Deseret News | Demos may revive 4th Utah House seat bill

Reader comments
Demos may revive 4th Utah House seat bill

My Own | 2:18 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Utah will get the 4th seat soon enough anyway. There is absolutely no need to do this now.

Anonymous | 2:57 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Chaffetz makes the most simplistic arguments of any person holding elected office. The guy is an embarrassment to Utah and the congress, but a great representative of his constituents. DC not having representation is one of the most antiquated elements of our constitution. All Americans deserve to have representation.

Send it Back | 2:58 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Considering the representation we have currently, I don't want another representative.

Comments continue below

imn | 3:07 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

We need this seat. Is Chaffetz an attorney? The guy can't spell Constitution much less say what's in it.

Dave Hardy | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

As an Arizonan, I'd be happy to see Utah with another seat. But I am appalled at the willingness of Congress to dump the Constitution for partisan advantage. It is 100% clear that only State get Representative. (E.g., a Representative must be a resident of the "State" they represent).

I have no idea what Sen. Hatch means when he says jury trial only pertains to residents of States. The 6th Amendment says it is a right "in all criminal proceedings."

As far as DC's status 1790-1800, during this period the residents were still subject to Virginia and Maryland law, so it was appropriate to let them vote in those States. (Note DC did not get its own representative). Only in 1800 did Congress assume legal jurisdiction of the new capital city.

basinboy | 3:19 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I'd be in favor of going back to the 1790 procedure and let those on the Virginia side vote in the Virginia elections and those on the Maryland side vote in the Maryland elections. That way, they can keep their gun control and Utah will get it's 4th seat after the 2010 census. The last thing we need is one more liberal representative in Congress.

my slc | 4:28 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

DC needs a representative.

Utah, would gain by extending fairness to DC.

Go figure.

Anonymous | 5:45 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

let DC vote with Maryland problem solved

Mike Johnson Fallon NV | 5:47 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

This is NOT a bill to give Utah another seat. Please state it correctly. It is a bill to give DC a seat and add another seat that will be distributed by the normal equation based on the census.

Utah would benefit for two years and then after the next census, the new 437th seat will go to another state. It will not go to Utah. Utah will get 4 and will not get 5 seats regardless after the next census, unless the current Census estimates are way off.

basinboy, that happened until 1800. The DC organic act which changed that was in 1801. An act of Congress took away the right of citizens in the district to vote in congressional elections. I don't see any Constitutional reason why an act of congress can't give those same rights back to them.

Charade | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Since Utah will get the additional seat anyway after next year's census, this is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Democrats to shore up their position of power in the Congress by giving themselves another automatic vote.

Hatch should be opposing this bill.

SHAME - SHAME - SHAME | 7:58 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Regardless of how you feel about representatives for DC and Utah, I think adding it on to the defense bill is BAD !

My opinion is the same for all other issues tacked on to something else, they should be prohibited. I want my congressional representatives to record their vote on each issue seperately.

I think the practice, because it has been widespread for many years, has been confusing to voters and has contribituted to the dislike of their congressmen by some.

If you ask, "Why did you vote for that - It sure doesn't represent the views of most people around here"----and the answer you get back is "I HAD to, it was part of the defense bill." I don't like that and I think it is POOR government. SEPERATE VOTES FOR SEPERATE ISSUES I SAY !

On the subject of an additional representative - WILL SOMEONE TELL ME just what residents of Utah achieve with one extra vote. If that person turns out to be a disagreeable person, he/she may just cause others to vote a different way on a Utah issue.

Utah residents should not be pushing for this legislation, but they should wait for the census

Chuckles55 | 11:28 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Stupid, stupid, stupid? Why the heck do we want to cut a deal with DC? No one back East cares about little old Utah. The only thing they are doing is sweetening the pot so they can get what they want. Question: what happens to Utah's fourth seat when the DC part of the law is declared unconstitutional, especially if all of the additional seats have been reallocated by then?

Sanctity of... | 4:35 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

... Constitution - piped by those backward-looking yokels only when it works in their favor ; that DC is taxed w/o Rep is as anachronistic as it gets ... How is that "American"?

Anonymous | 6:50 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Stop whining, and just give the nearly 600,000 the same rights as you have. What's so wrong with that? The excuses are nothing but excuses, some self righteous and partisan.

Voter | 7:21 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

If DC gets a House seat, then they will demand to be treated like a state and get two SENATE seats, which equals three electoral college votes.

This is just a scheme to stuff government with guaranteed permanent Democrat power!

NO!
NO!
NO!

lost in DC | 7:34 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

further evidence that hatch and dems have no regard for the constitution. they regard it only when looking for ways around it.

anon 2:57, at least you recognize that it the constitution does not call for this.

imn 3:07, do you have anything to say about the bill, or did you just want to throw barbs at Chaffetz?

letting DC residents vote with Maryland is the best solution.

CN | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Chuckles55 - You're right, no one back east cares about Utah but in order to get an Republicans on the bill Utah is getting lumped into the deal. The R's feel they'll have a safe seat here and the D's know they have a safe seat in DC.

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court would be required to put this on the fast track so it won't screw up any outcome that might be done with an additional election.

The question we should be asking is which bill would actually pass, the Senate's version or the House's. They are two very different bills and both would do different things to the state.

DDS -- NRA Life Member | 9:29 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

The practice of attaching an unrelated ammendment to "must pass" legislation should be abolished. If a bill cannot stand on its own merits, should it become the law of the land? But I'm afraid congress' lack of self discipline and love of back room wheeling and dealing would prevent them from stopping the practice on their own through the rules process. So without a constitutional ammendment that would get the Supreme Court involved or a president willing to veto multipurpose bills, we are stuck with it.

"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making." -- Otto von Bismarck

my slc | 10:40 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

To all you who say a bill should stand by its self.

How about the credit card reform bill, which was amended by Senator Thomas Coburn (R) of Oklahoma?

This amendment makes visitors subject only to the gun laws of the state that the national park is in, thus concealed weapons are allowed in national parks.

What does gun law have to do with credit card reform?

L | 12:19 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

Right - a bill should be able to stand on its own merits & be voted on without a bunch of non-related issues.

HOW DO WE GET THIS DONE?

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.