House panel considers pros, cons of a 4th seat
The debate will continue today as the House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the bill, which will determine if it gets a House floor vote. Supporters of the bill expect a floor vote by the end of the month, although it will not be without harsh criticism as illustrated on Wednesday.
"Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades," said Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Turley's 42-page testimony submitted for the hearing's record details why the bill "is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level."
The proposed bill would give Utah an at-large seat in Congress ahead of schedule in exchange for granting a House vote to the District of Columbia. The bipartisan compromise avoids either the Democrats or Republicans gaining an advantage, because Utah's seat would likely go to a Republican while the district's seat would likely go to a Democrat, according to its supporters. Utah missed getting a new seat after 2000 Census, but it likely to get one after 2010. The district has not had a vote in Congress since 1801.
He also argues that Utah's at-large seat proposed in the bill "will face a compelling constitutional challenge" because there would be overlapping representation.
"While the Supreme Court has not clearly addressed the interstate implications of 'one person, one vote,' this bill would likely force it do to so," according to Turley's testimony.
But Richard Bress, at partner at Latham & Watkins, LLP, said "Congress plainly has the authority to create such an at-large seat" and that it would not violate the "one man, one vote" principle.
Bress said all Utah voters would have access to voting for the at-large seat as well as their current congressional district. "It would not dilute the relative value of any person's vote in that state."
Bress also argues Congress can grant the District of Columbia a vote based on legal precedent and should do so.
"The district now has nearly 600,000 people — greater than the population of all of the 13 original states," Bress said. "Congress may and should act to ensure those resident the same substantive representation that the framers assured their fellow citizens."
You can be the first to comment on this story.