After the stimulus mess is passed, odds are that one of the very next bills to be considered is the DC Voting Rights Act. It expands the House to 437, gives DC a voting Congressman, and gives Utah one more Congressman.George Will lays out a case that it's unconstitutional. Odds are that the Supreme Court would make a ruling before anyone was elected. Do you support this? Why or why not? Personally, I endorse the concept, but also think that it's unconstitutional. Beyond that, should Puerto Rico and Guam get real Congressmen? And finally, should we consider a much larger increase in the size of the House? It's been fixed at 435 since 1911, when the population was much smaller. Are our representatives less responsive than before? Should we consider an increase to, say, 1000 member House?
I don't think any citizen in this country should be without representation. The rationale for creating DC as something separate from the states has passed. Give it back to MD or VA with a transition timeframe, a little cash, and an understanding of what responsibilities the Feds have and call it good.
absolutely support this. PR doesn't pay federal income tax, the district does. the district gets screwed everywhere because embassies dont pay taxes, all the federal buildings dont pay taxes. probably a majority of its workers don't actually live in the district so dont pay state level income taxes. and on top of that it has to provide services for all those people and institutions that don't pay taxes. the least we could do is give it some actual voice in the house. as far as larger reform, frankly i don't think delaware and montana should have equal senate representation as california or new york. obviously this would require constitutional amendments etc, but on my wish list would be to make the senate more democratic.
