4th district map to get OK today

Even though there's no guarantee Utah will get a fourth congressional seat anytime soon, lawmakers are meeting today in special session to approve a new redistricting map for the state.

"We're doing our part to keep the momentum going on this important issue," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s spokesman, Mike Mower, said.

The governor called the Legislature into special session to come up with a map in time for the lame-duck Congress to take action. But congressional action is becoming increasingly unlikely given the amount of other issues Congress has to tackle in the coming days. Still, Huntsman has said a pending bill in Congress linking Utah's fourth seat to full House voting privileges for Washington, D.C., is the state's best chance to gain additional representation in the U.S. House before the 2010 Census.

So, lawmakers reluctantly agreed to draft a new map that divides the state into four congressional districts by quickly putting together a redistricting committee and holding public hearings throughout the state last week. Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, co-chairman of the redistricting committee, said while some other legislators may want to change the resulting committee proposal, known as Plan L, he believes it will pass with strong bipartisan support.

The 2001 Legislature passed a four-seat plan just in case the U.S. Supreme Court, in a challenge by Utah, gave the state another U.S. House member. But the high court turned down Utah's petition. Bramble said Plan L is "by far" a better plan than the four-seat plan adopted in 2001.

"We're not starting from zero. We have a plan we don't like," Bramble said. "We've proven we can do better than that with the commitment from Republicans and Democrats to find common ground."

The Legislature should adopt Plan L on Monday, Bramble said, because if lawmakers don't take action, then there's no chance the lame-duck session of Congress will take up the issue later in the week.

Bramble said it's not clear what will happen once the Legislature acts. "We're getting mixed signals. We don't control what they do back there. What we do control is whether we have in statute a plan we think is the best we can do."

Members of the congressional committee considering the bill that would give Utah a fourth seat have made it clear they wanted to see a new redistricting map. The 2001 map was widely seen as unfair to the state's lone Democrat in Congress, Rep. Jim Matheson. If Congress doesn't act this year, there's some question whether the new, Democrat-controlled U.S. House and Senate convening in January would be willing to consider a fourth seat for Utah. The chances of the state seeing a fourth seat anytime soon would be hurt further if the new Congress had to wait for Utah lawmakers to hash out a redistricting plan during their general session that begins in mid-January.

There will likely be several amendments to Plan L or new redistricting maps debated at Monday's special session, which starts at 10:30 a.m. on Capitol Hill. Already, Rep. Ben Ferry, R-Corinne, has put forth a redrawn Plan L that puts rural Morgan County into Matheson's redrawn 2nd District, which is not primarily Salt Lake County. And Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, will have amendments that keep his hometown entirely in a single district, not split as in Plan L. Yet to be determined is exactly how a fourth seat would be filled. The governor has said there would have to be a special election early next year for all four seats because of all the boundary changes.

The governor has said figuring out the details of that election — which Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert has said could cost $6 million —can wait. However, he has asked lawmakers during the special session to consider making technical fixes to two previously passed bills.

BTW, it seems counterintuitive, but giving DC to Maryland would probably be a wash in the House. That's because DC isn't populous enough to comprise one House seat on its own, therefore they would have to shift about 200,000 people out of the adjoining MD-08 or MD-04 districts (or both). This would almost certainly not leave enough Democrats in the rest of the state to make up six hard left districts. At the very least you'd quite likely end up with a pure toss up district in addition the two solid GOP seats.

"The House makes its own rules, and Separation of Powers gives the House broad leeway in determining its membership and size. I don't see a court intervening if the Dems want to give EHN a vote in the District."

True, the House can decide whether to have 100 or 400 or 4,000 Representatives, but the House can't legislate that Vermont gets more Representatives than California, or that the Navajo Nation gets to elect a Representative with full voting rights (a non-voting delegate is another matter), since the Constitution is very clear that Representatives are apportioned by the population of the states. I don't see how the courts could possibly claim that it would be a political question whether DC can get a voting Representative before it is admitted as a state. Remember, the House is also the judge of the qualifications of its members, yet the Supreme Court did not allow the House to exclude Adam Clayton Powell from Congress when he met all of the constitutional qualifications and his election was not in dispute, so Congress can't just violate the Constitution nilly-willy when exercising its powers.

"expanding to give an extra vote to Utah is totally above board."

I don't think it is. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment provides that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states based on population as measured by the decennial Census. There was a law on the books in April of 2000 ("Census Day") that was still in effect when the results of the Census were announced that specified that the House would be composed of 435 members unless and until a new State was admitted. Changing the law after the Census is held is the equivalent of changing election laws after the election is held, which is not an appropriate use of the legislative power. Now, Congress can definitely expand the House to 437 (or 450 or 1,000) following the 2010 Census, but it can't do so in between censuses when it would know exactly what states it would benefit.

"Puerto Rico has been given several opportunities to vote themselves into statehood and they've declined. What should be done is we should cut them loose of the government tit."

PR has never had a federally sanctioned referendum on its political status. The local plebiscites that have been held have included either (i) a definition of "commonwealth" that violates the U.S. Constitution and promises everlasting federal subsidies with no chance of federal taxation or (ii) a "None of the Above" column that allowed everyone with a gripe against the governor to vote for nothing in particular. As for unilaterally giving PR its independence, that's like unilaterally giving Massachusetts its independence. Sounds pretty un-American if you ask me, and you'd just have 2 or 3 million U.S. citizens moving to the mainland while the island is ruled by the idiots who stay behind.

"As for the District, it should just be ceded back to Maryland, which would thereby gain one House seat, so they can quit their whining."

That would merely give the Democrats an insurmountable advantage in MD. As for your thought that perhaps the additional House seat for MD would not be Democrat, think again. DC is like 90% Democrat, and it would not have to be kept wholly within one CD. If DC was returned to MD, I think the Democrats would draw a second black-majority CD in Southern Maryland (3rd in the state), taking in quite a bit of the GOP-leaning counties Southeast of PG; white parts of DC would be combined with Montco and parts of Frederick and Howard to comprise 2 heavily Dem white majority CDs. Frankly, it would be a cinch for the Democrats to draw 7 Democrat CDs and only 2 GOP CDs; I think they could even draw 8 Dem CDs and 1 GOP CD in the northern part of the state, but I don't think they'd be smart enough to do it.

I'd much rather make VA safely GOP and MD lean GOP.

As I noted, the math is quirky because DC does not have a large enough population to comprise one CD in a nine-district Maryland apportionment.

First of all, bear in mind that DC is losing population. Its 2000 census population was 572,059 and its 2010 projected population is 529,785. In 2020 DC's population is projected to be 480,540.

Second, it's quite obvious that adding DC to Maryland would mainly add Democrats, but if they are packed into one or two House seats, as they certainly will be, and if they have to pull even more Democrats to round out the seats, as it would seem they certainly will, that leaves the more marginal areas at the borders of the 1st and 6th to comprise a substantial part of a new district.

The reason for the quirk is because the population of Maryland's districts would actually shrink. Based on the 2000 Census and on the 2010 and 2020 projections, here is the population of one Maryland district versus one Maryland + DC district.

2000 Census

Maryland: 5,296,486 in 8 districts of 662,060
MD + DC: 5,868,545 in 9 districts of 652,060

2010 Projection

Maryland: 5,904,970 in 8 districts of 738,121
MD + DC: 6,434,755 in 9 districts of 714,972

2020 Projection

Maryland: 6,497,626 in 7 districts of 928,232
MD + DC: 6,978,166 in 8 districts of 872,270

In 2010, according to the projections, DC will need to pick up 185,187 people from adjoining Maryland territory to round out a district. The heavily GOP MD-01 Eastern Shore district and MD-06 Panhandle district would both need to shrink into even more heavily GOP districts. Regardless of where you get the voters to round out a DC anchored district, or whether you split DC down the middle into two districts, you will still be setting adrift roughly 40,000 mostly conservative voters that would need to get redistributed into the six currently Dem districts.

That may not produce a wash (i.e., trading a heavily Dem district anchored by DC for a third GOP seat elsewhere) but there would be at least 50/50 odds I think. The MD-02 and MD-03 districts already leave fairly little room for error (they were both 45% Bush in 2004) and you simply don't have the leeway to absorb that many conservative precincts out of both MD-01 and MD-06 without creating a toss up seat somewhere.

Great in theory, but about as far from political reality as you can possibly get. What makes you think the Dems in Congress would ever in a million years agree to a plan that would lead to a net loss of Dem electoral votes and Senate seats? Additionally, any change in the boundaries of a state must be approved by the legislature. Assuming Virginia might be persuaded to go along (extremely doubtful) there's no way in hell that Maryland's Democratic legislature would. Finally, the Washingtonians wouldn't want it, because they'd be in a state of 5 million or whatever, where suburbanites would hold all the power.

PS. And note that, if current growth projections hold, then if indeed the 2010 census redistricting gave Maryland (plus DC) seven Dem seats then almost certainly one would be lost in 2020. That's because Maryland would lose a seat at that time, and if current voting patterns also hold, the Eastern Shore district and the Panhandle district would still remain GOP no matter what.

But that's a lot of ifs and we're getting way ahead of ourselves! Let's just leave it at this: The most viable plan to give DC a vote in Congress is to just cede it back to Maryland. At worse that would result in a D pickup of one House seat and nothing more. At best the GOP picks up a seat (if the new DC seat comes at the expense of a Dem seat elsewhere, say in California or New York, and the GOP also picks up a third seat in north-central Maryland). I can live with that!

You're assuming that GOP-leaning areas will be placed in marginal districts, when MD's Dem redistricters would probably place them in overwhelmingly Dem districts. For example, they could draw a black-majority CD starting in PG County and going east into Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, and a second black-majority CD starting in eastern DC and taking in part of PG and then Charles, St. Mary's, Somerset and Worcester Counties. That wouldn't leave too many GOP areas to place into two CDs, or maybe even into one CD if the cities of Hagerstown and Frederick were connected to parts of Montco and western DC to form a Democrat CD that takes in parts of Bartlett's CD.

Congressional Democrats would probably bet on the smaller MD voting Democrat, pointing to 1992, 1996 and 2000, and that would give Democrats a 16-11 EV advantage as compared to the current 13-13 tie. They would also assume that MD would elect 2 Dem Senators, as would New Columbia, giving them a 4-2 advantage in Senators (as opposed to the usual 2-2 deadlock under current boundaries, and no worse than the 3-1 advantage they currently have after their freak Senate win in VA).

DC residents would be far better off under New Columbia than under the alternatives (assuming that DC statehood is an impossibility, which it is), since they don't get congressional representation or a decent tax base by staying a federal district and they would be completely ignored in the political process if DC was returned to Maryland (remember, MD politicians consider the DC suburbs foreign territory, so you can imagine how they would treat DC). In a state of New Columbia, DC would be the central focus of political and economic attention, since most residents of the new state would work directly or indirectly for the federal government (many of them in DC itself). I think that, after 200 years of disenfranchisement, DC voters would jump at the chance of forming part of a state of New Columbia.

You're correct that the hardest part of getting the proposal approved is the apprehension from the VA and MD state legislatures. The DC suburbs form an important part of the tax base of each state, although culturally its residents are quite different from those of the rest of the state. But I think that Northern Virginians, including their state legislators, would rather form part of a DC-centered state than one whose political power lies mostly in the Richmond area, Hampton Roads, Souhtside and Appalachia, and that state legislators from the rest of the state would be willing to get those areas out of their hair (especially since they'd keep taxpayers in suburban Loudon and Prince William Counties).

Maryland is trickiest of all, of course, since its heavily Dem legislature may be unwilling to turn the state into a swing state. The trick would be for DC suburbanites to take the initiative to form part of New Columbia, and legislators tired of that whole "superconnector" debate and other suburban pet issues may be willing to let them go. A "Keep Maryland for the Marylanders" campaign complete with Chesapeake Bay crabs and Pimlico Race Course, pointing out the advantages of a smaller, less "federal," Maryland, would be helpful as well.

I think the odds of New Columbia being acceptable to all sides are not as low as they are for the return of DC to MD would be.

Concerning the possibility that DC would be retroceded (the way Arlington was, a long time ago). DC had 572,000 people in the 2000 census (but is now down a bit). This is a bit below the average for U.S. Congressional seats (647,000). Maryland, has a bit above the national average in its Congressional districts (on average 663,000), so that it would make sense to simply retrocede DC to Maryland and award Maryland one more seat, increasing the size of the House to 436 seats. The state of Maryland would need to re-draw its lines (state legislature as well as Congressional), so as to move something like 100,000 to the district (if that was what they wanted to do). I suppose they'd try to keep the black opportunity district involving Prince Georges County intact (this is to the north and east of DC), so they would get the additional voters from Montgomery County (to the north and west of DC), and then shift other lines here and there. Possibly, this would make the district north and east of Baltimore, formerly represented by Bob Erlich and now represented by a Democrat, more competitive; or maybe the district including Anne Arundel County formerly represented by Ben Cardin; or maybe the district in "southern Maryland" represented by Steny Hoyer. But, I doubt much of anything would change in any of the Maryland districts except that lines of the district mainly involving Montgomery County would be shifted a bit. Retrocession would not require a Constitutional Amendment (it didn't with Arlington), just a pact between the federal government and the state of Maryland. Any reasonable pact would fly through the Congress and the state of Maryland (both being controlled by the Democrats), and get the President's signature. On the other hand, eliminating the special 3 electors for the district would require a Constitutional Amendment, so that the pact might be made conditional on that. The concept of a federal district, while interesting at the time of the founding, is just not as important as the principles of "no taxation without representation," and of "one man, one vote."

"Why do you believe DC statehood to be an impossibility if Democrats get the trifecta in Congress and the Presidency?"

Because they would need to amend the Constitution, at the very least to eliminate the three EVs given to DC. Remember, there would still be a "district of government" comprising the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, etc., and it would be untenable for it to still have 3 EVs after it is stripped of all inhabitants (except arguably the President and his family). This would also be necessary in the case of the expanded New Columbia or if DC was returned to Maryland, but GOP opposition to those proposals would be far less.

The Democrats had supermajorities in Congress from 1965-1969, along with LBJ in the White House, and DC statehood went nowhere. They also controlled both houses and the White House from 1977-1981 and from 1993-1995, with the same result. I think DC residents should seek a compromise measure, such as a larger New Columbia.

"Retrocession would not require a Constitutional Amendment (it didn't with Arlington), just a pact between the federal government and the state of Maryland."

The difference is that when Arlington was returned to VA the 23rd Amendment was not part of the Constitution. If all but a few federal buildings were returned to MD, those federal buildings would constitute the "District of Government" that the Constitution requires (which is why DC statehood advocates are careful to state that the White House, the Capitol, etc. will not be in their proposed state boundaries), and that remaining federal district would still have 3 electoral votes unless the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.