Deseret News | D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat

Reader comments
Orrin G. Hatch: D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat

Timj | 4:56 a.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Nice. Way to smack down the mentally-deficient "but DC isn't a state" argument.

Sorry | 7:05 a.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Utah will get a 4th seat after the 2010 census. Don't give an unnecessary House seat to the always one-sided DC voting public. There is a much better chance that Utah will vote for Obama next time around than there is of DC EVER voting for a Republican.
If DC should get a representative, then add their residents to Maryland. The residents would get the same benefit but one less bureaucracy to deal with.

NAY | 7:10 a.m. Jan. 25, 2009

The D.C. voting act is certainly one way of getting Utah an additional seat. However, the Congressional Research Service, Congress's own public policy research arm, told Congress two years ago that they likely do not have the authority to grant D.C. voting representation in the House. Personally, I see this attempt as a backdoor method of getting what we want at the possible expense of the Constitution. I'd like another representative too, but I'm not willing to try and contort the U.S. Constitution to get one. D.C. does not deserve representation under the Constitution. If Utah does, we will get it.

Comments continue below

Chuck | 11:27 a.m. Jan. 25, 2009

I have always supported you Sen. Hatch, but this REALLY strains that support. IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It also HURTS Republicans. Utah will get that fourth seat anyway in two years. This plan will just give liberals one more free seat in congress forever! Maybe your Republican naysayers are right. You've been in Washington too long. You've done some VERY good things over the years, but you are dead-wrong on this one.

Skeptical | 11:34 a.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Will Senator Hatch's enthusiasm for this deal with the devil to get Utah an additional House seat be there when they demand two Senate Seats? After all, if they are a "state" and entitled to a seat in the House, why are they being deprived of TWO Senate Seats?

Surely this strategy is on the minds of the Democrats seeking to "help" poor old Utah, and Hatch is smart enough to see it as well.

Personally, I think Hatch is wrong on this, and that the "DC is a non-state for representation" argument is what was intended in the Constitution.

However, Hatch has been coming down on the wrong side of too many issues lately.

Perhaps he would like to fill the DC seat in the House? He seems to be representing Washington DC interests more than those of Utah these days.

JJ | 12:12 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Yes, Chuck, we need to worry about what hurts republicans. A healthy republican party should be our focus.. Geez, is there anybody left who actually puts the COUNTRY'S interest ahead of a party's? Chuck, you go on being a republican-american, I'll just be a plain ol American-American.

Another Seat for Utah? Then . . | 12:45 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

increase the size of the House. There is no magic to the current number of representatives in the House. The power to change it is right there, just use it.

Lupef | 4:01 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

The last thing we need are more crooks back in DC to steal and waste our tax money. The house should be cut in half and the senate should be made to work or go home.

Politicized | 4:04 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Utah only needs to wait until the 2010 census, following the constitutional guidelines to obtain its fourth House seat. The "give D.C. a representative" crowd is nothing more than the Democrats pushing an agenda to get more representatives in the House, and throwing Utah a political bone to counterbalance the heavily Democratic district. Senator Hatch, shame on you for having become their spokesperson with such lofty reasoning and skillful rhetoric to hide the real agenda. We have nothing to lose in this cobbled solution except our integrity and willingness to wait until the constitutionally sanctioned process plays out. We don't need a "counterbalanced" seat on political terms that re-write the Constitution on whatever grounds may be asserted as reasoned and rational. It's time to give up on our two Senators from Utah, despite the seniority system that gives them lofty seats as ranking members in the committees. Time to begin again, Utah, and look for fresh faces who won't forget how they got there. Bennett's advocacy for the bailout and now this advocacy for a sham political horse trade are ample evidence of the need for new blood from Utah in the Senate.

the truth | 4:04 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Hatch makes some very good aguments,

But it still must done by an admendment and not an act.

That's how the constitution works, and our constitutional based government works.

2 More Senate Seats for Dems | 5:01 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

And after all that comes to pass with "just one more representative from D.C.," balanced by another Utahn the state deserves anyway, don't think for one minute there won't be another Constitutional amendment proposal headed our way from the Dems in the Senate, this time with no Republican counterbalance from Utah to guarantee two more Senate seats to boost their filibuster 60-seat majority over the top. It's so thinly veiled it makes this old Republican blush. Doesn't anybody else see this for what it is, or am I the only one who has to be right all the time?

Stewart | 6:03 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Not everyone is stupid Orrin. We all know we will get the seat after the 2010 Census, and get it fair and square. Leave it alone and quit trying to give the liberal democrats another seat. Not that they need it after you and the other republicans let them take all of the power.

citizenw | 6:58 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776
Article 6.
"6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."

Any questions how the Founders felt about voting rights?

Those who govern us? | 7:53 p.m. Jan. 25, 2009

That's as far as I got with your message before getting nauseous. It says it all about you. You believe that you and your DC buddies govern us. You have long forgotten or never excepted the fact that it is the Constitution that governs us within the bounds of moral law. You receive your power from the consent of the governed, who receive their authority from and are bound only by moral law.

For the good of the country please keep your promise and don't run again. Americans are too dumbed down to be able to discern a nice guy from a good candidate.

Hamiltonian87 | 2:40 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

Orrin, I have some concerns about your motivation. Surely you know that D.C. would consistently vote for a legislator that doesn't represent the values this country needs in order to avoid self-instituted implosion. So why would you support a plan that would trample those values?

Moreover, your reasoning is flawed. The proof is in the pudding: evidence that the founders intended to exclude D.C. is manifest in THEIR not doing anything about it in 1800 (or 1810, 20, 30, or 40!). If they were amenable, why didn't they address the issue? Furthermore, if the courts have ruled that Congress has legislative authority over the district, why not just keep it that way?

Finally, why the Faustian bargain, Hatch? Do you already have someone in mind you'd like to push into a potential Utah 4th District seat, like you did by setting up the Canons?

Senator, you've just gone way too far with your influence-peddling (witness: get out of jail free cards to cocaine users you're friends with).

I suspect there's something behind the scenes on this one, as there always seems to be with you...

Hatch arrogant & perjured | 6:15 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

Hatch swore to uphold the US Constitution and, once again, shows an arrogant disregard for it.

We have written to him numerous times over constitutional issues. His attitude and strategy is always the same: talk down to the complainant 'You don't really understand, m'dear, just leave it to me' is the essence of the responses to our every petition.

Utah has a clear opportunity to stand up for the Constitution. I hope we don't let the country down by agreeing to a transparent ruse to get our support at the expense of our 'Supreme Law'.

David | 6:31 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

It looks like I'm the only one here who is totally opposed to this move (and the Senator who is promoting it) and at the same time thinks that D.C. should have a voting representative. To get one will take a Constitutional Amendment since the residents oppose retrocession.

As for Orrin's argument that this is the best way to ensure a fourth seat for Utah - look at the language of the bill - it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it's not Utah in 2010. Balance schmalance Senator - let's ram this through before anyone picks up on the fact that we'd be selling our integrity for only a very temporary benefit.

@Lupef - it's interesting to note that our federal government did not really start growing until after the size of the house was capped and the number of voters per representative shot upwards. We really should expand the house to shrink our government.

arc | 7:22 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

I still think Rep. Chaffetz is correct and Sen. Hatch is wrong.

Don't give DC a vote directly. The people living there should get a vote through Maryland. We are going to get a 4th seat anyway. I don't want to give DC as seat and have our 4th seat challenged in Court.

Change the constitution or count part of DC part of Maryland.

Disagree with Rationale | 8:07 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

We get or lose the seat by the Census anyway, Orrin! Why sell out with your bill just so we get 2 years of a 4th Utah seat? We'd either get the 4th seat anyway via the census, or if your bill passes, there is a slight potential (not likely) that population readjustments nationwide might combine to give the 4th seat to another faster-growing state. In the meantime, then D.C. is given guaranteed liberal Democratic voting representation in the Congress. Give DC back to Maryland! Keep the federal buildings as a federal reservation.

Mom to Many | 8:56 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

Senator Hatch, it's time to step down. You've totally lost all perspective. You job is to support and uphold the US constitution, AND to represent Utah. Forcing an unconstitutional mandate down our throats - one that will surely be challenged in the Supreme Court - is NOT the way to go about it. Yes, let them have voting representation, but not at the expense of the constitution.

Hamiltonian87 | 1:46 p.m. Jan. 26, 2009

I agree with arc and many others who've posted that D.C. should be included through representation in Maryland. It's smart, makes sense, would still require a constitutional amendment, but doesn't make itself beholden to political gamesmanship. It's a good solution.

I agree with Mom to Many that you should step down, Senator. Notwithstanding the "incumbency presumption" you have that keeps getting you elected, your time is through--you simply have become so adept at the Washington games, you are no longer a man of character enough, or ethics enough, to continue in this post. You are the second best reason I can think of for term limits (even though I don't necessarily like them); the best reason belongs to Teddy Kennedy.

You once told a dear friend of mine that you would stay in politics as long as Kennedy was there to act as a balancing element. Well, the only problem is that over the years, you've tipped the balance right over to the panderers, influence-peddlers, and lobbyist-beholden game-playing that you originally swore to oppose! Pity your constituents... :-(

Xi- | 12:25 p.m. Jan. 27, 2009

Has anyone asked WHY Maryland doesn't want those citizens or the land they live on? It seems that any state would be interested in having more responsible, tax-paying citizens, and more property to tax.

Yes, let the citizens be represented, but let it be as citizens of a state. If Maryland won't take them, maybe some other state would accept the retrocession. California, maybe? Unlike the proposal Sen. Hatch supports, I don't know of any Constitutional problems with that idea, crazy as it might sound.

citizenw | 7:40 a.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Let the citizens of DC be represented as part of WYOMING, and solve several problems with one solution. Wyoming has even LESS population than DC, and therefore is over-represented, ESPECIALLY in the Senate! Combine them with DC: red Wyoming, blue DC, and they largely cancel each other out. ALL of the larger states are happy, because their relative representation increases slightly (ie, the representation is slightly fairer). Presto!

Anonymous | 2:16 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Vote to give most of D.C. (minus the Mall, White House, etc.) back to Maryland. See how the overwhelmingly Democratic Maryland legislature responds. If they respond by saying "No" then it just shows what hypocrites the Democrats are, doesn't it? If D.C. citizens vote to say "No" then it just shows what hypocrites they are.

Retrocession of most of the District is the perfectly logical and legal way to solve this conundrum. It also has historical precedent with the Virginia retrocession. Use your brain, Senator, rather than your urge to feed you ego, and call the Democrats' bluff.

Temporary Solution | 2:49 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

Giving Utah a "fourth seat" will only be a temporary fix. The proposed bill will increase the number of representatives by two. After each census (every ten years), all of the seats will reallocated. Utah will not be guaranteed the extra seat.

Although Utah will most likely get one (or possibly two) more seat(s) after the next census, there is no guarantee that the extra seat will wind in a populous state, like California. DC, on the other hand, will keep the seat.

I agree that the best option is to simply let the District be part of Maryland. That way, the citizens will have a representative AND two senators, not to mention being able to vote for state officers.

Anonymous | 10:22 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009

The land for the District was taken from Maryland. It was taken for one and only one reason: to create a federal district independent of state control and under the governance of Congress. If it is not going to be that District then the only thing that makes sense is to return it to Maryland.

For 208 years the assumption has been that the District is not enittled to representation in Congress, as a sate or otherwise. Let's assume, then, that the Congress's of 1800 and shortly thereafter knew what they were doing, since many of them helped draft the Constitution.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.