Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the D.c. Statehood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate debates model resolution opposing D.C. statehood, places measure for further consideration
Summary
On Feb. 9, 1994, Utah senators debated SCR 8, a model resolution criticizing the federal process for pursuing Washington, D.C., statehood. Supporters said Congress was short-circuiting normal state-consent procedures; opponents argued D.C. residents lack full Congressional representation. The measure was recorded and placed for further consideration.
The Utah Senate on Feb. 9 debated a concurrent resolution (SCR 8) opposing the manner in which Congress has pursued statehood for Washington, D.C., with supporters calling the federal process procedurally improper and opponents arguing it denies residents full representation in Congress.
Senator David Watson introduced SCR 8 as a model concurrent resolution urging states to express concern about the federal process used to pursue D.C. statehood. Watson said the problem was not necessarily with the idea of statehood but with what he called an "inappropriate way to do it without first the consent and allow the process to go through state ratification." He framed the resolution as a message that Congress should follow normal ratification procedures rather than unilaterally changing the Districts status.
Several senators urged a different view. Senator Ward said he would likely vote against the measure and argued that many D.C. residents "do not have effective representation in the congress and the national legislature"; he emphasized that people living in the District are American citizens who pay taxes and deserve full representation. Other senators questioned the population basis and political implications of the proposal.
After extended discussion that covered both procedural objections and the substantive representation question, the roll call was read and the clerk reported the tally in the transcript as "17 i's, 9 a's, 3 absent." The Senate recorded the result and placed the resolution for further consideration on the calendar rather than disposing of it in that session.
What happens next: SCR 8 was placed for later consideration; the body did not adopt final implementing legislation on the floor on Feb. 9. Any subsequent action would appear on a later calendar listing.
