DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[ꙮ]

the simplest thing to do is to just make the district the federal buildings and add 3 EVs to whoever won the Electoral College

What does that mean? The electoral college votes in December and all of the electors who are voting have to be selected before that.

Yes, but usually we know the winner way before? If there are mass faithless electors then we have bigger issues than how DC's 3 district votes were allocated.

I'm pretty sure you need a constitutional amendment for what I think you're talking about (project how we expect the non-DC electors to vote and give them to whomever we expect to win a majority of the non-DC electors). There's no winner of the electoral college until Jan 6. Everything until that point is unofficial.

DC’s electors are selected however congress may decide.

The obvious solution would be to have the rump electors be appointed by congress and directed to abstain.

It would increase the odds of an electoral college deadlock. 271 votes to win out of 541. With 3 abstentions that means 270-268 is a “tie vote” and goes to the House.

This could lead to the lovely scenario of a candidate receiving a majority of the electoral votes actually cast and still losing. Imagine Biden’s 2020 map, minus NV, GA, WI, and NE-2 (gerrymandering?). That’s 270-268 with 3 electors abstaining. House votes, Republican wins.

Really the best scenario is to have them vote for the popular vote winner. Ideally the 23rd Amendment would be repealed before 2024 if statehood happens, rendering the issue moot.

[7,052,770]

Really the best scenario is to have them vote for the popular vote winner. Ideally the 23rd Amendment would be repealed before 2024 if statehood happens, rendering the issue moot.

The key question is whether Republican states will refuse to ratify the 28th amendment repealing the 23rd just to spite Democrats. I think a lot of them probably will, but giving the 3 EVs to the popular vote winner may incentivize them to do it.

[Virginiá]

Tbf everyone knew that the electoral votes of the district part was going to need to be handled eventually, the simplest thing to do is to just make the district the federal buildings and add 3 EVs to whoever won the Electoral College, if there's a 269-269 tie, then they could be left blank or go to the winner of the popular vote.

Another option: Give the 3 electoral votes to Doug Lamborn's son, who will vote absentee out of his Capitol basement storage room abode.

[Not Me, Us]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

[emailking]

DC’s electors are selected however congress may decide.

Can they be selected based on future events though? That seems dubious.

I agree they can be pledged to abstain though.

[emailking]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

[SteveRogers]

Tbf everyone knew that the electoral votes of the district part was going to need to be handled eventually, the simplest thing to do is to just make the district the federal buildings and add 3 EVs to whoever won the Electoral College, if there's a 269-269 tie, then they could be left blank or go to the winner of the popular vote.

Another option: Give the 3 electoral votes to Doug Lamborn's son, who will vote absentee out of his Capitol basement storage room abode.

Capitol dungeons: Safe D —> Likely R

[MillennialModerate]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

How is that so when they were awarded via a constitutional amendment?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

How is that so when they were awarded via a constitutional amendment?

The amendment itself gives Congress the power to determine how they’re allocated.

[MillennialModerate]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

How is that so when they were awarded via a constitutional amendment?

The amendment itself gives Congress the power to determine how they’re allocated.

So why wasn’t that included in the first version?

IMO screwing with EV in any way that gives Dems an unseemly advantage is a bad look and one I don’t approve of. Make the EV abstain until its repealed

[brucejoel99]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

How is that so when they were awarded via a constitutional amendment?

The amendment itself gives Congress the power to determine how they’re allocated.

So why wasn’t that included in the first version?

IMO screwing with EV in any way that gives Dems an unseemly advantage is a bad look and one I don’t approve of. Make the EV abstain until its repealed

It literally was: Section 223 of H.R./S. 51 repeals the 1961 act providing for the federal district's participation in presidential elections, so this whole White House/Manchin controversy makes no sense.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Would changing how DC's EVs are allocated require a constitutional amendment or can they do it through legislation alone?

Legislation.

How is that so when they were awarded via a constitutional amendment?

The amendment itself gives Congress the power to determine how they’re allocated.

So why wasn’t that included in the first version?

IMO screwing with EV in any way that gives Dems an unseemly advantage is a bad look and one I don’t approve of. Make the EV abstain until its repealed

It literally was: Section 223 of H.R./S. 51 repeals the 1961 act providing for the federal district's participation in presidential elections, so this whole White House/Manchin controversy makes no sense.

Joe Manchin wanted a reason to be a dick because being a dick is his brand, so he made one up.
It’s really as simple as that.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If D's net gain seats and get a Supermajority, Tester, Sinema, and Manchin will all vote in lock step with D's, since they are all up in 2024, Sinema is co sponsor of HR 1

Baker is kneck and kneck with Healey as long as Biden is a Majority Prez, thanks to 2K cheques, there won't be a Red wave

[Non Swing Voter]

If D's net gain seats and get a Supermajority, Tester, Sinema, and Manchin will all vote in lock step with D's, since they are all up in 2024, Sinema is co sponsor of HR 1

Baker is kneck and kneck with Healey as long as Biden is a Majority Prez, thanks to 2K cheques, there won't be a Red wave

They are not getting a supermajority.  But this is right.  DC statehood isn't going to happen unless Democrats expand their senate control by at least a couple of seats (and also retain the house).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

AOC was the one that called it that, she said I quote if Trump continues to block the Stimulus D's would get a Supermajority Senate which means not 60 or 67 seats but enough seats to pass Filibuster reform and Maintenance of H and 53 seats is the magic number if we won NC and ME it would of been passed in 2021 not 2023

[7,052,770]

A thought I just had ... would there be any constitutional issues for Congress to direct the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to hold presidential elections, and to  allocate those 3 extra electoral votes to the winners of each of those 3 territories?

It's still not full equality for them, but it allows those Americans to have some say in the presidential election process, better than nothing.

[brucejoel99]

A thought I just had ... would there be any constitutional issues for Congress to direct the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to hold presidential elections, and to  allocate those 3 extra electoral votes to the winners of each of those 3 territories?

It's still not full equality for them, but it allows those Americans to have some say in the presidential election process, better than nothing.

No, since the 23rd Amendment permits Congress to direct the appointment of the 3 district electors however they see fit.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

I mean did anyone in Congress actually even make this argument in good faith?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Great I hope they pass this

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

*Yawn*

Until Joe Manchin out of his own mouth says "I support DC statehood", then I won't get excited.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

👀

[MillennialModerate]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

*Yawn*

Until Joe Manchin out of his own mouth says "I support DC statehood", then I won't get excited.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Manchin just said he's not breaking Filibuster again, I doubt DC Statehood passes, but if D's do break the rules it will be a breakdown in negotiations, so Commission won't pass

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1396814787510689793

*Yawn*

Until Joe Manchin out of his own mouth says "I support DC statehood", then I won't get excited.

This

The idea that Joe Manchin has good faith legal concerns and isn't just looking for some very serious moderate cred is risable