GOP weighs merits of D.C. voting bill

Nearly every GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee attended a hearing yesterday to discuss the constitutionality of a bill that would give District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House of Representatives.
While all but a few of the committee’s 17 Republicans showed, it was clear from testimony that only two are likely to vote for the bill during today’s markup.

Reps. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a cosponsor of the legislation, seemed likely to support it.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee passed the legislation Tuesday, 24 to 5, with only five of its 17 Republican members voting against it. Both Cannon and Issa also sit on the oversight committee.

Nonetheless, based on GOP testimony yesterday, there may be more fallout in the Judiciary Committee. Many of the Republican members cited concerns about the constitutionality of the bill and the provision that would allow Utah to gain an additional at-large seat before the 2010 census.

The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), told the panel that he had “constitutional problems with the bill.”

“D.C. is not a state. Therefore it cannot have a voting member in the House — and that’s not even a tough law-school question,” Smith said. He also questioned why the District could not again become part of Maryland and why residents should gain a seat in the House but not in the Senate.

Former Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) also raised constitutional questions about the legislation.

“Doing it this way is sticking one’s head in the sand,” Sensenbrenner said, referring to the use of a legislative fix rather than a constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents voting rights.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), too, had concerns about the legislation. He asked why D.C. should have representatives if forts and federal enclaves do not.

Gohmert’s main argument was that D.C. already has representation: Every senator and member of Congress has an interest in the city.

“It’s the only place in the entire U.S. that every representative and senator have a vested interest that things work,” Gohmert said. “That was one of the arguments back 200 years ago.”

Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) argued that a constitutional amendment may be more appropriate. He, like Smith, was also interested to know: “What’s the rationale for supporting one representative to the House and turning a blind eye to the Senate?”

Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte (Va.) similarly questioned why D.C. should have a member in the lower chamber but not the upper.

“The bill completely conflicts with who is a member of this body,” the Virginia lawmaker said, citing proposals to make D.C. a part of Maryland or use the constitutional amendment process as an “achievable” possibility.

For Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who said he was an English major in college, doubts were few because he  “attaches meanings to words.”

The Constitution states specifically that “Congress should be made up of representatives from the states,” Lungren said.
Ilir Zherka, executive director for DC Vote, an advocacy group working to gain voting representation for D.C. residents, conceded that passing the bill through the Judiciary Committee would be more complicated than passage through the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“It’s more difficult [in Judiciary]” Zherka said. “There are more hardcore conservatives here. They came out in force.” He noted that Republicans returned to the hearing after a recess for votes.

“They all said they were concerned with fixing the problem with a constitutional amendment,” Zherka said. “[But] none of them offered to do it.”

Democrats said the committee has a moral obligation to give D.C. residents representation in the House since they pay federal income taxes and have fought and died in every American war.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) told the committee that he grew up in Washington, but he “didn’t realize we were second-class citizens until much later. [My parents] could not exercise the right to vote.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said that “the committee has a commitment to the Constitution” and that the discussion evoked memories from the 1960s and the voting rights act. 
 
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) used the Democratic talking point to illustrate that the men and women in uniform took a vow to uphold the Constitution.

“The brave Americans who are fighting in the Middle East are fighting to uphold the Constitution,” he said. “Wouldn’t that be the binding principle? And ours too: to uphold the Constitution.”