Taxation without representation

District of Columbia residents have known for a few years about the stalled congressional effort to get the city voting rights in Congress by linking it with Utah.

Today, the effort will get some life as Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) will announce his pledge to drum up Republican support now that D.C.'s non-voting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), is on board with the plan.

The latest proposal would give D.C. one vote in the House (but no votes in the Senate) in return for giving Utah an extra permanent seat.

I learned today that from 1993 to 1995, Norton was allowed to vote so long as her ballots did not affect the outcome. (Sort of like all Democrats in today's House.)

This issue reminds me of two questions I have on this issue:

  • Will adding two chairs to the House chamber mean fewer people can come to the State of the Union addresses?

  • What is the difference in job functions between D.C.'s non-voting House delegate (Eleanor Holmes Norton) and the District's shadow representative (Ray Browne) & shadow senators (Paul Strauss and Florence Pendleton)? Wikipedia tries to explain, but I still don't understand.

    • Comments

    WFY said…
    If I recall correctly, the original legislation would have temporarily created 437 seats and then gone back to 435 following the next census. That probably would have been doomed because I cannot see states like NY, PA, MI, voting for legislation that would increase the chances of them losing even more seats. This has a chance...
    May 11, 2006
    Josh said…
    "I learned today that from 1993 to 1995, Norton was allowed to vote so long as her ballots did not affect the outcome. (Sort of like all Democrats in today's House.)"

    And moderate Republicans. Go Lincoln Chafee! Way to make a difference, pal!
    May 11, 2006
    Anonymous said…
    Lincoln makes a difference sometimes. His vote on the Environment and Public Works Committee killed controversial legislation on air pollution and refinery permitting. (But then he turned around and voted to favorably report Bush's nominee to head EPA's air office, even though he helped write regulators that do much of what the legislation was for).
    May 11, 2006
    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Incumbents didn't stand a chance

    Image
    Kamala Harris had an advantage in fundraising and campaign mobilization. Yet she got trounced. The lesson is that advertising and organizing doesn't matter in politics, right? Wrong. In the battleground states where she leveraged those resource advantages, Harris underperformed Joe Biden's 2020 results by 1.6 points . In the non-battleground states where she did not meaningfully compete, she underperformed 2020 by 3.9 points . This means that i n the places where the Harris campaign spent money and organized and knocked on doors, she did better.* Duh, it wasn't enough. Yet consider the political environment in 2024 for incumbent parties: across the world this year, each governing party facing election has lost vote share. Every single one. (This is the first time that had ever happened.) No one would suggest that Democrats pat themselves on the back when the result of their efforts is a Donald Trump victory. But look at this chart:**  The red dot is the 2024 Democrats, the ...
    Read more

    USC goes commando

    Image
    I've always thought USC cheerleaders were pretty classy (to the extent that such a classification is possible in the cheerleading world). They wear long-sleeved white turtlenecks, rather than the skimpy tops donned by most cheerleading teams. But yesterday I discovered that a USC Song Girl named Megan Ramer doesn't wear underwear. Britney Spears, are you responsible for this?
    Read more

    Paperweights have become paperweights

    Image
    When something goes unused or becomes obsolete, it's said to become a paperweight. Is your cellphone slow and out of date? It's become a paperweight. Is your laptop too slow to use? It's become a paperweight. Do you never use your Apple Vision Pro? It's become a paperweight. Weirdly, paper itself has become a paperweight. People do their work on laptops, tablets, and phones. Most homes don't have printers. Not only do we not need paperweights, we barely need paper!
    Read more