DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[emailking]

I agree that if a Senator had reached the point of declaring DC statehood is a tax and spend bill, then they're mostly likely for nuking the filibuster anyway at that point.

[emailking]

Depends whether you think equal suffrage means (# of Senators)/(# of states), or the same number of Senators as any other state.

[emailking]

If it doesn't happen in the 117th congress, it's very likely not going to happen during this decade anymore.

Probably, I agree.. It's unfortunate.

Senate is possible but House is gone.

I think both are unlikely, but if the Dems pickup 2-3 in the Senate I wouldn't rule out them keeping the House even with redistricting.

How is this dead now? Last time I heard Manchin being asked, he said to be open to the idea. Or is the damn filibuster the problem? I guess they could nuke the filibuster for state admissions then, even if complete removal of the filibuster can't get done.

The filibuster is the problem, and Sinema appears to be more problematic than Manchin. She wants a 60 vote threshold for all Senate actions so I don't see why she'd vote make an exception for this.

[emailking]

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

Maybe we're wrong that it's dead, but how are you so confident that it's a given?

[emailking]

Yeah if the argument is that Sinema is going to eventually back down on the filibuster, ok I guess it can happen. But it's obviously not going to wind up in a reconciliation bill if the minimum wage can't.

[emailking]

There's a pretty strong legal argument that admission of new states is not subject to the filibuster in the first place since the process is described in the Constitution. All it would take is for 50 Senators to decide that (Courts would not be involved), and Sinema doesn't even have to look inconsistent. I think that's the best bet, although there are plenty of other plausible paths.

I'll happily eat crow if this ends up happening, but it seems like far from a sure thing, given how the last couple weeks have gone.

[emailking]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

According to Peak Harry, 100%.

I'm a lot more dubious. It requires Manchin and Sinema agreeing the filibuster should not apply to statehood. And Sinema says everything should require a 60 vote threshold.

[emailking]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

According to Peak Harry, 100%.

I'm a lot more dubious. It requires Manchin and Sinema agreeing the filibuster should not apply to statehood. And Sinema says everything should require a 60 vote threshold.

What Sinema says =/= actual rules.

Ok? She needs to vote to uphold the filibuster won't apply. So what she thinks matters.

[emailking]

I think there are suggestions that the filibuster exemption in this case could be ruled by the parliamentarian, not a majority vote of the Senate changing the standing rules (because the admission of new states is governed by a different clause of the constitution than ordinary legislation).

Can't a Republican object to the ruling, necessitating the vote?

[emailking]

If she votes against statehood arguing that it needs the filibuster (it doesnt), she'll be seeing her 39% approval rating plummet even further.

I don't think she'd vote against statehood, just the procedural steps.

[emailking]

If she votes against statehood arguing that it needs the filibuster (it doesnt), she'll be seeing her 39% approval rating plummet even further.

I don't think she'd vote against statehood, just the procedural steps.

There’s no way statehood happens without the procedural steps.

Yeah that's why I don't think any of it happens.

[emailking]

How many procedural steps are there in admitting a state anyway?

I don't know but the one I'm worried about is the vote to not have a filibuster. If they can get past/around that, I think it goes through.

[emailking]

Biden wouldn't be making this statement if it weren't a done deal.

Yes he would because he's trying to make it happen. You really think Manchin & Sinema have given Biden private assurances that they will vote to overrule the parliamentarian in the event she rules the filibuster applies to statehood?

[emailking]

Biden wouldn't be making this statement if it weren't a done deal.

Yes he would because he's trying to make it happen. You really think Manchin & Sinema have given Biden private assurances that they will vote to overrule the parliamentarian in the event she rules the filibuster applies to statehood?

Maybe?

Yeah maybe. Sinema had said she won't overrule the Parliamentarian (not for this specifically but in general) and Manchin has been pretty definitive about not messing with the filibuster which is why I'm highly skeptical.

[emailking]

So there would be a governor and no longer be a mayor?

[emailking]

Also when can you expect to hear from the Parliamentarian re: the filibuster?

I don't think the Parliamentarian does that kind of thing on non-reconciliation bills.

Schumer can check with her if it's needed or not. If she says no, maybe Manchin & Sinema come along.

[emailking]

I’m amazed at how many people even on supposedly well-informed sites like this actually think Manchin and Sinema are conservatives, and nothing more than attention whores who will toe the party line when needed. Sure, they might make a stink about it, but they haven’t killed anything yet.

Manchin killed Tanden's nomination.

[emailking]

I’m amazed at how many people even on supposedly well-informed sites like this actually think Manchin and Sinema are conservatives, and nothing more than attention whores who will toe the party line when needed. Sure, they might make a stink about it, but they haven’t killed anything yet.

Manchin killed Tanden's nomination.

Which was the progressive thing to do.

Well he didn't toe the party line.

[emailking]

I’m amazed at how many people even on supposedly well-informed sites like this actually think Manchin and Sinema are conservatives, and nothing more than attention whores who will toe the party line when needed. Sure, they might make a stink about it, but they haven’t killed anything yet.

Manchin killed Tanden's nomination.

Pretty sure Sanders was against her nomination as well. Manchin just came out in front of it because it allowed him to be against one of Biden's nominee.

We can't know what anybody would have done on the floor but he's the only one who came out against it, so he effectively killed it.

[emailking]

So now we all think Manchin is going to play a bit a 4D chess?

No, he's just performing. He notably isn't opposed to DC statehood conceptually, just can't support the bill as it's currently written because he's not convinced it's constitutional.

Well if he thinks it needs a constitutional amendment to happen, then he won't find it constitutional however it's written.

[emailking]

I'm confused why CNN and MSNBC seem to be ignoring Machin's statement entirely. Whether the believe him or not, it's the kind of thing that gets reported pretty prominently.

[emailking]

I think an amendment would be needed if the entirety DC became a state, but if you carve out a small area for the federal district like this does I don't think an amendment is needed. An amendment should be passed after it becomes a state though to remove the 3 EV from the then depopulated federal district.

[emailking]

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.

[emailking]

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.

[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.