

But Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) called the idea "a political impossibility" because of opposition from the D.C. government, Maryland residents and perhaps even members of Congress reluctant to lose control over the city.

"There are so many buildings that are tax-exempt . . . and yet you have the problems of the tourists coming, the problems of marches, you have D.C.'s crime problem -- we already have Baltimore City," Miller said. "It's lovely to think about, like a jigsaw puzzle, but when look at all the nuances involved, in my opinion, it becomes an impossibility.

Mary Beth Sheridan: You raise an interesting point. Some experts say the Constitution would require Maryland's okay. But one constitutional scholar told me that, in fact, Congress could force Maryland to take back D.C. I think it's pretty unlikely anything like this will be seriously considered given opposition by political leaders in both Maryland and the District.

_______________________

13th St S.E.: What are the odds that we will get FULL representation (two senators and a rep) in the next 20 years?

Thanks for doing the chat.

Mary Beth Sheridan: I wish I knew! It would make my job easier.

I think it's going to be difficult for the District to get two senators. They would almost certainly be Democrats, given D.C. voting patterns. Republicans fear that would represent a pretty big shift in the Senate. It would be seen by some senators as diluting their own power. And critics say it would give disproportionate weight to a city of less than 600,000 people.

It could perhaps be passed if you had a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both houses--since the party generally supports the idea. But bear in mind that a measure to give D.C. a House representative and two senators failed in the Democratic-controlled House in 1993.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The official position against a vote for D.C. is that the Constitution refers in various passages to -- quote -- the several states -- unquote. If that argument holds water, what about places like Virginia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, etc., that are technically not states but rather commonwealths?

Mary Beth Sheridan: I think for legal purposes the commonwealths have always been treated as states. That's not the case for the District, of course.

_______________________

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for joining in, everyone. I'm sorry I couldn't get to all the questions. But I imagine we'll be doing this again as the process continues. Stay tuned!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.