Speaker Eleanor Holmes Norton 2014!

[2sense]

@Ravenman

You get upset when I make the relevant argument that the whole scheme will be viewed as racially insensitive. What else would you like me to say, that I don’t like the font you’re using?

I’m sorry if I struck a nerve. I mean, I can see why someone would not be happy about what they see as an attempt to further exploit the already exploited. I get that. I’d like you to say what you want to say but your judgement seems to be clouded and if there isn’t going to be any real give and take then I’m not all that interested in responding. We disagree about the benefits of the plan but you won’t discuss that. You quote my arguments but ignore them. Your quote here simply reasserts your bait and switch narrative while pretending to be a response to a challenge of that exactly that assertion.

My plan should not be considered racist because it helps blacks. If successful it not only enfranchises the federal city but gives their representative the power of the presiding officer of the House (so long as Dems are in power) and clout on the campaign trail. I’m not saying black support for the Democratic Party is dwindling but only expected to return to normal without Obama on the ticket. (Turnout between elections is measured as a percentage of total votes cast. Blacks were 13% in 2008 and 2012 and only 10% in 2010 and 2006.) My constitutional argument is simply this: The Constitution gives the House the power to make its own rules. The rules say the Speaker votes.

If the unthinkable happened and this plan worked it might be in the interest of the GOP to support a constitutional amendment to grant representation to DC in the House. That would undermine the rationale for the representative of the federal city to always serve as Speaker.

[John_Mace]

If I give money to black charities, thinking that blacks are just too stupid to help themselves, that’s not racist? My money “helps blacks” after all.

[2sense]

I would say that you are correct, that’s not racist. The act itself that is rather than the motive. But whatever the semantics helpful acts are helpful and I encourage everyone who thinks blacks are stupid to donate as much as they can afford to black charities. More than they can afford even.

[Saint_Cad]

@2sense

If the will of the assembly (as expressed in the rules adopted) does indeed trump parliamentary law in the House then your whole argument is undone.

But it doesn’t. Rules of Order are always subordinate to parliamentary law.

[2sense]

Then what does the paragraph from Deschler’s Precedents mean? Or this one from Robert’s Rules?

Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules for conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the usages of deliberative assemblies in general. In England these usages of Parliament form a part of the unwritten law of the land, and in our own legislative bodies they are of authority in all cases where they do not conflict with existing rules or precedents.

(Bolding mine. I found the paragraph online so it’s probably from the 4th Edition which I believe to be the most up to date in the public domain.)

[Ravenman]

@2sense

I get that. I’d like you to say what you want to say but your judgement seems to be clouded and if there isn’t going to be any real give and take then I’m not all that interested in responding. We disagree about the benefits of the plan but you won’t discuss that. You quote my arguments but ignore them.

I think you think my judgment is clouded because I don’t agree with anything you’ve said. I understand what you have proposed and I truly think there is no possible upside to the idea, as I’ll further explain in a minute. Asking me to discuss the upsides of the plan is like asking me to discuss the upsides of a US invasion of Iran: I can’t.

Your quote here simply reasserts your bait and switch narrative while pretending to be a response to a challenge of that exactly that assertion.

I don’t understand what you mean by “bait and switch.” What, precisely, have I baited and switched?

Anyway, let me lay out my views as clearly as I can:

1.) It is a problem that DC has no voting representation. However, the plan you propose is a band-aid that suffers from several fatal flaws: the Democrats do not have control of the House and might not have control of the House for many years due to gerrymandering; making the proposal moot. And even if Dems took the House, DC would lose their voting member under this plan if Republicans ever took over the House again.

2.) Even you aren’t totally convinced of the legality of a non-Member Speaker getting a vote. You stated that St. Cad made some interesting arguments, and you can’t provide an expert cite for what you’ve argued.

3.) Other than DC representation, I’ve not convinced there is a problem. You have shown that African American turnout decreases during off-year elections, but as I stated before, comparing presidential election years to non-presidential election years doesn’t really show anything. If African-American voter turnout decreases during off-year elections during the Obama Administration, what exactly is being proven anyway? Why would Speaker Norton turn out African Americans in off-year elections if President Obama doesn’t have the same effect?

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any issue with African American support of Democratic candidates, black or white. Hillary Clinton has about the same level of approval among African Americans as Obama does. So, what is the problem that needs to be solved? You haven’t established that there is one.

4.) Congressional leadership doesn’t drive voting patterns. Nobody who isn’t in San Francisco is voting for Pelosi to be Speaker again. Nobody who isn’t in Ohio is voting for Boehner to be Speaker again. People fucking HATE Congress, and congressional leaders drive people to the polls for the purposes of voting AGAINST Congress, not for its leadership. Look at congressional leaders’ approval ratings: Boehner is at 37%, Reid is at 33%, Pelosi is at 39%, and McConnell is at 35%.

The idea that Speaker Norton would get people to turn out to vote is totally contrary to how people view Congress: in general, voters like their own representative and hate everyone elses, and don’t like congressional leaders at all.

5.) No matter how you slice it, the plan will backfire. As I’ve said before: no matter whether you strip the Speaker of power before appointing Norton, or after; people will see that an African American has been appointed as a figurehead for what had been one of the most important offices in the US Government that has been neutered.

6.) I think it is a mistake to think that African American voters only get excited about black candidates. Not only do I think that it is patronizing, I don’t think it’s particularly true. Bill Clinton had consistently high approval among African Americans because he favored good policies, not because of the color of his skin.

7.) Nobody wants to see Norton as Speaker. She’s unknown nationally, it appears she doesn’t even have a leadership PAC to raise money for Democratic candidates: so while Steny Hoyer raises a couple million bucks each cycle for Dems in close races, Norton doesn’t have the same draw (and doesn’t even seem to bother).

8.) There’s no point in creating “political symmetry” between the House and Senate leadership structures. The current power structure has been mostly in place (with some evolution) for about a century, and I truly see no point in fixing something for which I can’t see any substantive problem.

The only benefit I can see for the plan is that it might get some people to pay more attention to DC voting rights, but honestly very few people outside of DC will ever care very much; and as I explained, the plan isn’t actually a solution to the issue.

[Saint_Cad]

Being unwritten, the question is does Parliamentary Law overrule Rules of Order. One idea in PL is the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority so any Rule that would exclude the minority from debate or voting is out of order even if passes.

You may want to read up on US v. Ballin (1892) as to how SCOTUS dealt with written rules, precedent (the disappearing quorum), the Constitution (requirement for quorum) and parliamentary law. To your point

The other branch of the question is, whether, a quorum being present, the bill received a sufficient number of votes; and here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. As, for instance, in those States where the constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the Federal Constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.

In this case Parliamentary Law gives way to written Rules but IMO studying PL (I am studying to be an RP) there are certain elements of PL that cannot be overturned by written rules such as conducting business without a quorum or as stated above unfairly oppresing the rights of the minority. IMO, expanding votes to non-members is one of those that would be out of order even if legally passed because of the violation of the definition of deliberative bodies and it could be used to oppress the minority - like your example would do (an extra vote).

[2sense]

I took your advice and read up on the Supreme Court decision you cited and found a sentence that addresses our situation more closely.

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained.

So as you say it is not that the rulemaking ability of the House gives way to all of Parliamentary Law but only that it can not be used to violate fundamental rights. Clearly the right to vote is one of those so the question is: does the vote of a Speaker not elected as a Representative violate that right. I’ll look into it further but it looks to me like you have made your case.

[2sense]

@Ravenman

I don’t understand what you mean by “bait and switch.” What, precisely, have I baited and switched?

You are accusing me of bait and switch. Since your 2nd post you have maintained a narrative of “Give a black woman a job and take most of the power away” as if it is some racist insult to offer Eleanor Holmes Norton a promotion to the new Speakership because it has less authority than the old Speakership.

1.) It is a problem that DC has no voting representation.

Perfect is the enemy of good?

2.) Even you aren’t totally convinced of the legality of a non-Member Speaker getting a vote.

It’s worse than that I’m afraid. At this point I’m almost totally convinced that it would be illegal. Which would make this entire discussion moot.

3.) Other than DC representation, I’ve not convinced there is a problem.

It’s entirely up to you whether to see the expected return to lower rates of African-American turnout as a problem or not. But this expectation does exist and for good reason. I’ve shown the decrease in off-year elections during the Obama Administration and there is a large gap. Speaker Norton wouldn’t have any off-year elections. She would be running every 2 years.

4.) Congressional leadership doesn’t drive voting patterns.

NASCAR drivers always turn left. That’s how the tracks are laid out. I bet though that if they turned the races around and went the other way that the drivers would adapt.

5.) No matter how you slice it, the plan will backfire.

I think you have a solid point that the novelty of the situation works against it but I think you underestimate the ability of people to see the benefits of a benefit. Blacks aren’t dumb.

6.) I think it is a mistake to think that African American voters only get excited about black candidates.

Would you care to guess what African-American turnout was in Bill Clinton’s final election in 1996? I don’t disagree with your assertion here but it’s one thing to like a candidate and another feel involved in an historic campaign.

7.) Nobody wants to see Norton as Speaker.

Nobody but me it would seem. But her current low profile works against your fourth point that people hate congressional leaders. If they don’t know her they don’t start out hating her.

8.) There’s no point in creating “political symmetry” between the House and Senate leadership structures.

I’m listing it as a benefit in that it would simplify American politics a tiny bit. But as you say, it’s really minor.

[Ravenman]

@2sense

You are accusing me of bait and switch. Since your 2nd post you have maintained a narrative of “Give a black woman a job and take most of the power away” as if it is some racist insult to offer Eleanor Holmes Norton a promotion to the new Speakership because it has less authority than the old Speakership.

Ah – now I see what you mean. You explained my argument in clearer terms than I could!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@2sense

The same process could happen here. Republicans are naturally opposed to enfranchising DCers who are never going to vote for this GOP in large numbers but if the Democrats succeeded in doing so Republicans might find it suddenly in their interest to push a constitutional amendment to deprive the Dems an electoral advantage.

@Ravenman

I’m confused - Republicans would push for a constitutional amendment to do what? Give or prohibit enfrancising DC voters?

I don’t see where you ever answered this, and I am also confused. You want Democrats to pass a bill giving the vote to DC residents so Republicans will push for an amendment disenfranchising them again?

[2sense]

This was my answer:

If the unthinkable happened and this plan worked it might be in the interest of the GOP to support a constitutional amendment to grant representation to DC in the House. That would undermine the rationale for the representative of the federal city to always serve as Speaker.