[House Report 110-52]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                             Rept. 110-52
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 
                                OF 2007

                                _______
                                

                 March 20, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

         MINORITY, DISSENTING, AND ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1433]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of 
Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of 
representation in the House of Representatives, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    10
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    10
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    11
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    13
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    13
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    14
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    15
Minority Views...................................................    27
Dissenting Views.................................................    32
Additional Dissenting Views......................................    34

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1433, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights 
Act of 2007,'' will provide the District of Columbia with full 
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill 
permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 
to 437 seats. The two-seat increase will provide a vote to the 
District of Columbia and a new, at-large seat through the One 
Hundred Twelfth Congress to the State next entitled to increase 
its congressional representation. Based on the 2000 Census, 
Utah is the State next entitled to increase its congressional 
representation.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Over half a million people living in the District of 
Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of 
Representatives and Senate.\1\ For over 200 years, the District 
has been denied this voting representation in Congress--the 
very entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the 
city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. The 
United States is the only democracy in the world that deprives 
the residents of its capital city voting representation in the 
national legislature.\2\ Essentially, citizens of every State 
have a vote regarding the laws that govern the District, while 
those living in the District itself do not.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H.R. 1433, 110th Cong. (2007).
    \2\ Rick Bress, Memorandum submitted to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutionality of the 
D.C. Voting Rights Bill (March 2006).
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the 
military, pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, 
serve on juries, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. 
citizenship.\4\ Notably, numerous District residents work for 
the Federal Government. Yet despite such contributions, the 
United States denies democracy in its capital while it promotes 
democracy abroad. Many Americans realize the great injustice of 
denying U.S. citizens living in the Nation's capital 
representation in Congress. In January 2005, a national poll 
indicated that 82% of Americans believe that Washingtonians 
deserve congressional representation.\5\ There is no sound 
explanation as to why District residents have been 
disenfranchised since the District was created in 1800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See H.R. 1433, Sec. 2, 110th Cong. (2007).
    \5\ DC Vote, Memorandum submitted to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, DC Fair and Equal House 
Voting Rights Act (March 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Constitution is completely silent on the question of 
congressional representation for District residents; it neither 
provides nor denies representation for them. While there is no 
evidence that the Framers intended to deny voting 
representation for District residents, the Framers did provide 
the Congress with absolute authority over the District to 
rectify such a problem. Professor Viet Dinh explains, ``[t]here 
are no indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the 
Framers intended that congressional authority under the 
District Clause, extraordinary and plenary in all respects, 
would not extend also to grant District residents 
representation in Congress.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Testimony on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act 
of 2007 before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007) 
(statement of Prof. Viet. D. Dinh). Professor Dinh also points out that 
during 1790-1800, 1790 being the year in which Maryland and Virginia 
ceded land to the Federal Government for the creation of the capital 
city, and 1800 being the year in which the Federal Government assumed 
control over the District, District residents were able to vote in 
congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia. He says, ``[t]he 
actions of this first Congress, authorizing District residents to vote 
in congressional elections of the ceding States, thus demonstrate the 
Framers' belief that Congress may authorize by statute representation 
for the district.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CONGRESSIONAL 
                     REPRESENTATION TO THE DISTRICT

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17--the ``District Clause''--
provides Congress with the authority to provide the District 
with full representation in the U.S. House Representatives. The 
District Clause provides:

        ``The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise 
        exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over 
        such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, 
        by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of 
        Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the 
        United States. . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.

    Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 23, 2004, Kenneth Starr said:

        ``Congress's powers over the District are not limited 
        to simply those powers that a State legislature might 
        have over a State. As emphasized by the Federal courts 
        on numerous occasions, the Seat of Government Clause is 
        majestic in scope. In the words of the Supreme Court, 
        ``[t]he object of the grant of exclusive legislation 
        over the [D]istrict was, therefore, national in the 
        highest sense. . . . In the same article which granted 
        the powers of exclusive legislation . . . are conferred 
        all the other great powers which make the nation.'' 
        (quoting O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 539-
        540 (1933)). And my predecessors on the D.C. Circuit 
        Court of Appeals once held that Congress can ``provide 
        for the general welfare of citizens within the District 
        of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which 
        it may deem conducive to that end.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Common Sense Justice for the Nation's Capital: An Examination 
of Proposals to Give D.C. Residents Direct Representation: Hearing on 
H.R. 5388, Before the H. Comm. on Government Reform, 108th Cong. 
(2004). (testimony of the Hon. Kenneth W. Starr).

    Numerous case law substantiates Starr's claim that ``the 
Seat of Government Clause is majestic in scope.'' \9\ Neild v. 
District of Columbia holds that the District Clause is 
``sweeping and inclusive in character.'' \10\ United States v. 
Cohen finds that Congress has ``extraordinary and plenary 
power'' over the District.\11\ Even in Adams v. Clinton, in 
which the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held 
that District residents do not have a judicially cognizable 
right to congressional representation as the District is not a 
State under article I, section 2,\12\ the Court found that ``if 
[the plaintiffs] are to obtain [relief], they must plead their 
cause in other venues.'' \13\ The court stated that counsel for 
defendant House officials acknowledged that ``only 
congressional legislation or constitutional amendment can 
remedy plaintiffs' exclusion from the franchise.'' \14\ This 
holding confirms that Congress is enabled, through the District 
Clause, to provide the District with congressional 
representation through simple legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ 110 F.2d 246, 249 (D.C. App. 1940).
    \11\ 733 F.2d 128, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
    \12\ 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 55-56 (D.D.C. 2000).
    \13\ Id. at 72.
    \14\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Supreme Court first recognized Congress's plenary 
authority over the District in 1805. In Hepburn v. Ellzey,\15\ 
the Supreme Court held that diversity jurisdiction did not 
exist between the District and Virginia, as article III, 
Section 2 of the Constitution provides that diversity 
jurisdiction only exists ``between citizens of different 
States.'' \16\ However, the Court, explaining ``this is a 
subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration,'' \17\ 
clarified Congress's authority to enact legislation extending 
diversity jurisdiction to the District.\18\ Congress went on to 
enact such a statute, which, when later challenged in National 
Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater 
Co., was upheld based on Congress's article I power to 
legislate for the District.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 6 U.S. 445 (1805).
    \16\ U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 2 (emphasis added).
    \17\ This opinion in Hepburn provides the foundation for the 
opinion in Adams. Both courts recognized the ability of the Congress to 
act through legislation where the Judiciary was unable to act through 
an order.
    \18\ 6 U.S. 445, 453 (1805).
    \19\ National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. 
Tidewater Co., 337 U.S. 582, 589 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tidewater advances the argument that the District Clause 
can be used to grant District residents certain Constitutional 
rights and status reserved for State citizens. As such, while 
article I, section 2 provides for the election of Members of 
the House of Representatives by the ``people of the several 
States,'' \20\ Congress is not precluded from providing the 
District with the opportunity to elect a House Representative. 
Significantly, five of the concurring justices in Tidewater 
believed that the District was a State under the terms of the 
Constitution or that the Congress, through use of the District 
Clause, could treat the District like a State.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 2.
    \21\ 337 U.S. 582, 589 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from diversity jurisdiction, the Congress has used 
its plenary authority over the District to provide the District 
with other rights and privileges afforded to the States. 
Congress treating the District as a State for purposes of 
alcohol regulation under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act was 
upheld in Milton S. Kronheim & Co. Inc. v. District of 
Columbia.\22\ In Palmore v. United States,\23\ the Supreme 
Court upheld Congress's designation of the District of Columbia 
Court of Appeals as the ``highest court of a State'' for 
purposes of Supreme Court review of final judgments. Among 
other examples, the District is also treated like a State for 
purposes of affording 11th amendment immunity to the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ 91 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
    \23\ 411 U.S. 389 (1973).
    \24\ Clarke v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 654 F. Supp. 712 
(D.D.C. 1985), aff'd, 808 F.2d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1987),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MANDATE A 
                        TEMPORARY AT-LARGE SEAT

    Article I, Sec. 4 of the Constitution provides:

        The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for 
        Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in 
        each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 
        may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, 
        except as to the Places of [choosing] Senators.

    In interpreting article I, the Supreme Court has determined 
that the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to 
regulate national elections. In Oregon v. Mitchell,\25\ Justice 
Black wrote, ``[i]n the very beginning the responsibility of 
the States for setting the qualifications of voters in 
congressional elections was made subject to the power of 
Congress to make or alter such regulations, if it deemed 
advisable to do so.'' \26\ In 2004, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 
Justice Scalia noted that, ``article I, Sec. 4, while leaving 
in State legislatures the initial power to draw districts for 
Federal elections, permitted Congress to `make or alter' those 
districts if it wished.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ 400 U.S. 112 (1970).
    \26\ Id. at 119.
    \27\ 541 U.S. 267, 275 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given this broad authority to regulate Federal elections, 
Congress has the ability to mandate that Utah's fourth seat be 
an at-large seat through the year 2012. The congressional 
Research Service (CRS) finds that ``Congress has ultimate 
authority over most aspects of the congressional election 
process'' and that ``congressional power is at its most broad 
in the case of House elections.'' \28\ As such, Congress has 
the constitutional authority to temporarily mandate an at-large 
seat for Utah, notwithstanding the general statutory 
requirement in 2 U.S.C. 2(c) that Members run from single-
member districts rather than at-large districts.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ L. Paige Whitaker and Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) Memorandum, Constitutionality of Congress 
Creating an At-Large Seat for a Member of Congress'' (June 5, 2006) at 
1-2.
    \29\ 2 U.S.C. 2(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, a temporary at-large seat in Utah is 
consistent with the ``one person, one vote'' principal. The 
U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Constitution requires 
that each congressional district in a State contain equal 
population.\30\ The Court has held that article I, Sec. 2 of 
the Constitution requires that ``as nearly as is practicable, 
one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as 
much as another's.'' \31\ In Utah, all voters will have the 
opportunity to vote both for a candidate to represent his or 
her congressional district and a candidate to represent the 
State at-large, ``thereby comporting with the one person, one 
vote principle.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1864).
    \31\ Id. at 18.
    \32\ L. Paige Whitaker and Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) Memorandum, Constitutionality of Congress 
Creating an At-Large Seat for a Member of Congress'' (June 5, 2006) at 
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The full Committee on the Judiciary held 1 day of hearings 
on H.R. 1433 on March 14, 2007. Testimony was received from 
Viet D. Dinh, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal 
Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice; Bruce Spiva, Chair of 
the Board of DC Vote; Rick Bress, Partner in the Washington, DC 
office of Latham & Watkins; and Jonathan Turley, Professor of 
Law at George Washington University.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 15, 2007, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1433 favorably reported, by a vote of 21 
to 13, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1433.
    1. An amendment offered by Mr. Smith, providing for 
expedited judicial review and explicit standing for Members of 
Congress. The amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 19.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to amend an 
amendment offered by Mr. Cannon, requiring Utah to redistrict 
into four single-member districts. The amendment failed by a 
vote of 14 to 20.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment offered by Mr. Cannon, permitting Utah to 
redistrict before 2012. The amendment failed by a vote of 8 to 
26.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              8              26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Amendment #A offered by Mr. Gohmert, as amended by an 
amendment offered by Mr. Franks, delaying the seating of 
Members elected pursuant to the legislation until the One 
Hundred and Thirteenth Congress. The amendment failed by a vote 
of 10 to 24.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             10              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Amendment #1 offered by Mr. Gohmert, expanding the total 
number of congressional districts by classifying military 
reservations with populations greater than 10,000 as separate 
congressional districts. The amendment failed by a vote of 3 to 
31.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................                              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................                              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              3              31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 1433, was ordered favorably reported by a vote of 21 
to 13.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Davis.......................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Ellison.....................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner...............................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             21              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1433, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 16, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1433, the District 
of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew 
Pickford (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can 
be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member

H.R. 1433--District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 1433 would expand the number of Members in the House 
of Representatives from 435 to 437 during the 110th Congress. 
The legislation would provide the District of Columbia with one 
Representative and add one new at-large Member (after a special 
election). Under H.R. 1433, the new at-large seat would 
initially be assigned to the state of Utah and then would be 
reallocated based on the next Congressional apportionment 
following the 2010 census.
    CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 
spending by about $200,000 in 2008 and by about $2.5 million 
over the 2008-2017 period. In addition, implementing the bill 
would have discretionary costs of about $1 million in 2008 and 
about $9 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming the 
availability of the appropriated funds.
    H.R. 1433 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 
that the costs would not be significant and would not exceed 
the threshold established in UMRA ($66 million in 2007, 
adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no private-
sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1433 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 800 (general government).


                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be 
enacted before the start of fiscal year 2008, that Utah will 
hold a special election before or early in the second session 
of the 110th Congress, and that spending will follow historical 
patterns for Congressional office spending.
    The legislation would permanently expand the number of 
Members in the House of Representatives by two to 437 Members. 
The new representatives would take office on the same day. One 
new Member would represent the District of Columbia and the 
other would be a Representative at-large for the state of Utah 
until the next apportionment based on the 2010 census. The 
District of Columbia currently has a nonvoting delegate to the 
House of Representatives and would not hold a special election. 
H.R. 1433 would establish voting representation for the 
conversion of the District's delegate to Representative and 
would not add significant costs since the position is already 
funded with the same salary and administrative support as other 
Representatives.

Direct Spending

    Enacting H.R. 1433 would increase direct spending for the 
salary and associated benefits for the new at-large 
Representative. CBO estimates that the increase in direct 
spending for the Congressional salary and benefits would be 
about $2.5 million over the 2008-2017 period. That estimate 
assumes that the current Congressional salary of $165,200 would 
be adjusted for inflation. With benefits, the 2008 cost would 
be about $200,000.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

    Based on the current administrative and expense allowances 
available for Members and other typical Congressional office 
costs, CBO estimates that the addition of a new Member would 
cost about $1 million in fiscal year 2008 and about $9 million 
over the 2008-2012 period, subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.

        ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

    H.R. 1433 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in UMRA because it would temporarily preempt laws in the state 
of Utah that govern the election of Members of the House of 
Representatives. The bill would require the state to elect an 
additional Member of the House using a statewide election. The 
state may derive benefits from having an additional Member of 
the House of Representatives. However, Utah could incur some 
costs to hold a special election in 2007 or 2008 and would 
incur small marginal costs to elect the additional Member 
through the 2010 election cycle. CBO estimates that those costs 
would not be significant and would not exceed the threshold 
established in UMRA ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for 
inflation.)

                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    The legislation contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.

                         PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE

    On March 16, 2007, CBO also provided a cost estimate for 
H.R. 1433 as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform on March 13, 2007. The two 
versions of the bill are similar, and our cost estimates are 
the same.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 
    (225-3220)
Impact on the Private-Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1433, will provide the District of Columbia with full 
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 17 of the 
Constitution and article I, section 4, clause 1.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1433 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Section 1. Short Title. This section designates the short 
title of the bill as the ``District of Columbia House Voting 
Rights Act of 2007.''
    Section 2. Findings. This section notes that the citizens 
of the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation 
in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It notes that 
District Citizens have served in every war since the War of 
Independence and that they pay Federal taxes. This section also 
notes that the Nation is founded on principles of ``one person, 
one vote'' and ``government by the consent of the governed.''
    Section 3. Treatment of District of Columbia as 
Congressional District. This section establishes that the 
District of Columbia shall be considered a congressional 
district for purposes of representation in the House of 
Representatives. It clarifies that the District remains 
entitled to three Presidential electors as required by the 23rd 
Amendment. It makes conforming amendments at various places in 
the U.S. Code where the current language mentions congressional 
districts in States, adding ``the District of Columbia.''
    Section 4. Permanent Increase in the Membership of House 
Representatives. This section provides that, effective for the 
110th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the size of the 
Congress shall be increased by two Members. One seat would be 
designated for the District of Columbia, and the other seat 
would go to Utah, the State next in line under the 2000 Census 
apportionment formula. The section also requires that the new 
seat established in Utah shall be an at-large seat that shall 
exist through the 112th Congress, the period prior to elections 
for redrawn seats pursuant to the 2012 reapportionment.
    Section 5. Repeal of the Office of the District of Columbia 
Delegate. The section repeals the Office of the District of 
Columbia Delegate and makes conforming amendments.
    Section 6. Repeal of Office of Statehood Representative. 
This section eliminates the Office of Statehood Representative, 
but leaves intact the Office of Statehood Senator. This section 
also makes appropriate conforming amendments.
    Section 7. Nonseverability of Provisions. This section 
ensures that should any section of this bill be struck down, 
all sections will be vacated. The carefully crafted balance is 
an essential part of this legislation. Any result that would 
grant a seat to the District and not Utah, or vice versa, would 
be counter to Congress's intent. Therefore, no provision of 
this legislation should be effective unless all provisions are 
effective. No provision of the bill should be enjoined without 
the entire bill being so enjoined.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

       TITLE deg.SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1929


 AN ACT To provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses 
    and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress.

  Sec. 22. (a) On the first day, or within one week thereafter, 
of the first regular session of the Eighty-second Congress and 
of each fifth Congress thereafter, the President shall transmit 
to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons 
in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained 
under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of 
the population, and the number of Representatives to which each 
State would be entitled under an apportionment of [the then 
existing number of Representatives] the number of 
Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred 
Tenth Congress by the method known as the method of equal 
proportions, no State to receive less than one Member.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) This section shall apply with respect to the District of 
Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a State, 
except that the District of Columbia may not receive more than 
one Member under any reapportionment of Members.
                              ----------                              


                SECTION 3 OF TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE

                           NUMBER OF ELECTORS

  Sec. 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number 
of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are 
by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice 
President to be chosen [come into office;] come into office 
(subject to the twenty-third article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States in the case of the District 
of Columbia); except, that where no apportionment of 
Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the 
time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be 
according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and 
Representatives.
                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle B--Army

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

  (a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection 
(j). Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as 
follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, 
        nominated by the Delegate to the House of 
        Representatives from the District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 
through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the State, 
or in the congressional district, from which he is nominated, 
or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those 
places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6954. Midshipmen: number

  (a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen 
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of 
the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h). 
Subject to that limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) Five from the District of Columbia, nominated by 
        the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 
        District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission

  (a) * * *
  (b) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 
through (9) of section 6954(a) of this title must be domiciled 
in the State, or in the congressional district, from which he 
is nominated, or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from 
one of those places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle D--Air Force

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

  (a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under 
subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets 
are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, 
        nominated by the Delegate to the House of 
        Representatives from the District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 
through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the State, 
or in the congressional district, from which he is nominated, 
or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those 
places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE ACT

TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              SHORT TITLE

  Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``District of 
Columbia Delegate Act''.

               [DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  [Sec. 202. (a) The people of the District of Columbia shall 
be represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate, 
to be known as the ``Delegate to the House of Representatives 
from the District of Columbia'', who shall be elected by the 
voters of the District of Columbia in accordance with the 
District of Columbia Election Act. The Delegate shall have a 
seat in the House of Representatives, with the right of debate, 
but not of voting, shall have all the privileges granted a 
Representative by section 6 of Article I of the Constitution, 
and shall be subject to the same restrictions and regulations 
as are imposed by law or rules on Representatives. The Delegate 
shall be elected to serve during each Congress.
  [(b) No individual may hold the office of Delegate to the 
House of Representatives from the District of Columbia unless 
on the date of his election--
          [(1) he is a qualified elector (as that term is 
        defined in section 2(2) of the District of Columbia 
        Election Act) of the District of Columbia;
          [(2) he is at least twenty-five years of age;
          [(3) he holds no other paid public office; and
          [(4) he has resided in the District of Columbia 
        continuously since the beginning of the three-year 
        period ending on such date.
He shall forfeit his office upon failure to maintain the 
qualifications required by this subsection.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  [OTHER PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 
 DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  [Sec. 204. (a) The provisions of law which appear in--
          [(1) section 25 (relating to oath of office),
          [(2) section 31 (relating to compensation),
          [(3) section 34 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(4) section 35 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(5) section 37 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(6) section 38a (relating to compensation),
          [(7) section 39 (relating to deductions for absence),
          [(8) section 40 (relating to deductions for 
        withdrawal),
          [(9) section 40a (relating to deductions for 
        delinquent indebtedness),
          [(10) section 41 (relating to prohibition on 
        allowance for newspapers),
          [(11) section 42c (relating to postage allowance),
          [(12) section 46b (relating to stationery allowance),
          [(13) section 46b-1 (relating to stationery 
        allowance),
          [(14) section 46b-2 (relating to stationery 
        allowance),
          [(15) section 46g (relating to telephone, telegraph, 
        and radiotelegraph allowance),
          [(16) section 47 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(17) section 48 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(18) section 49 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(19) section 50 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(20) section 54 (relating to provision of United 
        States Code Annotated or Federal Code Annotated),
          [(21) section 60g-1 (relating to clerk hire),
          [(22) section 60g-2(a) (relating to interns),
          [(23) section 80 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(24) section 81 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(25) section 82 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),
          [(26) section 92 (relating to clerk hire),
          [(27) section 92b (relating to pay of clerical 
        assistants),
          [(28) section 112e (relating to electrical and 
        mechanical office equipment),
          [(29) section 122 (relating to office space in the 
        District of Columbia), and
          [(30) section 123b (relating to use of House 
        Recording Studio),

of title 2 of the United States Code shall apply with respect 
to the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 
District of Columbia in the same manner and to the same extent 
as they apply with respect to a Representative. The Federal 
Corrupt Practices Act and the Federal Contested Election Act 
shall apply with respect to the Delegate to the House of 
Representatives from the District of Columbia in the same 
manner and to the same extent as they apply with respect to a 
Representative.
  [(b) Section 2106 of title 5 of the United States Code is 
amended by inserting ``a Delegate from the District of 
Columbia,'' immediately after ``House of Representatives,''.
  [(c) Sections 4342(a)(5), 6954(a)(5), and 9342(a)(5) of title 
10 of the United States Code are each amended by striking out 
``by the Commissioner of that District'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``by the Delegate to the House of Representatives from 
the District of Columbia''.
  [(d)(1) Section 201(a) of title 18 of the United States Code 
is amended by inserting ``the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia,'' immediately after ``Member of Congress,''.
  [(2) Sections 203(a)(1) and 204 of title 18 of the United 
States Code are each amended by inserting ``Delegate from the 
District of Columbia, Delegate Elect from the District of 
Columbia,'' immediately after ``Member of Congress Elect,''.
  [(3) Section 203(b) of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended by inserting ``Delegate,'' immediately after 
``Member,''.
  [(4) The last undesignated paragraph of section 591 of title 
18 of the United States Code is amended by inserting ``the 
District of Columbia and'' immediately after ``includes''.
  [(5) Section 594 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended (1) by striking out ``or'' immediately after 
``Senate,'', and (2) by striking out ``Delegates or 
Commissioners from the Territories and possessions'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``Delegate from the District of 
Columbia, or Resident Commissioner''.
  [(6) Section 595 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended by striking out ``or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
from any Territory or Possession'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident 
Commissioner''.
  [(e) Section 11(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 
U.S.C. 1973i(c)) is amended by striking out ``or Delegates or 
Commissioners from the territories or possessions'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``Delegate from the District of 
Columbia''.
  [(f) The second sentence in the second paragraph of section 7 
of the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 
(D.C. Code, sec. 25-107) is amended by striking out ``the 
presidential election'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``any 
election''.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE 1--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--STATEHOOD

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INITIATIVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBPART I--GENERAL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--123. Call of convention; duties of convention; adoption of 
                    constitution; rejection of constitution; election 
                    of Senator and Representative.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) Following the approval of a proposed constitution by a 
majority of the electors voting thereon, there shall be held an 
election of candidates for the [offices of Senator and 
Representative] office of Senator from the new state. Such 
election shall be partisan and shall be held at the next 
regularly scheduled primary and general elections following 
certification by the District of Columbia Board of Elections 
and Ethics that the proposed constitution has been approved by 
a majority of the electors voting thereon. In the event that 
the proposed constitution is approved by the electors at the 
general election to be held in November, 1982, the primary and 
general elections authorized by this paragraph shall be held in 
September, 1990, and November, 1990, respectively.
  (2) The qualifications for candidates for the [offices of 
Senator and Representative] office of Senator shall conform 
with the provisions of Article I of the United States 
Constitution and the primary and general elections shall follow 
the same electoral procedures as provided for candidates for 
nonvoting Delegate of the District of Columbia in the District 
of Columbia Election Code of 1955, subchapter I of Chapter 10 
of this title. The term of the 1st Representative elected 
pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 2, 1991, and 
shall expire on January 2, 1993. The terms of the 1st Senators 
elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 2, 
1991, and shall expire on January 2, 1997, and January 2, 1995, 
respectively. At the initial election, the candidate for 
Senator receiving the highest number of votes will receive the 
longer term and the candidate receiving the second highest 
number of votes will receive the shorter term. A primary and a 
general election to replace [a Representative or] a Senator 
whose term is about to expire shall be held in September and in 
November respectively, of the year preceding the year during 
which the term of [the Representative or] the Senator expires. 
Each [Representative shall be elected for a 2-year term and 
each] Senator shall be elected for a 6-year term as prescribed 
by the Constitution of the United States.
  (3) The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics 
shall:
          (A) Conduct elections to fill the positions of 2 
        United States Senators [and 1 United States 
        Representative]; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) A [Representative or] Senator elected pursuant to this 
subchapter shall be a public official as defined in Sec. 1--
1106.02(a), and subscribe to the oath or affirmation of office 
provided for in Sec. 1--604.08.
  (f) A [Representative or] Senator:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g)(1) A [Representative or] Senator may solicit and receive 
contributions to support the purposes and operations of the 
[Representative's or] Senator's public office. A 
[Representative or] Senator may accept services, monies, gifts, 
endowments, donations, or bequests. A [Representative or] 
Senator shall establish a District of Columbia statehood fund 
in 1 or more financial institutions in the District of 
Columbia. There shall be deposited in each fund any gift or 
contribution in whatever form, and any monies not included in 
annual Congressional appropriations. A [Representative or] 
Senator is authorized to administer the [Representative's or] 
Senator's respective fund in any manner the [Representative or] 
Senator deems wise and prudent, provided that the 
administration is lawful, in accordance with the fiduciary 
responsibilities of public office, and does not impose any 
financial burden on the District of Columbia.
  (2) Contributions may be expended for the salary, office, or 
other expenses necessary to support the purposes and operations 
of the public office of a [Representative or] Senator, however, 
each [Representative or] Senator shall receive compensation no 
greater than the compensation of the Chairman of the Council of 
the District of Columbia, as provided in Sec. 1--204.03 and 
Sec. 1--611.09.
  (3) Each [Representative or] Senator shall file with the 
Director of Campaign Finance a quarterly report of all 
contributions received and expenditures made in accordance with 
paragraph (1) of this subsection. No campaign activities 
related to election or re-election to the office of 
[Representative or] Senator shall be conducted nor shall 
expenditures for campaign literature or paraphernalia be 
authorized under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
  (4) The recordkeeping requirements of subchapter I of Chapter 
11 of this title, shall apply to contributions and expenditures 
made under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
  (5) Upon expiration of a [Representative's or] Senator's term 
of office and where the [Representative or] Senator has not 
been re-elected, the [Representative's or] Senator's statehood 
fund, established in accordance with paragraph (1) of this 
subsection, shall be dissolved and any excess funds shall be 
used to retire the [Representative's or] Senator's debts for 
salary, office, or other expenses necessary to support the 
purposes and operation of the public office of the 
[Representative or] Senator. Any remaining funds shall be 
donated to an organization operating in the District of 
Columbia as a not-for-profit organization within the meaning of 
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, approved 
October 22, 1986 (100 Stat. 2085; 26 U.S.C. 501(c)).
  (h) A [Representative or] Senator elected pursuant to 
subsection (d) of this section, shall be subject to recall 
pursuant to Sec. 1--1001.18, during the period of the 
[Representative's or] Senator's service prior to the admission 
of the proposed new state into the union.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--125. Statehood Commission.

  (a) The Statehood Commission shall consist of [27] 26 voting 
members appointed in the following manner:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The United States Senators shall each appoint 1 
        member; and
          [(6) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 
        member; and]
          [(7)] (6) The Mayor, the Chairman of the Council, and 
        the Councilmember whose purview the Statehood 
        Commission comes within shall be non-voting members of 
        the Commission.
  (a-1)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, members 
serving unexpired terms on August 26, 1994, may continue to 
serve until appointments or reappointments are confirmed. 
Appointments or reappointments shall be made immediately after 
August 26, 1994, in the following manner:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(H) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 
        member for a 2 year term.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--127. Appropriations.

  There is authorized to be appropriated from the General Fund 
of the District of Columbia an amount for the salaries and 
office expenses of the elected representatives to the Senate 
[and House] referred to in 1--123(d) during the period of their 
service prior to the admission of the proposed new state into 
the union.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     PART B--HONORARIA LIMITATIONS

Sec. 1--131. Application of honoraria limitations.

  Notwithstanding the provisions of 1--135, the honoraria 
limitations imposed by part H of subchapter I of Chapter 11 of 
this title shall apply to a Senator [or Representative] elected 
pursuant to 1--123(d)(1), only if the salary of the Senator [or 
Representative] is supported by public revenues.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    PART C--CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Sec. 1--135. Application of Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of 
                    Interest Act.

  All provisions of the District of Columbia Campaign Finance 
Reform and Conflict of Interest Act, subchapter I of Chapter 11 
of this title, which apply to the election of and service of 
the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall apply to persons 
who are candidates or elected to serve as United States 
Senators [and United States Representative] pursuant to this 
initiative.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 10. ELECTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 SUBCHAPTER I. REGULATION OF ELECTIONS

Sec. 1--1001.01. Election of electors.

  In the District of Columbia electors of President and Vice 
President of the United States, [the Delegate to the House of 
Representatives,] the Representative in the Congress, the 
members of the Board of Education, the members of the Council 
of the District of Columbia, the Mayor and the following 
officials of political parties in the District of Columbia 
shall be elected as provided in this subchapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.02. Definitions.

  For the purposes of this subchapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(6) The term ``Delegate'' means the Delegate to the 
        House of Representatives from the District of 
        Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (13) The term ``elected official'' means the Mayor, 
        the Chairman and members of the Council, the President 
        and members of the Board of Education, [the Delegate to 
        Congress for the District of Columbia, United States 
        Senator and Representative,] the Representative in the 
        Congress, United States Senator, and advisory 
        neighborhood commissioners of the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.08. Qualifications of candidates and electors; nomination 
                    and election of [Delegate] Representative, Mayor, 
                    Chairman, members of Council, and members of Board 
                    of Education; petition requirements; arrangement of 
                    ballot.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1)(A) The [Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, 
Mayor, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia and 
the 4 at-large members of the Council shall be elected by the 
registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia in a 
general election. Each candidate for the office of [Delegate,] 
Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council 
of the District of Columbia, and at-large members of the 
Council in any general election shall, except as otherwise 
provided in subsection (j) of this section and 1-1001.10(d), 
have been elected by the registered qualified electors of the 
District as such candidate by the next preceding primary 
election.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i)(1) Each individual in a primary election for candidate 
for the office of [Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, 
Mayor, Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the 
Council shall be nominated for any such office by a petition:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j)(1) A duly qualified candidate for the office of 
[Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of 
the Council, or member of the Council, may, subject to the 
provisions of this subsection, be nominated directly as such a 
candidate for election for such office (including any such 
election to be held to fill a vacancy). Such person shall be 
nominated by petition:
          (A) * * *
          (B) In the case of a person who is a candidate for 
        the office of member of the Council (other than the 
        Chairman or an at-large member), signed by 500 voters 
        who are duly registered under 1-1001.07 in the ward 
        from which the candidate seeks election; and in the 
        case of a person who is a candidate for the office of 
        [Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, Mayor, 
        Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the 
        Council, signed by duly registered voters equal in 
        number to 1 1/2 per centum of the total number of 
        registered voters in the District, as shown by the 
        records of the Board as of 123 days before the date of 
        such election, or by 3,000 persons duly registered 
        under 1-1001.07, whichever is less. No signatures on 
        such a petition may be counted which have been made on 
        such petition more than 123 days before the date of 
        such election.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.10. Dates for holding elections; votes cast for President 
                    and Vice President counted as votes for 
                    presidential electors; voting hours; tie votes; 
                    filling vacancy where elected official dies, 
                    resigns, or becomes unable to serve.

  (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) Except as otherwise provided in the case of special 
elections under this subchapter or section 206(a) of the 
District of Columbia Delegate Act, primary elections of each 
political party for [the office of Delegate to the House of 
Representatives] the office of Representative in the Congress 
shall be held on the 1st Tuesday after the 2nd Monday in 
September of each even-numbered year; and general elections for 
such office shall be held on the Tuesday next after the 1st 
Monday in November of each even-numbered year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) In the event that any official, other than [Delegate,] 
Mayor, member of the Council, member of the Board of Education, 
or winner of a primary election for the office of [Delegate,] 
Mayor, or member of the Council, elected pursuant to this 
subchapter dies, resigns, or becomes unable to serve during his 
or her term of office leaving no person elected pursuant to 
this subchapter to serve the remainder of the unexpired term of 
office, the successor or successors to serve the remainder of 
the term shall be chosen pursuant to the rules of the duly 
authorized party committee, except that the successor shall 
have the qualifications required by this subchapter for the 
office.
  (2)[(A) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of 
Delegate before May 1 of the last year of the Delegate's term 
of office,] In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of 
Representative in the Congress before May 1 of the last year of 
the Representative's term of office, the Board shall hold a 
special election to fill the unexpired term. The special 
election shall be held on the first Tuesday that occurs more 
than 114 days after the date on which the vacancy is certified 
by the Board unless the Board determines that the vacancy could 
be filled more practicably in a special election held on the 
same day as the next District-wide special, primary, or general 
election that is to occur within 60 days of the date on which 
the special election would otherwise have been held under the 
provisions of this subsection. The person elected to fill the 
vacancy in the office of Delegate shall take office the day on 
which the Board certifies his or her election.
  [(B) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of 
Delegate on or after May 1 of the last year of the Delegate's 
term of office, the Mayor shall appoint a successor to complete 
the remainder of the term of office.]
  (3) In the event of a vacancy in the office of [United States 
Representative or] United States Senator elected pursuant to 
Sec. 1--123 and that vacancy cannot be filled pursuant to 
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Mayor shall appoint, with 
the advice and consent of the Council, a successor to complete 
the remainder of the term of office.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.11. Recount; judicial review of election.

  (a)(1) * * *
  (2) If in any election for President and Vice President of 
the United States, [Delegate to the House of Representatives,] 
Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council, 
member of the Council, President of the Board of Education, or 
member of the Board of Education, the results certified by the 
Board show a margin of victory for a candidate that is less 
than one percent of the total votes cast for the office, the 
Board shall conduct a recount. The cost of a recount conducted 
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be charged to any 
candidate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.15. Candidacy for more than 1 office prohibited; multiple 
                    nominations; candidacy of officeholder for another 
                    office restricted.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this 
section, a person holding the office of Mayor, [Delegate,] 
Representative in the Congress, Chairman or member of the 
Council, or member of the Board of Education shall, while 
holding such office, be eligible as a candidate for any other 
of such offices in any primary or general election. In the 
event that said person is elected in a general election to the 
office for which he or she is a candidate, that person shall, 
within 24 hours of the date that the Board certifies said 
person's election, pursuant to subsection (a)(11) of Sec. 1-
1001.05, either resign from the office that person currently 
holds or shall decline to accept the office for which he or she 
was a candidate. In the event that said person elects to 
resign, said resignation shall be effective not later than 24 
hours before the date upon which that person would assume the 
office to which he or she has been elected.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1--1001.17. Recall process.

  (a) The provisions of this section shall govern the recall of 
all elected officers of the District of Columbia except [the 
Delegate to the Congress from the District of Columbia] the 
Representative in the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                             Minority Views

    We write to express our serious concerns regarding portions 
of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act 
of 2007.
    H.R. 1433 would, by statute, attempt to create a full-
fledged Member of Congress to represent the District of 
Columbia. At the same time, it would abolish the position of 
Delegate for the District of Columbia. The bill would also 
grant one additional Member to Utah.\1\ The new Utah Member 
would serve ``at-large.'' The bill would also permanently 
increase the size of the House to include 437 Members. The bill 
also contains a ``non-severability'' clause, such that if any 
of the provisions of the bill are struck down, the entire bill 
will be rendered invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ According to the last U.S. census, Utah was next in line to 
receive a new Member based on its population growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What follows is a summary of what many have argued are 
constitutional and policy flaws in the legislation.
    Supporters of the bill claim Congress has the authority to 
enact this bill under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the 
Constitution (``the District Clause''), which states ``The 
Congress shall have power . . . To exercise exclusive 
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not 
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular 
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the 
Government of the United States'' However, that very clause 
would seem to spell trouble for this legislation, as it makes 
clear that D.C. is not a State, and Article I, Section 2 of the 
Constitution makes clear that ``The House of Representatives 
shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the 
people of the Several States . . .'' Since D.C. is not a State, 
it does not appear it can have a voting Member in the House.
    In 2000, a federal district court in D.C. itself stated 
``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the 
Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve 
as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional 
representatives.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp.2d 35, 50 (D.D.C. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supporters of the bill point for precedent to a case 
decided by the Supreme Court in 1949 \3\ that upheld a federal 
law extending the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts 
to hear cases in which D.C. residents were parties. But as the 
Congressional Research Service stated in a recent report, ``The 
plurality opinion [in that case] took pains to note the limited 
impact of their holding . . . [T]he plurality specifically 
limited the scope of its decision to cases which did not 
involve an extension of any fundamental right,'' \4\ such as 
the right to vote for a Member of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, 337 U.S. 582 
(1949).
    \4\ Kenneth R. Thomas, CRS Report to Congress, RL33824, ``The 
Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia 
a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole'' 
(January 24, 2007) at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If that 1949 Supreme Court case does what proponents of the 
bill says it does, Congress would not have had to go through 
the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment to the 
States, which it did in 1978, that would have provided D.C. two 
Senators and a Representative. That amendment failed to get the 
approval of three-quarters of the States over seven years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ In 1978, Congress passed a constitutional amendment providing 
the District with full representation in both the House and Senate. The 
amendment then needed 38 of the 50 state legislatures to ratify it 
within seven years time. Ultimately, only 16 did so, and the amendment 
was rendered void. The following is a list of the 16 states that 
approved the amendment: New Jersey; Michigan; and Ohio in 1978; 
Minnesota; Massachusetts; Connecticut; and Wisconsin in 1979; Maryland 
and Hawaii in 1980; Oregon in 1981; Maine; West Virginia; and Rhode 
Island in 1983; Iowa; Louisiana; and Delaware in 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even conceding for purposes of argument the proponents of 
this bill's understanding of the vast breadth of the District 
Clause, the bill would actually set a terrible precedent for 
civil rights, and be unfair to others.
    The bill provides for only one Representative for D.C. and 
not two Senators as well. As Professor Jonathan Turley has 
written, that is akin to pretending as if ``allowing Rosa Parks 
to move to the middle of the bus would have been a civil rights 
victory.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Jonathan Turley, ``Too Clever by Half: the Unconstitutional 
D.C. Voting Rights Bill,'' Roll Call (January 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill requires us to ask what will happen in the future 
under the precedent it sets? Will future Congresses use this 
same authority to grant D.C. two, five, or ten or more Members, 
or Senators, when politically expedient? Will they take them 
back again if they vote the wrong way? This bill invites 
political gamesmanship and manipulation of the District's 
representation.
    Further, surely if Congress can give voting rights to D.C. 
under the constitution by statute--and ignore other provisions 
of the Constitution in the process--then Congress can take 
rights away. Under the constitutional theory of proponents of 
this bill, Congress could, by statute, deny D.C. voters the 
protection from racial discrimination in voting under the 
Fifteenth Amendment, deny them the protections from 
discrimination in voting based on sex in the Nineteenth 
Amendment, and take away the right to vote to those over 18 
granted by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, all under the 
``plenary'' authority of the District Clause. Again, this bill 
sets a very bad precedent by opening up the possibility of such 
abuses.
    This bill also arguably subjects our men and women training 
for the military at Forts around the country to unfair, unequal 
treatment. The very same Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the 
Constitution, which supporters of this bill say gives Congress 
the authority to grant D.C. a Member of Congress by statute, 
grants the very same authority to Congress to do the same thing 
for our men and women training for the military at Forts around 
the country. That very same clause of the Constitution states: 
``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise like 
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the 
Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the 
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dockyards, and other 
needful Buildings; . . .'' So if the District Clause grants 
Congress the authority to grant D.C. a voting Member by 
statute, then it must also grant Congress the authority to 
grant military forts their own voting Members in the House. Mr. 
Gohmert offered two amendments to make that very point at a 
time when Members of the majority party are advocating 
hamstringing the efforts of our men and women in the military.
    The bill cries out for a provision requiring expedited 
judicial review of the constitutionality of its provisions to 
make sure that, if the bill unconstitutionally grants D.C. a 
voting Member, that unconstitutional action does not go on any 
longer than it has to. Such an amendment was offered by Ranking 
Member Smith, but rejected on a party line vote. That amendment 
would simply have required expedited judicial review of the 
constitutionality of the provisions of H.R. 1433. The 
amendment's language was substantively identical to the 
expedited judicial review provisions in the McCain-Feingold 
campaign finance law, Public Law 107-155, which were employed 
to facilitate the Supreme Court's expeditious review of that 
legislation.
    Opponents of that amendment claimed that an expedited 
review of the legislation would already be provided by 28 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2284 and 1253. But that is far from clear. 28 
U.S.C. Sec. 2284 only applies to ``action[s] filed challenging 
the constitutionality of an apportionment of congressional 
district or the apportionment of any statewide legislative 
body.'' The creation of a new House Member to represent a non-
State constitutes neither an ``apportionment''--which Black's 
Law Dictionary defines as ``the allocation of congressional 
representatives among the states based on population'' \7\--nor 
something relating to a ``statewide legislative body.'' 
Further, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1253 states that ``any party may appeal 
to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after 
notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in 
any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of 
Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of 
three judges.'' However, nothing in that section requires the 
Supreme Court to ever hear the case, and absent a statutory 
requirement the Supreme Court retains the discretion regarding 
whether and when to hear a case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (apportionment) (emphasis 
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, the amendment requiring expedited judicial 
review offered by Ranking Member Smith would have required that 
the case be brought in the District of Columbia before a three-
judge federal district court with direct appeal to the Supreme 
Court. Most importantly, Ranking Member Smith's amendment 
provided that ``It shall be the duty of the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme 
Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to 
expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the 
action and appeal.'' The amendment also set out specific time 
frames within which the filings of notices of appeal and 
jurisdictional statements must be made. The amendment also 
provided for challenges to the law or intervention by Members 
of Congress, just as the McCain-Feingold law provided for. 
Obviously, if the votes of Members of Congress are to be 
diluted by the creation of additional Members whose seats are 
unconstitutional, such Members should have the ability to be a 
part of a legal challenge to that unconstitutional action.
    Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults 
frequently for his views, said in his remarks offered at the 
hearing on the bill held in the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, ``Permit me to 
be blunt, I consider this Act to be the most premeditated 
unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.'' As Professor 
Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal challenge to this 
bill could produce chaos. With a relatively close party 
division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote 
subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity 
of untold pieces of future legislation into question.
    If the existence of either the new District Member, or the 
new Utah Member, is subject to a temporary or permanent 
injunction, a provision of the Act would not have been 
technically ``declared or held invalid or unenforceable.'' 
Rather, it could be enjoined for years on appeal, without any 
declaration or holding of unenforceability. By adding a 
district for Utah, that new seat would add another electoral 
vote for Utah in the presidential election. Given the 
experience of the last two presidential elections, it is 
possible that another presidential tie or one-vote margin in 
the Electoral College could be mired in litigation surrounding 
this very bill.
    Most people understand that the District of Columbia is not 
a state, and that the Constitution, unless amended, allows 
Members of Congress to be elected only by citizens of the 
several States. Congress knows a constitutional amendment is 
required to change that, and Congress passed such an amendment 
to the states in 1978, but only 16 of the required 38 states 
ratified it. There is absolutely no reason to prolong a 
judicial resolution of these important issues, especially when 
doing so risks constitutional chaos regarding the validity of 
future legislation passed by the House.
    When the House Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of 
Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress, reported 
out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to 
be able to do, the report accompanying that constitutional 
amendment stated the following: ``If the citizens of the 
District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a 
constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action alone 
will not suffice.'' \8\ If this committee does not want to take 
advice from its own Democratic predecessors, it should have at 
least been willing to submit the question to the Supreme Court 
on an expedited basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ H. Rep. No. 95-886 (95th Cong., 2d Sess.) at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the bill would require superimposing an at-large 
seat onto the existing three seats elected by district in Utah. 
In doing so, it would require the creation of an anomalous 
situation that this country has not seen since the development 
of the Supreme Court's ``one man, one vote'' line of cases. In 
effect, under this ``at-large'' arrangement, all voters in Utah 
would be able to vote for two Representatives--their district 
Representative and their at-large Representative--whereas 
voters in the rest of country would only be able to vote for 
their one district Representative. This situation would result 
in Utah voters' having disproportionately large voting power 
compared to voters in the other States, and it could make the 
bill even more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. In any 
case, the Utah legislature met in special session last year to 
pass a new redistricting plan to accommodate an additional 
Member into Utah's districting map. Requiring Utah to resort to 
an ``at-large'' seat in the bill would require negating that 
effort of the Utah legislature. Mr. Cannon and Mr. 
Sensenbrenner both offered amendments that could have 
ameliorated, but not eliminated, the potential constitutional 
flaws of the legislation, but such amendments were not adopted 
by the Committee.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   Howard Coble.
                                   Elton Gallegly.
                                   Bob Goodlatte.
                                   Steve Chabot.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   Steve King.
                                   Tom Feeney.
                                   Trent Franks.

                            Dissenting Views

    I write to express my constitutional concerns regarding the 
at-large provision in H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007.
    Most everyone on this Committee will agree that District of 
Columbia residents should have representation in the House of 
Representatives. The question is how to achieve this goal.
    H.R. 1433 seeks to solve this problem by authorizing a new 
voting Member for the District of Columbia, and also a new 
Member for the State of Utah. Unfortunately, the bill provides 
that the new seat established in Utah shall be filled by a 
Member elected at-large. Choosing to proceed in this manner is 
fraught with constitutional concerns.
    The provision of this bill that would make the additional 
seat in Utah one that would be filled at-large is problematic. 
Superimposing an at-large seat onto the existing three seats 
elected by district in Utah would create an anomalous situation 
that this country has not seen since the development of the 
Supreme Court's ``one man, one vote'' line of cases. As 
Professor Turley noted during his testimony on the hearing for 
H.R. 1433, in effect, under this at-large arrangement, all 
voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives--
their district Representative and their at-large 
Representative--whereas voters in the rest of country would 
only be able to vote for their one district Representative. 
This situation would result in Utah voters having 
disproportionately large voting power compared to voters in the 
other States.
    Ever since the ``one-man, one-vote'' doctrine was 
established in Wesberry v. Sanders,\1\ at-large districts have 
been frowned upon. Congress even codified it in 1967. Justice 
Stevens has noted, ``As I read the 1967 statute it entirely 
prohibits States that have more than one congressional district 
from adopting either a multimember district or electing their 
Representatives in at-large elections.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
    \2\ Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 286 (2003)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in 
any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one 
Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the 
provisions of subsection (a) of section 22 of the Act of June 
18, 1929, entitled 'An Act to provide for apportionment of 
Representatives' (46 Stat. 26), as amended, there shall be 
established by law a number of districts equal to the number of 
Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and 
Representatives shall be elected only from districts so 
established, no district to elect more than one Representative 
(except that a State which is entitled to more than one 
Representative and which has in all previous elections elected 
its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at 
Large to the Ninety-first Congress).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Pub. L. 90-196, 81 Stat. 581 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To rectify the constitutional trouble with an at-large 
district, last year the Utah legislature met in special session 
to approve a redistricting map adding a fourth congressional 
seat to the State's delegation. This was done to assuage my 
concerns regarding the constitutionality of an at-large seat. 
Requiring Utah to resort to an at-large seat in the bill would 
require negating that effort of the Utah legislature. I offered 
an amendment to remove the at-large seat and resort back to 
Utah's map, which raises no constitutional red flags, but it 
was not adopted by the Committee.
    The Wesberry Court stated that congressional representation 
must be based on population as nearly as is practicable. H.R. 
1433 fails to meet this standard.
    In its current form, the District of Columbia House Voting 
Rights Act fails to meet the basic one-person, one-vote 
requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

                      Additional Dissenting Views

    Last year, Congress passed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa 
Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 
and Amendments Act of 2006. In reauthorizing this important 
civil rights law, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held 
twelve hearings examining the ongoing discrimination 
experienced by minority voters in Section 5 covered 
jurisdictions. The Subcommittee heard testimony that one of the 
most frequently used election practices that has been and 
continues to be used by state and local jurisdictions to 
diminish the weight of a vote is through the use of at-large 
elections. It is ironic that the Majority now incorporates this 
type of election practice into such an important bill, 
rejecting efforts to ensure that protections provided in the 
Constitution are preserved.

                                   Steve Chabot.

                                  
