Subject: [EL] Revival of DC House Voting Rights Bill? (cross-posted to electionlaw list and to conlawprof list)
From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu>
Date: 12/22/2010, 11:07 PM
To: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>, "Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu" <Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu>

Cross-posted to electionlaw list and to conlawprof list (with apologies for duplicates received by members of both lists):
 
The link below from Prof. Hasen's electionlaw blog suggests that another attempt to pass a DC House Voting Rights bill may be in the offing.
 
I'm very convinced that the DC House Voting Rights bill that nearly was enacted would have violated the Constitution, as my Alabama L. Rev. article argues. (It's available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1345744 and at http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/articles/Volume%2060/Issue%204/scarberry.pdf.)
 
But I'm also convinced that DC should have a voting member in the House. The only way, in my view, that the District as an entity can be given a voting member in the House is by constitutional amendment (though perhaps residents of the District might be permitted to vote as Marylanders in House elections if Congress and Maryland could agree on such a step). Most of the opposition to the DC House Voting Rights bill was on constitutional grounds, with the injustice of lack of representation conceded. I think that makes it very possible that an amendment could be proposed and ratified. The substantial Republican majority in the upcoming Congress also will tend to temper GOP opposition; addition of one reliably Democratic district may not seem so damaging to GOP prospects for continuing control of the House, especially given the likely additional GOP advantage that the decennial redistricting will provide.
 
What do list members think? On list comments (on either list) would be great. I'd also like to invite anyone to contact me who might be interested in joining a letter of support for such a constitutional amendment (to be sent to the President and to congressional leaders).
 
An amendment granting DC not only a voting member in the House but also Senators would be a bridge too far and probably unwise, as I see it.
 
Would DC political leaders refuse to support a House-only amendment, for fear that a later amendment granting the District representation in the Senate would be precluded? (I suppose a House-only amendment would relieve much of the "taxation without representation" pressure that powers current attempts to obtain congressional representation for the District, and maybe there are only so many times you can go to the amendment "well.")
 
Mark Scarberry
 
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen [hasenr@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:15 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 12/22/10

December 21, 2010

..."D.C. Voting Rights Advocates Search for Partner State"

Roll Call offers this report.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:28 PM

...


--Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org