Deseret News | Hopes for 4th Utah House seat may be dead

Reader comments
Hopes for 4th Utah House seat may be dead

2010 | 1:44 p.m. June 9, 2009

Utah will likely get a 4th House seat after the 2010 Census, anyway. What's the rush?

toobad | 1:45 p.m. June 9, 2009

Just too bad BO didn't carry UT. Then this would have been a done deal no matter how Congress would have viewed it. You'll learn.

Don't let D.C. have a vote | 1:59 p.m. June 9, 2009

they're not supposed to. It's against the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, fine.

Utah electing a Republican is far from a sure bet (see Jim Matheson) but electing a democrat in D.C. is as guaranteed as death and taxes, both of which are likely liberal inventions. :)

Comments continue below

Blah..Blah..Blah | 2:01 p.m. June 9, 2009

Every time I hear about something Jason Chaffetz has said I am more convinced that he is completely incompetent. It's unconstitutional....please, I think that we all have learned by now that the constitution is up for debate and can be changed by amendment. The population of DC is more than Wyoming and they deserve representation in congress.

YES! | 2:14 p.m. June 9, 2009

It IS unconstitutional - if D.C. wants a rep - then amend the constitution FIRST. Or have them vote for a Maryland representative, that's where the land came from in the first place. I don't get the Utah concern about getting a fourth seat right now, we'll get one after the next Census anyway, without the deal.

Re: Blah..Blah..Blah | 2:22 p.m. June 9, 2009

"It's unconstitutional....please, I think that we all have learned by now that the constitution is up for debate and can be changed by amendment."

Reading comments like this one reminds me of how Barack Obama continues to enjoy high popularity ratings.

Chaffetz is right to oppose this bill because it gives DC the right to vote by a simple Congressional action -- which is in direct conflict with the text of the Constitution, which, by definition, is unconstituional.

(Incidentally, Senator Bennett's recent realization that the bill is unconstitutional is likely due to the fact he is up for re-election in 2010, just as Senator Hatch's enthusiasm for the bill is due to the fact he doesn't face the voters until 2012).

It would indeed be possible to amend the Constitution to allow DC to have a vote, but that would require 2/3 majorities voting in favor in both Houses of Congress, followed by 3/4 of the states concurring.

Because that's never going to happen with this proposal, it's no wonder the Democrats in Congress are trying to do it the unconstitutional way.

DC Still fighting the Constituti | 2:23 p.m. June 9, 2009

DC is STILL fighting against the Constitution???

What a suprise!

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule the gun laws passed in DC were unconstitutional? How much higher can you go to get a decision? Isn't the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling AGAINST you pretty much the end of the road?

Anonymous | 2:25 p.m. June 9, 2009

Chaffetz is such a talking head! The guys EGO is as big as his political ambitions.

Patience | 2:33 p.m. June 9, 2009

I don't understand why any Republican in Congress would be in favor of this bill. Utah will get a 4th seat in the House after 2010, probably taking a seat from a Democrat district, but if you give it to them now as a counterweight to D.C. then you've gained nothing. This bill should be opposed 100% by the Right.

Alan | 2:35 p.m. June 9, 2009

Chaffetz is an egomaniac whose political ambition knows no limits. Too bad his brains can't keep pace. Ever notice how eager he is to criticize everyone else in the Utah delegation?

Cats | 2:55 p.m. June 9, 2009

I love the way people like Alan love to insult the intelligence of anyone they don't agree with. That's very typical of the liberal left. I learned a long time ago never to make the mistake of thinking someone is stupid just because they have a different view.

The District in no way fits the criteria to become a state and only states constitutionally have representation in Congress. The District exists purely to House the federal government and for no other reason. If they want representation they should be ceded back to Maryland.

Utah will get another seat in the 2010 census anyway. That is the way to do it constitutionally. Getting a seat now is not in any way worth giving a vote to D.C. I used to live in the District and if you saw the way they run their City government you'd know why.

Jason Chaffetz is right to oppose this measure and I fully support him in it. Let's just have a little patience.

Matt in VA | 3:01 p.m. June 9, 2009

I like how Chaffetz stands on principle, and I hope it lasts longer than his first term. As a VA resident I also agree with him that the residential areas of DC should be voting in Maryland. It is the correct way to handle it.

Having said that, it is incredibly stupid to have all 3 branches of the government in a port city like DC. It would be much better to have congress meet somewhere central like Nebraska or Iowa. Better yet, how about if they only meet a few times a year, vote by computer, and spend more time in their district, where they should be.

Anonymous | 3:03 p.m. June 9, 2009

Utah will get its 4th congressional seat after the 2010 census is done and tallied.

Hopefully, Utahns will be smart and intelligent enough to vote a Democrat into that seat to match Matheson's and offset the two other Republican seats.

Oh, you say Democrats? Of course! Because Utahns don't choose any ole run of the mill liberal democrats, they choose the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, just like Matheson.

Balance and accountability is where sound wise governance is, not in a the facist agendas and indebt-n-spend policies of the past self-serving power base we've been wrenched apart with.

Justin | 4:17 p.m. June 9, 2009

I have followed this since the beginning, and it's nice to see the Republicans finally getting it (except Hatch, of course, who MUST go ASAP). I remember when one of the legislators (Julie Fischer?) opposed the creation of a redistricting map that allowed for the fourth seat. Her point was that the map helped DC's unconstitutional effort and therefore was in opposition to the oath of office. She lost on a close vote. That map signaled Congress that Utah liked the deal. Why couldn't the Republicans have opposed it in the first place? We might not now be dealing with this absurdity. To give DC the voting rights, the Constitution must first be respected, then changed.

unconstitutional horsetrading | 4:51 p.m. June 9, 2009

This is an unconstitutional piece of legislation anyway. No geographical location can have a voting position in Congress unless it is a state. Bob Bennett explained to GOP delegates recently that he didn't know it was unconstitutional when he voted in favor of it.

This is a perfect example of not only the horsetrading that goes on in Congress but one of many reasons why we need a new Senator.

Cherilyn Eagar

arc | 5:07 p.m. June 9, 2009

As someone from Utah, I was ticked we didn't get the 4th US Rep seat. We lost that battle. I am not expecting it, unless a fair census says we should get it.

The residents of DC, if they want a vote, they already have one. They can vote for President, something we changed by changing the constitution - legally. If they want representation in the US reps, they have one, one that can vote in committees. If they want a voting rep in the US house, all they have to do is what a large chuck of DC did in the mid 1800's. Join a state. They should be part of Maryland. If they don't like that, they should move.

I am glad we have someone like Rep. Jason Chaffetz defending the Constitution.

T-money | 5:18 p.m. June 9, 2009

Alan doesn't like Chaffetz because he is getting stuff done. Alan, you may disagree with his morals (or morals in general), but you can't call him incompetent. He is accomplishing what he set out to do.
Sure, he doesn't fit well in DC, but he gets points from me for that one. Unlike most politicians, he puts his neck on the line and creates a stir. Maybe it's not good for a healthy life-long career in DC, but he's taking care of what matters.

Jerm | 5:20 p.m. June 9, 2009

Good old politics getting in the way of fair representation...

oops, I almost agreed with Matheson! Um, (backpedal, backpedal) nevermind. Go Cougs!

Don | 6:34 p.m. June 9, 2009

Utah will get the 4th seat after the 2010 census when California losses 1 or 2 seats and Michigan losses 1 also! But more to the point. It seems that when the Congress decides that Mormon missionaries can be disenfranchised then that is a issue for debate! The current Congress wants DC to get that seat because it is assured to be a democrat vote and not a possible republican vote! It also is an issue as all Citizens of Utah are denied equal representation since politics played into not receiving the seat after the last election! I hope you get your additional fair representation but don't count on it!

Richard Alvord | 6:38 p.m. June 9, 2009

LDS Missionaries were not counted in the last Census because the congressmen that approved the bill didn't ask for it, or didn't read the bill. Now these same congressmen are complaining. The rules for the census change each 10 years, and congress must approve them. Maybe this year our congressmen will do what their paid for doing. Represent Utah!

Good | 6:50 p.m. June 9, 2009

This was a stupid bill anyway. I think both our Senators were in favor of this bill. For all of you who are upset that it is against the constitution, (you're right, by the way, it is) do your civic duty and make sure you vote Hatch and Bennett OUT of office.

Camel's nose... | 8:25 p.m. June 9, 2009

If DC gets a seat in the House, the Democrats will surely be lined up to insist that they get TWO seats in the Senate. Guaranteed Democrat seats forever.

That is VERY BAD, in addition to be as unconstitutional as giving DC a voting seat in the House at all. Utah just needs to wait until 2010.

Senator Bennett | 8:52 p.m. June 9, 2009

"First I voted for the bill before I voted against it." And we wonder why we need a new Senator?

rightascension | 11:26 p.m. June 9, 2009

I should hope that the proposal is dead. Only a state can have senators and representatives.

All the federal properties of DC, Maryland and Virginia should be combined into a new District of Columbia. All the residential areas of DC, plus the two surrounding counties of Maryland and the two surrounding counties of Virginia should be combined into a new state called Columbia -- and it should have 5 or 6 representatives and two senators.

Chief | 2:30 a.m. June 10, 2009

Where is the surprise in all this who actually could believe that a Democratic controlled House would allow another potentially Republican held seat to be created in good old Utah. The Dems track record on fairness just is not that strong, besides this is pay back time for a state that by and large supported the loser last year.

Make DC part of state | 5:25 a.m. June 10, 2009

Washington DC should not be allowed to set itself up as a state, it would give them unfair access to federal legislation to create laws and funding of a single state. Then if they were a state who would our elected officials be representing, Washington or Utah?

Washington DC should be annexed to a state and as a separate city subject to the laws of that state. Washington acts as if it is a state but without any elected state officials or state constitution, which is required to become a state. Annexing the city to a state would give non representative residents access to some state laws and state rights.

The elected congressmen, senators, and representatives of other states should not have any voting rights in a city or state government they do not represent and subject to the state laws. All representatives should not be allowed to establish residency outside of the state they represent and subject to state tax laws of the state they are from. They are visitors to Washington DC and their residency is in the state that elected them.

WatchDog | 8:03 a.m. June 10, 2009

It was always dead. The only ones that apparently didn't understand was our elected political leaders. They should try and read the constitution once in a while....

arc | 8:06 a.m. June 10, 2009

DC
If they want a voting rep in the US house, all they have to do is what a large chuck of DC did in the mid 1800's. Join a state. They should be part of Maryland.

What I don't know is if we can just leave in D.C where people don't live and the capital, white house, etc. and move the rest in to Maryland.
(No, Jason's cot doesn't count).

wow | 8:49 a.m. June 10, 2009

Great
DC should not have a seat and Utah will get one soon anyhow

Mike | 8:52 a.m. June 10, 2009

The reason that Utah didn't get the 4th seat in 2000 was due to the census and the way they counted. They didn't count over 5,000 LDS Missionaries that are normally Utah residents and could vote in Utah elections by absentee ballot that were out of Utah on their missions at that time. We lost that seat to North Carolina by less than 2000 people.

In the 2010 census, we need to have those missionaries counted. Had my son been on a mission at that time, I would have counted him for sure because he would have been a legal Utah resident.

This Bill is clearly unconstitutional. I'm willing to wait a year to get the seat. Just watch out for Obama trying to fudge the results.

Did anyone notice? | 8:57 a.m. June 10, 2009

Did anyone notice the distinct LACK of the usual taunting and degrading postings from Democrats like Anonymous, Ernest T Bass, Liberal Larry and Oh Please (who in the past posted extensively on this subject)?

Is it possible Republicans in Utah are the only ones who fail to realise that Democrats in Washington now have a Super-Majority in Congress and now control ALL branches of government in Washington DC? They no longer need the Utah Seat as a trade-off or bait to get the deal done like they did when it was originally proposed in 2006. Democrats can pass whatever laws they want now and give ANYONE as many seats in Congress as they want (no matter how much the Republicans object).

The Utah seat no longer matters to them. It is no longer neccesary and serves Democrats (who control Washington) no purpose.

BTW
I would also not be suprised to see the people controling Washington change the Census rules just enough to insure the Utah doesn't get that seat so many of you are counting on in 2012. Just wait and see.

Kevin | 9:42 a.m. June 10, 2009

Arguing the LDS missionary angle for Utah's 4th seat is in. The Census counts a state's population on April 1st of the census year. So, LDS missionaries not living in Utah, but living in other states are counted in that state's population (e.g., missionaries serving in Ohio are Ohioans according to the Census). Of course, this strategy means that all of the out-of-staters attending BYU are counted as Utahns because they live in Provo at the time of the Census count. It probably all evens out in the end.

Anonymous | 11:03 a.m. June 10, 2009

If you believe in the udnerlying principles of the Founding Fathers, find a way to get the residents of D.C a vote in Congress. For those who say, amend the Constitituion, put up a bill to amend. Otherwise, you are justshootiong your mouths for partisan purposes. Finally, the obsession about guns is getting sickening. Why not let people on the local level decide how to control guns based on the circumstances there? Isn't that what conservatives believe in? But wait, the Constitution only applies on issues you like. Joe Scarborough is right about the hypocrisy of the conservatives and the GOP.

Steve | 11:40 a.m. June 10, 2009

I think the current situation for residents of the District of Columbia is abhorrent. They pay taxes, just like the rest of the citizens of the United States, yet they are not represented in Congress. Isn't that why we went to war with England in the first place...taxation without representation?
I agree that the situation is a sticky one; the constitution is explicit when it says that "states" shall have representation in congress. However, the fact remains that several million American citizens are not represented in Congress. They are essentially not living in a Democracy at all.
To suggest that they should not get representation because they do not share your political viewpoint, and that therefore they will further tip the scales of our two party system is just wrong-headed. If the majority of District residents support the platform of the Democratic Party, then they should have a voice in the federal government speaking for them to that end. To even suggest that you do not wish them to have that voice suggests a serious lack of respect for our representative democracy and the constitution it was founded upon.

No Kidding | 12:15 p.m. June 10, 2009

Why are we not surprised! This IS UTAH!

John Harvey | 12:23 p.m. June 10, 2009

The Constitution divies up Senate votes by state (D.C. can't get one of those - and the proposed bill does not give it any Senate representation), the Constitution divies up House votes by population - not by state, except to the extent every state is given at least one vote even when the population of that state does not justify it. The proposed bill just allocates a vote to D.C. in accordance with the population rule. If the bill passes it is a 100% certainty that someone will sue and the Supreme Court will get to decide if the bill is Constitutional in the end.

DC | 12:25 p.m. June 10, 2009

Those living the just need to annex into Maryland like the part of DC that did that in the mid 1800's. You look at a map and you can see the chunk missing.

Anonymous | 12:32 p.m. June 10, 2009

I believe our founding fathers were imperfect man, some who owned slaves. Jefferson had sex with one of his slave girls. They did show the power of compromise and the wisdom to think about their posterity but they were flawed men and not perfect gods.

I get sick of reading lies. I support the intention of our foundering father who were against taxation without representation, except if you live in DC, which conservative know has minorities.

I'm glad Utah won't get more representation. Whiners shouldn't win. Wait for the census. God may bless America by giving this seat to another state with independent thinking citizens.

John Harvey | 12:38 p.m. June 10, 2009

Response to Kevin:

The issue (in the last census) was not (Utah) missionaries serving in other states (they were rightly counted as citizens of those states - or at least they should have been), it was the missionaries who were Utah citizens serving in other *countries*. They were not (officially) counted as residents of *any* state in the last census.

Randall | 1:29 p.m. June 10, 2009

Don't Need No More Representation.
Them Votes Don't Amount To A Hill Of Beets Anyways.

Herb Gravy | 1:45 p.m. June 10, 2009

Thank goodness. They should cut the number of representatives and senators in half to start with. Just look at what they are doing to us with the current numbers. We are way over-"represented".
Just think what could happen with more of "them" in Washington!

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION | 2:47 p.m. June 10, 2009

If we had been following the constitution, Utah PEOPLE would have 4 seats and many more,

The house is the voice of the people,

By artificially and unconstitutionally limiting it 435, the voice and the representation of the people has been severely limited,

there should easily be 10 TIMES as many representatives,

A representative was suppose represent as few as 50,000 people or less,

and no one should have to lose repesentation for us to gain it.

(and by "us" I mean the people not the state)

NOT only should we be demanding a fourth seat but many more seats as proscribed by the constitution,

DEMAND OUR LEADERS TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!

Doug Cortney | 9:39 p.m. June 10, 2009

@FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION (2:47p)

Where do you get the figure of 50,000 people or less per representative? And why do you find it unconstitutional to limit the size of the House to 435?

The only limit I've been able to find is that each representative must represent at least 30,000. It's actually written the other way: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)

If there are 600,000 citizens, a ratio of 1:30,000 would yield 20 representatives, which would be the maximum number of representatives allowed at this population level.

1:20,000 = 30 reps (30 > 20; not allowed)
1:40,000 = 15 reps (30 < 20; allowed)
1:300,000 = 2 reps (2 < 20; allowed)

The current population is estimated at 306.6 million, which puts an upper limit on the number of representatives at 10,220. We currently have 435, which is less than 10,220 -- therefore allowed.

Am I overlooking another requirement somewhere?

RE: Doug Cortney | 12:30 a.m. June 11, 2009

I am not waht your comment is aboutm and why would limiotthe size the hiouse, and thereby limit the voice of the poeple,

except for political reasons and you do not want the poeple to have a voice.

Imagine if were 10,000 reps, and how hard id would be for any special interiest, or party or big money to control that,

the logistics in trying control the majority of 10000 on any issuse is considerably greater that it is for 435.

More importantly the founding fathers intended the house to grow naturally as the population grew naturally,

however progressives democrats in early 1900's put stop to that that growth to 435,

making it more like a senate lite,
making easier to influence and be less reponsive to the will of the people,
making it easier to get your people in there and keeeping them there,

thus making it easier for them to push their agenda.

So increase the house greaely let once again grow naturally, and let the HOUSe onece again represent the people.

There is not a constitutional limit to the house, nor was one intended, and could be and should be considerably more_representatives (including_for_DC, the_reps_represent_the_people_NOT_the_states)

Doug Cortney | 2:17 a.m. June 11, 2009

@RE: Doug Cortney (12:30a)

Um... You seem to think I'm opposing the idea of increasing the size of the House.

My comment was directed to the poster who said the 435 limit is artificial and unconstitutional and that a representative was supposed to represent as few as 50K people or less. I don't understand where either of these points (the unconstitutionality or the 50K figure) come from.

As it happens, I do think that suddenly expanding the House to 10K members is a silly idea; there are too many logistical challenges. That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a more modest increase in size, perhaps with an eventual target of 30K-person districts. I'm not in favor of it, either; I'm neutral and open to convincing. Offhand, I can think of several good arguments in favor and opposed to the notion.

WRT what the Founding Fathers intended, I simply don't believe that they intended a legislative body with 10K+ members. But that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional to have one, and it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

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.