As the Wapo reported, the vote failed to get the 60 votes it needed in the Senate to move forward. Not an actual vote, but a vote TO vote.
Some noticeable statements:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): "If we were to expand the House, Montana's voice would become less influential."
One, you already have 3 full voting members of Congress. DC with around 60,000 fewer residents has none. Also, when was the last time you heard about this guy being influential?
Senator John Warner (R-VA): "My view is that only a constitutional amendment . . . will resolve this issue and thereby avoid interminable litigation flowing from an act of Congress."
The post is reporting that Sen. Warner is currently drafting the Constitutional Amendment. I sincerely applaud his effort to get this important voting rights measure in the Constitution. However, something here I find puzzling. He supports the measure so much he's willing to change the Constitution, yet didn't vote for the bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If Montana finds it so important that they are represented fairly wouldn't it make sense that they want all to have their fair share of representation? I also find it somewhat ridiculous that we have votes as to whether votes can be taken. Who takes the vote to have this initial vote on voting? Like the vote on whether to send gay marriage to the popular vote that Massachusetts had this past summer, I have trouble supporting a vote on something that should be a right for everyone. Why aren't all citizens of the US given the right of representation? What should it matter if those citizens happen to live in a district vs. a state? Don't we want the capital of the United States to set an example for the rest of the country?
Post a Comment