| |
 |
| May 1st, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Jared Whitley (Hatch) 202-224-0134
Leslie Phillips (Lieberman) 202-224-0384 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
[  ] Watch Television Clip |
HATCH, LIEBERMAN INTRODUCE DC, UTAH HOUSE VOTING BILL IN THE SENATE
Bill Also Creates Fourth District for the State of Utah |
| |
|
|
| Sen. Hatch and Sen. Lieberman discuss the DC Voting Rights/Utah fourth seat issue. (5/1/2007) |
WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation that would for the first time give voting representation in the House of Representatives to the residents of the District of Columbia and would add a fourth congressional seat for the State of Utah, in accordance with 2000 Census data. Senator Robert Bennett, R-Utah, also supports the bill. Lieberman said he would hold a hearing on the bill sometime in May.
“There is no question we feel slighted by the results of the 2000 census and this bill will provide Utah with the fourth seat we have sought for several years now,” Hatch said. “According to the 2000 Census, Utah missed an extra seat to North Carolina by just 856 people, which is an uncomfortably thin margin of error since Utah is seeing some of the fastest growth in the nation.”
Under the Senate bill, Utah is free to redistrict into four equal districts rather than creating an at-large seat, and the fourth member will begin work at the start of the 111th Congress, rather than requiring a costly special election this year. The House version which would create an at-large district clearly violates the one man, one vote doctrine outlined in the Constitution.
“I must say that, not only is the at-large requirement of the House bill unconstitutional, it is also too heavy-handed,” Hatch said. “It creates a federal mandate that denies Utahns their right to redistrict how they see fit. Utah leaders made a full-court press last year in developing a fair, bipartisan four-district map. We have shown it is possible to come to a consensus to develop a new fourth district, so the Federal government need not dictate to us how our representative districts should be drawn.”
Non-voting D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13, 2007, by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20, 2007, by a vote of 241-177. The people of the District of Columbia deserve voting rights in part, the Senators said, because they pay taxes and fight for the nation’s democracy like other voting citizens. In fact, they pay more taxes: Per capita, District residents have the second highest federal tax obligation.
“I am most grateful for Senator Hatch’s support for this bill and am certain his co- sponsorship will lead to the breakthrough we’ve been searching for to bring an end to the 200-year disenfranchisement of District residents,” Lieberman said. “Today, we have an historic opportunity finally to bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides – democracy’s most essential right, voting representation in Congress.”
Hatch's introductory floor speech follows:
Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch
before the
United States Senate on
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation (H.R. 1905) that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first-voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and an unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat.
The Founding Fathers made clear in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the United State . . .” This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, Article 1, Section 2 and Section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of states shall have voting representation in the House and Senate.
During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet, these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that states, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District’s affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents.
I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District’s undemocratic political status, but it gives my home state of Utah a long overdue fourth voting member in the House of Representatives.
During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home state, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census.
Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress five years early. That is equivalent to two and half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah’s citizens. I don’t think this is an offer we should dismiss.
I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905’s attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my state of Utah. In states with more than one seat in the House, members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one state would be represented by two House members while citizens in other states would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, states are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah’s legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives’ districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal government.
Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate-version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new members would begin their service at the start of the
111th Congress in 2009.
Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a “Democrat” seat with a “Republican” seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two senators for the District and would not support such a proposal.
As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure that my state is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House’s recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah’s fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won’t be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.
I yield the floor.
View related PDF: 05012007utahfourthseat0.pdf (40.8 KBs)
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
