Talk:District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Worldrights

The blurb about Worldrights, in addition to being exactly the same as blurbs on other pages about DC statehood/voting rights, is advertising. So I'm deleting it. Natalie 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratification

Did any state legislatures vote on the proposed amendment and reject it? Did any consider and reject it in committee? Dynzmoar (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If it had been adopted

If this amendment had passed, and I understand it correctly, it would make DC equal, for all intents and purposes, to a state, yet not technically a state, right? Would that mean we'd still have the 50-star flag, for example, and still, at least in legal contexts, refer to "the 50 states and the District of Columbia"? Nik42 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I presume it would not have affected the flag or reference since it's quite specific on where the DC would be considered a state 203.109.240.93 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If this amendment had been adopted it would have required D.C. be on the same level of a State regarding Congressional representation, Presidential elections, and Article V (amendment process). It would not have made D.C. a State. D.C. would still have been a ward of the Congress. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Map

I'd like to suggest that a map showing ratifications/partial ratifications/rejections/abstentions be included as it has with the Equal Rights Amendment article.Graham1973 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What are "partial ratifications"? SMP0328. (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's where one house of a state legislature voted to ratify, but the other didn't. See the second ordered list at Equal Rights Amendment#In the state legislatures and in the courts. -Rrius (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702135703/http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml to http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird sentence I eliminated

I'm not sure what exactly is meant here:

It may have been the case that this amendment would have been interpreted such that selection of the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate would have explicitly and Constitutionally necessarily involved participation of the relevant Congressional representatives of the D.C.

I mean ...... yes, the amendment would have meant that DC representatives would've voted for Speaker along with representatives from the states, and likewise DC senators would've voted for the Senate president pro tem. I'm not sure why this would be considered notable, nor why it deserves this convoluted sentence describing it, so I eliminated the sentence. --Jfruh (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. That sentence added nothing, because the amendment would have needed to be interpreted in this way. D.C.'s Senators and Representative automatically would have been on a par with those of the States. Nothing in the amendment or its legislative history suggested otherwise. SMP0328. (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)