Some paper wrote:
Expanding House Voting for the District of Columbia and Delegates - The House voted 226-191 Tuesday to adopt a resolution sponsored by Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., that would allow the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico and delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands to vote on amendments on the House floor. But if those votes would decide an issue, a new vote limited to full House members would be taken.
But, anyway, both Puerto Rico and Guam have had local referendums in the past where they opted not to pursue statehood. As a result, they (along with the other territories) do not pay federal income tax, can not vote in federal elections and do not have a bona fide Representative in the House, nor a Senator. I believe that Puerto Rico has a non-voting member in the House who gets to pipe up with opinions but receives no vote.
So should they get a vote? The Constitution makes no provisions for "unincorporated territories" and says that "states" receive representatives in the House...
The Constitution wrote:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Or should we even maintain territories? I don't believe that any of the territories feel particularly subjugated (although, I think there's a soverignty movement in Puerto Rico) but that alone doesn't justify keeping them. Should we lump them together into a single "state" with a Representative of the Combined Territories or somesuch? I'm not saying it's a great idea but it might beat four delegates who can only vote when it doesn't matter.
The District of Columbia is another kettle of fish entirely.
Edited, Jan 30th 2007 8:15am by Jophiel