Talk:Voting rights in the District of Columbia

Not only is the current bill to give D.C. residents a vote in Congress flagrantly unconsitutional per Professor Turley, it also seems unconstitutional as to how the measure treats Utah if it is to give Utah an additional at-large seat. The reason: at large seats are reserved for States that are entitled to only one seat. Since Utah already has as I recall four, by adding an at-large seat this would give every Utah resident TWO representatives in Congress, thereby depriving all other U.S. citizens who reside in States the equal protection and benefit of the law and violating the spirit of the Supreme Court's "one man, one vote" jurisprudence. Moreover, it would also violate the Constitution's mandate that the States be represented in the House according to their population since Utah would not be so treated but given an extra seat in addition to what it would otherwise be entitled.

The alternative, one that should not present politically insurmountable obstacles, like full statehood proposals do unfortunately, would be a constitutional amendment to grant the District representation in the Congress to the same extent as the least populous state. The citizens of London, Paris, Rome and Tokyo have representatives in their legislatures, why shouldn't the citizens of our capital have at least one? That they have earned this right long ago, I refer readers to a memorial, in the style of ancient Greek temple, that exists hidden in the woods of the Capital Mall near the Lincoln Memorial that I stumbled upon the last time I was there. It is actually in memoriam to the 500 residents of the District who died in the Great War being dedicated by President Herbert Hoover in the early 1930s

Passsage of this measure would another step down a long road that was begun when slavery was abolished in DC in 1862. Tom Cod 12:29, 29 November 2006 (EST)