You're right ... it gives House voting rights to the DC Rep.

However, again, putting aside the merits it's unconstitutional. Article One states clearly that Congress is made of representatives from the States. They needed a constitutional amendment to give DC presidential voting rights in 1961 and there was a failed attempt to grant congressional representation in the late 70's because a proposed amendment wasn't ratified.

To me it seems crystal clear that DC residents should enjoy equal representation in the federal gov't. However, I don't think it's legitimately addressed by a congressional bill when the constitution states otherwise. Passing this bill unopposed opens up a big can of worms.


>>>>>>Did anyone watch Obama's address to Congress?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK, now this dude had moved into the category of outright liar. No earmarks? Hahahahah....the average American will burp, pull the tab on a new beer, and move on. But the truth is that the latest spending bill has between $4 Bn and $8 Bn in earmarks depending the interpreter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now they're pushing through a bill to give the District of Columbia voting representatives. Seems fair, right? But it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, The only way legally to do this is through a Constitutional Amendment. But, golly gee, that would be inconvenient to Congress do we'll just overlook that aspect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think that's quite correct. As I understand it, DC could be retroceded back to Maryland by an agreement between Congress and the State of Maryland. Then DC citizens would have full voting rights restored and no amendment to the constitution required.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I were a DC citizen, I'd much prefer a different option. Remember the Boston Tea Party? I think DC citizens should be excluded from having to pay tax since they don't have proper representation.
>>>>>
>>>>DC people already have representation in US Congress (one delegate in the House, proportional to population). Senate representation is reserved to states (two for each) as it is written in the USA Constitution.
>>>
>>>Not exactly, They have a non-voting delegate, the same as US territories. (Specifically, she can sit on committees and vote there, but not on final passage.)
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Does the proposed legislation relate to House or Senate representation?
>
>AFAICT, it provides one full representative to DC as well as adding another representative, which would for now go to Utah (until after the next census, when it would go wherever the population sends it). Nothing about Senators.
>
>Tamar