A Stitch in Haste

To review: I accept the premise that it is fundamentally unfair for residents of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other non-states to have no voting representation in Congress. However, the Constitution says what it says and must be obeyed — that is simply not negotiable.

Unless, of course, you're a partisan politician:

The House gave D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton the right yesterday to vote on amendments to bills on the House floor, a privilege that legislators acknowledged is largely symbolic.
...
The measure allows Norton and representatives from Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands to vote in the Committee of the Whole, where amendments to legislation are considered.

But it comes with an important caveat: If the delegates' votes provide the margin of victory, their votes are thrown out and representatives revote without them.

I find it fascinating that Norton considers this a defeat ("heartbreaking," she says) that may deflect calls for full (i.e., unconstitutional) representation in the House. That's crocodile tears — she and the Democratic leadership want this issue in the limelight as much as possible. It's not hard to envision all the future press conferences and floor speeches: "Half an injustice is still an injustice!" etc.

It's quite simple really: We amended the Constitution once before to partially enfranchise the District; we can amend it again to fully enfranchise it — either by expressly altering the composition of the House, the Senate or both, or by simply making the District a bona fide state.

More:

House Republicans filed suit in U.S. District Court in 1993, citing a violation of the Constitution. But Judge Harold H. Greene ruled in favor of Norton and the other delegates, saying their votes posed no constitutional problems because they were "symbolic" and therefore "meaningless." That decision was upheld on appeal.

That's a very myopic, superficial view of how voting works. Game theory and the mathematics of strategic voting (not to mention the corrupting nature of political power) tell us that "meaningless" votes can easily turn meaningful, especially when revotes are at stake. Consider the examples of voting in committee versus voting on the floor, voting to end a filibuster but then voting against the bill being filibustered, or voting for a bill but voting against overriding its veto by the president.

The more votes taken, the more wheeling and dealing can occur. As we are seeing at this very moment, some of the most important votes in Congress are supposedly "symbolic." All the more reason that a (constitutional) all-or-other approach to District enfranchisement must be taken.

---

As for Puerto Rico and the other territories, they are even less deserving of sympathy. Every time the commonwealth takes a vote for change (i.e., statehood or independence), they reject it and opt for the status quo. They're not fools — they know which side their passports (and tax returns) are buttered on.