Frank StaheliThe 4-District Plan
Monday the Utah legislature passed “Plan L”, which provides for a fourth district for Utah in the United States House of Representatives. But it doesn’t look like Congress is going to vote on “the compromise plan”, also giving Washington D.C. a seat in the House, this year.
Chris Cannon definitely wants to vote on it as soon as possible next year, and it looks like most members of Utah government are in favor of having a fourth seat. I am, too, just not the way we are going about it.
It’s hard to not want a fourth seat now after what happened to Utah in the 2000 census. So I applaud, to an extent, those in the Utah legislature who voted against a fourth-district plan because of its Constitutional implications. But, considering that the Utah legislature has to be prepared for whatever the US Congress decides, I also support having a plan in place.
Were I in the Utah legislature, I would have voted for the plan, but I would have also made it clear that this does not mean that I support Utah receiving a fourth House seat in an ill-gotten manner.
What’s your opinion on this issue?
December 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Frank - I think the idea of having a plan in place for a fourth seat makes sense. But, pushing for one now in a way that violates the Constitution is wrong. I’d rather wait a few years.
On a related matter, I’d like to see DC get statehood (the current city government could become state government rather than creating a state government in the city in addition to city government).
As a principle of better government, it’s probably also time to increase the number of members of the house of representatives. Reduce the population size from it’s current number (around 700,000 per district I believe) to 500,000. The House of Reps would increase to approximately 600 members from todays 435. I’d guess the partisan balance of the house would remain largely unchanged.
I’ve also heard proposals to eliminate or alter the role of the Senate. In Britain, the House of Lords has reduced its function from substantive to almost entirely symbolic, suggesting to some American thinkers we should follow that path with the Senate. I’m not sure about that - the House can be pretty wild and wooly and impulsive and the Senate provides a valuable brake on the house. I suspect, however, changing the Senate’s role would impact behavior of the House for the better - encouraging them to become more deliberative rather than less.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Since you asked, I am not happy with the idea of redrawing congressional districts any old time (even though the courts agreed with Tom DeLay). Once every ten years is good enough.
Even if it takes a Constitutional amendment, the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia ought to have a voting representative in the House.
Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised by Plan L. It makes UT-02 an urban district again. Of course, in a state that’s 80 percent urban it’s not fair to make the congressional districts 75 percent rural. But it’s a start, if we ever want to see bona fide wilderness legislation introduced by a Utah congressman or congresswoman.