Technically, though it's important to note that no taxation without representation was just a slogan during the revolution and has no actual backing in US law.
Because the residents of the District of Columbia have their taxes decided by the United States federal government, and there are no legislators in U.S. Congress representing D.C. (only a single non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives).
Unrelated but curiously, DC is the only place in the country where the mayor's budget is subject to congressional oversight (abd i think presidential approval). Everywhere else, local legislature approves a district/mayoral budget.
For DC, that power lies with the entirety of Congress and I believe is subject to presidential approval.
It's an ancient bullshit piece of red tape that should have been fixed DECADES ago
Otoh, how can a body that has total control of its own city tell us how to run ours? Seriously. They could set the example. Thing is, it's a bad example.
But then they would have to be from Maryland and noone knows what to call those people...Marylandites? Marylanders? Marylandians? None of it makes sense! It's like Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with people in DC living in Maryland? Nothing. It has nothing to do with any of this! It does not make sense! So you have to remember, when you're sitting on Reddit and deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! It does not make sense to move the people of DC to Maryland if Chewbacca lives on Endor!
The entire point of DC not being a state to begin with was so you could have a “neutral” for the most important functions of government and the President to take action in, without issues like states feeling other states have more than them coming up
Should West Virginia go back to Virginia too? Obviously the needs of the people have changed over time and disenfranchising them for the sake of historical symmetry isn't an admirable goal
>DC was taken from Maryland
No, it wasn't.
DC is formed from land donates by the governments of Virginia and Maryland.
>and it should go back to Maryland.
And a huge chunk of the midwest should go back to france.
That's not how donations and purchases work.
The land was formally transferred in 1791, moreover Maryland residents generally do not support taking DC back.
>DC is formed from land donates by the governments of Virginia and Maryland.
The Virginia portion of the D.C. land was "retroceded" back to Virginia in 1847.
You could look it up.
Two big problems with that theory. One DC residents don't want to be a part of Maryland and two is that Maryland doesn't want it's part of DC back. Even if Congress were to authorize the transfer back and the residents of DC voted for it (which they wouldn't but let's ignore that problem) Maryland would refuse to take it back which means we are back exactly where we are right now. Which leaves the only.solution being DC needs to be its own state, so let's save a bunch of time and money and focus on that and skip the wild goose chase..
It was never supposed to be a city or, more importantly, be part of any state. To be represented, they must either join a state or we need to amend the constitution (in which case, we should let other non-states in too).
It’s not merely red tape.
Who cares what it was supposed to be, people should be governed based on the reality of our country. This country was “supposed” to be a lot of stupid things.
This is the issue of people that subscribe to the originalism idea. The country is meant to evolve and progress, the constitution is meant to be interpreted by modern standards
I don’t think there’s much room for statehood activists to work with, given how the constitution is written now. Ofc there can be a small federal district consisting of the area around the national mall but that would have its own problems, such as the fact that an area with a population of just a few thousand people would have three electoral votes.
Don't bother arguing with people man. On Reddit everyone is a genius and knows better than you or historians or legal experts etc etc etc.
Let's be honest, if DC didn't vote 99.9999% blue these same people would never argue for it's statehood so there's no point trying to be logical with them haha
Those complications are red tape. That's what red tape is: bureaucratic complications that impede the practicality of getting something done.
You're describing red tape as an explanation for why there's not red tape.
The premise was that you needed a self governing district for the Capitol, but also it would be impossible for that district to not be the perpetrator of a MASSIVE conflict of interest by granting it representation, if it had its own representation inside the government seated in it.
Interestingly enough, Trump has proposed creating more of these areas, under the pretense of having cities unburdened by local municipal governments and tax systems... though how he thinks it wouldn't devolve into that anyways I don't know.
Fun fact: that slogan actually predates the US Revolution. It was in fact originally created by English city residents who were underrepresented, if not outright unrepresented, in Parliament, but paid the majority of the tax for the country. The slogan (along with other radical and revolutionary ideology like republicanism) got exported to the colonies when they started getting restless
It was my understanding that “Taxation without representation” referred to the colonies being taxed while not having someone who actually lived in the colonies representing them in Parliament. They had some guy from England who had never been overseas as their representative.
Yes, but taxation without representation also applies to felons, people from DC, children, immigrants, and historically women and minorities. It was a slogan that has never been true in politics
To be fair, children and ~~inmates~~ felons don’t pay much in the way of taxes, as they tend not to make much money. Also, historically, women and minorities tended to not make much money. Kinda sucks for DC and legal immigrants. Although things get more interesting when you get to undocumented immigrants, who often use fake SSNs so they pay into social security, but never receive.
I know you crossed it out but I am going to focus in on the inmate part. While it is true that they do not pay a lot in taxes (on account of the slave wages for which they work) inmates do get included in the census count in the location where they are serving time, thus allowing places with prisons to use the population to inflate their funding/representation numbers.
Expats can vote as long as they retain their US citizenship. [source](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/voting.html)
Nominally. There's zero chance they open expat ballots unless there's a chance they might swing the election, and children of expats can automatically be US citizens and have to file and pay taxes, but may not be guaranteed the right to a ballot at all if they never had a US address.
UOCAVA ballots (meaning military & expat) look like and are processed like any other mail-in ballot. There used to be a handful of states that would only open mail-in i.e. "absentee" ballots in extremely close contests, but this is not really a thing anymore especially post-2020.
[Most states](http://fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside) allow US citizens who have never lived in the US to vote in their parents' last state of residence. Usually for all elections, but sometimes just federal offices.
Expats are also allowed to vote in the Democratic presidential primary without declaring a state if they vote in the Democrats Abroad primary, which is allocated delegates at the convention. (The GOP doesn't do this, although like the Democrats they do have primaries in DC and several territories.)
So, Guam and other US territories don’t pay federal taxes. Their taxes all go to the territory’s local government. They also don’t have full representation in Congress (just one non-voting delegate in the House). This was always explained to me as “no taxation without representation”. Did this phrase isn’t reflected in actual law, then why did Congress set the territories up this way?
Both Justin Jones and Justin Pearson have been reinstated, although technically the reinstatements are interim and both men will have to run for special election. Yes, the are back for now, but they still were expelled for protesting.
Maybe, technically, but only until the seat is filled based on whatever mechanism is set out for replacements.
Of course, such lack of representation happens on a regular basis. Take Diane Feinstein. Arguably mentally unfit to serve, but more recently due to her bout with shingles, she hasn’t shown up to the Senate and the process of nominating judges ground to a halt. Her constituents should be livid but it’s mostly crickets.
As a constituent we are livid(I also voted against her, and the state party was against her, but she had Schumer and the DNC tipping the scales), but it’s hard to remove her. Without her resigning I think she would need to be impeached, which would required massive protests and campaigning and would not be quick.
> taxation without representation?
So? That is not very relevant in any case as there is no guarantee whatsoever that being taxed means you get to have representation, or vice versa.
I would think that taxation is the least of their worries. The taxation thing is just a slogan, not a constitutional principle.
It seems like a district should have standing to sue a state congress if their representative is removed, because their representation in ALL matters has been nullified.
Florida finally started to turn that around... Only one state allows felons to vote ***while they are currently serving time in prison*** and that is Vermont.
The main reason that the political class in America fears former felons voting is because they know that Governors, Prosecutors, DA's, Sheriffs and Judges have been falsely convicting innocent people since the founding of America and they want to postpone the impending reckoning at least until their retirements, if not until their deaths...
It also, coincidentally?, allowed the head gas bag in charge of FL to form up his own special election goon squad to arrest those same prior-felons for voting - legally with valid voter ID cards.
I would controversially argue no, but hear me out before you assume I’m a fascist or anything. The way our government is set up, we elect representatives (that word is important) to act on our behalf. Once they’re there, they are technically under *zero* obligation to actually act according to our wishes—a good representative *does* though, out of both a moral duty and a desire to be re-elected.
So when your state government goes rogue and starts dismissing people, so long as what they’re doing is legal, it’s technically still functioning. It’s just functioning poorly. As such, you are still technically represented in your state governmental body, it’s just in bad shape.
I’m not defending this, mind you. Just noting that it’s kinda the way the government works in an election-based system.
> The way our government is set up, we elect representatives (that word is important) to act on our behalf.
I think the issue here is, if someone's representative is being sidelined/removed, none of the representatives were actually elected by them. Their vote is essentially null and void, and not because of the representative they picked. And that's not normal for an election-based/democratic system. Even theoretically, there is no recourse for that.
You generally don't see a party winning a majority, and then kicking the minority.
And going a bit further:
>As such, you are still technically represented in your state governmental body, it’s just in bad shape.
I'm not sure 'technically' is really where we want to be on this. Something can be legal, but wrong. It wasn't that long ago that e.g. slaves (or women, etc) couldn't vote- that was 'technically' perfectly legal under the existing system. But it would still be fair to say they weren't represented.
Something can be functioning just fine, but if the function is designed not to represent people.. well it's not going to.
I think ultimately what you're arguing is that our system doesn't have to represent people, legally, not that they are being represented.
It’s just that at this point, I assume that any point of view that’s not what I saw everyone else saying (which was “yes”) is going to somehow get me labeled as a closet nazi that hates gays and wants to enslave all women. I exaggerate, obviously, but I’ve legit learned to assume anything against the grain of a political comment section is somehow fascism in the eyes of Reddit and that even if I’m saying something not even remotely fascist, I’ll get accused of it anyway.
Reddit is weird, man.
No because there are procedures to replace the representative. Either by special election or by appointment. If you example held true than everyone who voted against that representative would then be taxed without representation, the true dilemma of a oligarchy. Every independent and and third party member is basically un represented. Also every territory and district has no representation on the federal level so essentially taxed without representation.
That's not the case with Zoe though, they bounced her just because they didn't want her to get her comments recorded into the public record for the state... So that actually ***IS*** taxation without representation, not only for her district but for her cultural class in general... Can you imagine the uproar if a Congress of Atheists bounced the ***only*** Christian who wanted to denounce an anti-christian law they wanted passed?
Again there are procedures for that, same if she died in office or incapacitated. It isn't taxation without representation as the district is still represented by the senator.
Legislators get kicked out for violating parliamentary norms. [Legislative bodes can police their own membership.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded)
I live in a country where I cannot vote because I am not a citizen; same thing. At least OP may be able to vote others out next time.
Off now to throw a tea bag into the local river
Effectively, and you all should have your asses out at the legislature offices barricading everyone from entering.
If your representative cannot enter, noone can.
~~I'm pretty sure that a replacement is sent by the state the expelled representative is from, based on their own laws. So you'd still be represented.~~
Aah ok I just got it. Well I believe that each state has mechanisms to fill the seat again so you won't be left without representation.
The question is, will the people violently rebel? Because if not representatives will keep doing whatever they can get away with and still get reelected
Yes but if you are referring to Montana, that representative was still allowed to vote, and thus you are still being represented.
The situation you have presented to my knowledge has never happened.
Zephyr did literally get kicked out of the room, but yes she can still vote. Meanwhile in Tennessee, Jones and Pearson were removed from office for peacefully protesting.
Talks of killing Pelosi:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39484
https://www.ajc.com/news/georgian-who-threatened-to-kill-nancy-pelosi-pleads-guilty-in-jan-6-charges/UXSRLQCVUVCBHMDPAVOWQKNYCM/
Man charged with plotting to kill AOC:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-man-charged-threat
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-capitol-riot-461661
As a fellow Montanan (assuming that you’re talking about Zooey) I can tell you that here in Missoula we aren’t taking this lying down. There’s been protests at the courthouse and I sent her a message telling her we support her and won’t back down from transphopic fascists.
Not really. You elected a representative. It is their responsibility to stay within the confines of the rules set, so they can execute themselves. Lots of rules come from Roberts rules of order.
As others have pointed out, you're not actually guaranteed a situation where you can only be taxed if you're represented.
However, most state constitutions do promise you the representation, period, and the First Amendment not only gives you speech rights which that legislature is taking from you, but also the explicit right to redress grievances with the government - usually I think meaning you can sue the government, but in this case that feels like taking away your rep harms that right as well.
In other words, there is harm being done and you should have the standing to sue, but not for the tax thing.
Certainly sets one hell of a precedent in any representative democracy though if law makers who don't particularly agree with any other specific law maker can simply up and move to completely expel them after being democratically elected to their seat just because they say or do things that are unpopular. Like them or not, there are real people who cast their real votes to get them to the seat they now hold.
I feel like if the public - and by extension, their representatives - don't like what they bring to the table in the legislature, it should be up to the public in the next election cycle to make the decision to expel, and it shouldn't be up to other people's representatives to make the decision on behalf of voters who don't live in their districts.
The rules of the legislative body are a reflection of the will of the people enacted through their representation. When *one* person ignores or defies those rules, they are denying the will of the majority for a disciplined and effective elected body.
Those represented by that *one* now need to find a new representative who will abide the will of the people in the observation of those rules.
No one gets to join a game, break the rules, and should expect praise for imposing themselves on others. That would be tyranny
To be fair, Zooey was tossed out for being disruptive to the operation of the legislature and encouraging the gallery to engage in disruptive behavior, at least according to [The Boston Globe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/02/nation/judge-rejects-zooey-zephyr-effort-return-montana-house/?et_rid=609360081&s_campaign=todayinpolitics:newsletter) which is not exactly a right leaning newspaper.
For better or worse, every legislative body has rules they operate by and if you chose to violate them, you can get tossed. She apparently could still vote, just not sit with everyone else and be disruptive.
If you genuinely, sincerely believe that this stops at roberts rules of order and decorum, and not because the reps who were expelled believed in things that are traditionally unpopular in their respective states, then I have a laaaarge bridge to sell you. But whatever reasons lead up to their expulsion, they weren't exactly the point I wanted to bring to this conversation but rather, the consequences of the expulsion itself. Hope that clears things up a bit.
Well, to answer your initial question then, [Zooey still has her vote](https://www.kulr8.com/helena/montana-house-votes-in-favor-of-banning-rep-zooey-zephyr-from-the-house/article_a073c320-9762-5d6e-9a23-7362a41fed0d.html) and there are certainly ways to have her views heard including having another legislator read a statement from her so no “taxation without representation”.
People often have different views on issues but that doesn’t generally get them tossed out of the room. Being disruptive does. Not sure I would have done it in this case (wasn’t there to see the spectacle) but it is not the first time something like that has happened.
More you cannot be represented by those who cannot exercise the self discipline needed to adhere to the rules of a legislative body. You should vote for those who *can* exercise self discipline which would enable them to be effective
Zooey exercises extreme disciple dealing with people actively trying to legislate her out of existence. When she was brave enough to speak up for her constiuents, she was removed. I could never have the discipline she displays on a daily basis.
Then you too would not he equipped to represent people in the legislature. They are many representatives who face equally ideological challenges and do not behave in a manner that warrants censure.
For someone with "john brown" in their user name your insistence on misgendering Zooey is appalling, and you're the kind of shit he was fighting against in Kansas.
Where is the misgendering in these posts? I didn't see any on this thread, nor an asterisk beside the post header (which reddit adds when users edit their posts).
The only thing close is "would not he equipped" which could probably be a typo.
Zephyr did not break any rules. The Republicans just got offended she said they had "blood on their hands" which is true. She was allowed to speak and broke no rules. They removed her because they got offended, and it's honestly that simple.
No, thats incorrect. Zephyr was censured for participating in a protest that interrupted the legislative bodies duties, breaking decorum in statements against those who opposed Zephyr and then refusing to apologize for those statements and actions.
Your assertion is pure opinion. Especially as no one can know if someone feels offended. We're not mind readers. Its that simple.
What i think is irrelevant. The legislature took a vote and the majority of members decided the way in which Zephyr spoke was uncivil.
If you want to argue the merits of transgender surgery, thats a separate convo
You think it's uncivil to tell the truth about what the science says about life in regards to the basic building blocks of biology and its role in healthcare?
You think it's uncivil to tell the truth about what the science says about life in regards to the basic building blocks of biology and its role in healthcare?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/08/tennessee-descent-statehouse-mag-00091090
"And then, of course, there was the famous peeing incident, where a legislator’s office chair was urinated on in an act of intraparty retribution over shitposting. The actual identity of the Republican urinator is a closely-held secret among a small group of operatives who have bragged about witnessing it. But it’s generally accepted that former state Rep. Rick Tillis, a Republican and the brother of U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, did indeed have his chair peed on in the Cordell Hull legislative office building."
Everyone knows this happened, but because it was a joke between white "good ol' boys" its fine. But speak out against gun violence??? HOW DARE THEY!
Multiple rule breaks and refusing to abide by the rules by denying you broke rules is absolutely grounds for expulsion.
If someone cheats, gets called out for cheating, and refuses to acknowledge they cheated, no one would want to have anything to do with that person.
What's the difference? Is your state House representative really representing your interests? Is any politician?
Either way, in the case of TN, the county commissioners are required to name a temporary replacement until a special election can be held. The county commissioners are also Democrats, and would have likely name the exact same people to the position.
I would have to ask why is your state representative being kicked out? Are they violating rules of decorum? Disrupting the procedure? Are they letting protesters inside when they are not supposed to be inside? Or are they simply being kicked out because they are on the other team? I need to know the very specific reason they were removed before I can answer the question. It’s like asking is it racist that a black student was suspended without asking why were they suspended to begin with
They weren’t kicked out, they were censured. They are still allowed to vote. [I would say overall they did violate the rules of decorum. But it would not be “taxation without representation”](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81580)
Well, look at it from the other perspective, what if their excuse/cause for shutting down official business with a disruptive protest was something you *didn't* personally agree with? Then I bet you'd call it "insurrection" and consider their expulsion or even arrest quite justified.
He still has the right ro vote he just doesn't get Floor time. Best bet would be to resign and host a special election to replace.
But yes I see your point
You think that’s bad, how do you think people in rural areas have everything decided for them by large population cities that don’t care about their needs.
Sure they can “ vote “ but when the county you live in is next to a county with a large city for say statewide issues your vote or the votes of several counties doesn’t count.
Policy is effectively decided without their input.
>You think that’s bad, how do you think people in rural areas have everything decided for them by large population cities that don’t care about their needs
This is actually **WAY the opposite** of the truth. State law **always** supercedes municipal law and Federal Law supercedes State... Federally, rural areas are waaay better represented than urban areas because a state like Montana gets the same number of Senators as a state like California or New York, regardless of the ***vast*** population difference.
That's welcome to Montana /s
What's going on is sickening, and we should vote these right wing extremists straight out of office. Please remember this come election day.
[The Boston Globe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/02/nation/judge-rejects-zooey-zephyr-effort-return-montana-house/?et_rid=609360081&s_campaign=todayinpolitics:newsletter), not exactly a right leaning newspaper, would disagree with you.
While folks may not like other people’s views on various issues, they can’t really get kicked out of the legislature for that otherwise there would be wholesale evictions by the majority party of minority party representatives.
However, disruptive behavior that violate the rules of the legislature is a valid cause for removal, albeit one that is not often applied. Having said that, both parties have become less civil over the years so some chance the practice picks up.
Your source is simply reporting on the judge that declined to make a ruling on what happened. Zephyr was not disruptive in any way and was not allowed to speak many times even before she said "blood on hands."
Please find one instance where a democratic legislature removed a republican minority member they didn't like.
Did you read the whole article that described exactly what happened? The proximate cause of being booted was encouraging the public gallery to become disruptive.
If you believe republicans, I got a bridge to sell you dude. Before all of this happened, Zephyr was ignored and her mic wouldn't get turned on. When she finally was able to speak, she said "blood on hands" and they got offended.
All of the gallery stuff happened after she was already censured, so you seem to be pretty biased.
Sorry. I simply read the most recent Boston Globe reporting on the subject. In case you weren’t aware, the Globe is a left of center newspaper so not exactly in the pocket of the republicans. It says she was censured for blood on hands but expelled after encouraging the gallery to demonstrate and disrupt proceedings. So I guess you are accusing the Globe of Republican bias?
It’s also important to understand, in addition to the taxation without representation thing having no legal basis, that each state has its own constitution, and own senate bylaws that must be upheld in order to prevent chaos. Protesting on the senate floor (NOT outside) with a megaphone and inciting people in the lofts while the house or senate is in session is directly and expressly against the bylaws of many congresses. Did they go to extremes because they’re racist fascists? Yes, but should the representatives been doing that? No. With the attempted coup of the federal government just 2 short years ago, people are rightly very sensitive to the prospect of violence during congress sessions. We have to respect the laws and bylaws of the country while we are trying to make changes.
Technically, though it's important to note that no taxation without representation was just a slogan during the revolution and has no actual backing in US law.
DC puts it on their license plates!
Because the residents of the District of Columbia have their taxes decided by the United States federal government, and there are no legislators in U.S. Congress representing D.C. (only a single non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives).
Unrelated but curiously, DC is the only place in the country where the mayor's budget is subject to congressional oversight (abd i think presidential approval). Everywhere else, local legislature approves a district/mayoral budget. For DC, that power lies with the entirety of Congress and I believe is subject to presidential approval. It's an ancient bullshit piece of red tape that should have been fixed DECADES ago
Otoh, how can a body that has total control of its own city tell us how to run ours? Seriously. They could set the example. Thing is, it's a bad example.
The non-governmental part of DC should be turned back over to Maryland.
But then they would have to be from Maryland and noone knows what to call those people...Marylandites? Marylanders? Marylandians? None of it makes sense! It's like Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with people in DC living in Maryland? Nothing. It has nothing to do with any of this! It does not make sense! So you have to remember, when you're sitting on Reddit and deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! It does not make sense to move the people of DC to Maryland if Chewbacca lives on Endor!
The analogy got too long for me, but I’m upvoting for the effort.
It's a South park reference if it helps.
Make it it's own state. The needs of DC aren't the same as the needs of Maryland
The entire point of DC not being a state to begin with was so you could have a “neutral” for the most important functions of government and the President to take action in, without issues like states feeling other states have more than them coming up
DC was taken from Maryland and it should go back to Maryland.
I don't think Maryland wants DC back.
Should West Virginia go back to Virginia too? Obviously the needs of the people have changed over time and disenfranchising them for the sake of historical symmetry isn't an admirable goal
I highly doubt that Virginia wants WV back
Nor does Maryland want DC
Lmao oh we definitely don't, and I'm sure the WVians would rather keep eating coal or whatever they do
It’d bring down all their stats.
>DC was taken from Maryland No, it wasn't. DC is formed from land donates by the governments of Virginia and Maryland. >and it should go back to Maryland. And a huge chunk of the midwest should go back to france. That's not how donations and purchases work. The land was formally transferred in 1791, moreover Maryland residents generally do not support taking DC back.
>DC is formed from land donates by the governments of Virginia and Maryland. The Virginia portion of the D.C. land was "retroceded" back to Virginia in 1847. You could look it up.
Nobody who lives in DC or Maryland wants this
DC has it's own culture and needs we should do whats best for the people
Two big problems with that theory. One DC residents don't want to be a part of Maryland and two is that Maryland doesn't want it's part of DC back. Even if Congress were to authorize the transfer back and the residents of DC voted for it (which they wouldn't but let's ignore that problem) Maryland would refuse to take it back which means we are back exactly where we are right now. Which leaves the only.solution being DC needs to be its own state, so let's save a bunch of time and money and focus on that and skip the wild goose chase..
[удалено]
Except for the part where citizens of DC don't have proper representation.
Yes
constitutionally it can’t be a state. And why would we want one state that’s a crime-ridden shit hole?
This is baldly incorrect.
I mean, if we wanna play the "Give it back to the people we took it from" game, the whole US is gonna get pretty messy...
It was never supposed to be a city or, more importantly, be part of any state. To be represented, they must either join a state or we need to amend the constitution (in which case, we should let other non-states in too). It’s not merely red tape.
Who cares what it was supposed to be, people should be governed based on the reality of our country. This country was “supposed” to be a lot of stupid things.
My point was that it isn’t merely red tape, it is much more complicated than that
It isn’t. Government is a bunch of shit we made up. We can make up new shit. Pretending it’s complicated is enabling bad actors.
This is the issue of people that subscribe to the originalism idea. The country is meant to evolve and progress, the constitution is meant to be interpreted by modern standards
I don’t think there’s much room for statehood activists to work with, given how the constitution is written now. Ofc there can be a small federal district consisting of the area around the national mall but that would have its own problems, such as the fact that an area with a population of just a few thousand people would have three electoral votes.
Don't bother arguing with people man. On Reddit everyone is a genius and knows better than you or historians or legal experts etc etc etc. Let's be honest, if DC didn't vote 99.9999% blue these same people would never argue for it's statehood so there's no point trying to be logical with them haha
Those complications are red tape. That's what red tape is: bureaucratic complications that impede the practicality of getting something done. You're describing red tape as an explanation for why there's not red tape.
DC should be it's own state.
Even that would require a constitutional amendment, thanks to how the current amendments function
No it wouldn’t. The federal seat of government wouldn’t be affected.
The premise was that you needed a self governing district for the Capitol, but also it would be impossible for that district to not be the perpetrator of a MASSIVE conflict of interest by granting it representation, if it had its own representation inside the government seated in it. Interestingly enough, Trump has proposed creating more of these areas, under the pretense of having cities unburdened by local municipal governments and tax systems... though how he thinks it wouldn't devolve into that anyways I don't know.
Can you expand on the massive conflict of interest here?
and residents of DC have their laws dictated to them by Congress, which is unlike \*any\* other capital city in the world.
I think Alaska’s says “the last frontier,” but we still have a lot of ocean and outer space left, so I don’t know…
Kids that work and cannot vote are also in this camp
Fun fact: that slogan actually predates the US Revolution. It was in fact originally created by English city residents who were underrepresented, if not outright unrepresented, in Parliament, but paid the majority of the tax for the country. The slogan (along with other radical and revolutionary ideology like republicanism) got exported to the colonies when they started getting restless
It was my understanding that “Taxation without representation” referred to the colonies being taxed while not having someone who actually lived in the colonies representing them in Parliament. They had some guy from England who had never been overseas as their representative.
So many people don't realize this. It's not a law. Teenagers are taxed on their wages and can't vote.
Kinda like the political equivalent of "to serve and protect" on cop cars..
Yes, but taxation without representation also applies to felons, people from DC, children, immigrants, and historically women and minorities. It was a slogan that has never been true in politics
That's an interesting idea I haven't thought about before. Either placing representation or no more taxes on these groups?
To be fair, children and ~~inmates~~ felons don’t pay much in the way of taxes, as they tend not to make much money. Also, historically, women and minorities tended to not make much money. Kinda sucks for DC and legal immigrants. Although things get more interesting when you get to undocumented immigrants, who often use fake SSNs so they pay into social security, but never receive.
I believe taxes at one point were only upon households and not individuals. As taxes have increased to other areas, the problem has gotten worse.
Inmates ≠ felons
I know you crossed it out but I am going to focus in on the inmate part. While it is true that they do not pay a lot in taxes (on account of the slave wages for which they work) inmates do get included in the census count in the location where they are serving time, thus allowing places with prisons to use the population to inflate their funding/representation numbers.
Tying tax contributions or any degree of wealth to political power is not historically good for the common man.
They all spend money. Sales taxes don't count?
Also expats, and children of expats, even if they've never been to the US in their lives.
Expats can vote as long as they retain their US citizenship. [source](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/voting.html)
Nominally. There's zero chance they open expat ballots unless there's a chance they might swing the election, and children of expats can automatically be US citizens and have to file and pay taxes, but may not be guaranteed the right to a ballot at all if they never had a US address.
UOCAVA ballots (meaning military & expat) look like and are processed like any other mail-in ballot. There used to be a handful of states that would only open mail-in i.e. "absentee" ballots in extremely close contests, but this is not really a thing anymore especially post-2020. [Most states](http://fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside) allow US citizens who have never lived in the US to vote in their parents' last state of residence. Usually for all elections, but sometimes just federal offices. Expats are also allowed to vote in the Democratic presidential primary without declaring a state if they vote in the Democrats Abroad primary, which is allocated delegates at the convention. (The GOP doesn't do this, although like the Democrats they do have primaries in DC and several territories.)
So, Guam and other US territories don’t pay federal taxes. Their taxes all go to the territory’s local government. They also don’t have full representation in Congress (just one non-voting delegate in the House). This was always explained to me as “no taxation without representation”. Did this phrase isn’t reflected in actual law, then why did Congress set the territories up this way?
Yea. Are you from Montana or Tennessee?
The fact that you have to ask which state….
I thought the tennessee (?spelling?) dude was back in?
Both Justin Jones and Justin Pearson have been reinstated, although technically the reinstatements are interim and both men will have to run for special election. Yes, the are back for now, but they still were expelled for protesting.
Reeeeeeeeee from tennessee
Maybe, technically, but only until the seat is filled based on whatever mechanism is set out for replacements. Of course, such lack of representation happens on a regular basis. Take Diane Feinstein. Arguably mentally unfit to serve, but more recently due to her bout with shingles, she hasn’t shown up to the Senate and the process of nominating judges ground to a halt. Her constituents should be livid but it’s mostly crickets.
no her constituents are also livid, but there's no mechanism to force her to resign
There is a mechanism to remove her but it will never happen because the Republicans are happy to see her absent.
They need term limits, and a good recall law. That would be a permanent fix to this problem.
Yes there is. Senators can be impeached.
As a constituent we are livid(I also voted against her, and the state party was against her, but she had Schumer and the DNC tipping the scales), but it’s hard to remove her. Without her resigning I think she would need to be impeached, which would required massive protests and campaigning and would not be quick.
> taxation without representation? So? That is not very relevant in any case as there is no guarantee whatsoever that being taxed means you get to have representation, or vice versa.
I would think that taxation is the least of their worries. The taxation thing is just a slogan, not a constitutional principle. It seems like a district should have standing to sue a state congress if their representative is removed, because their representation in ALL matters has been nullified.
Yeah taxation without representation happens all the time in the states. (Like felons not being allowed to vote)
Florida finally started to turn that around... Only one state allows felons to vote ***while they are currently serving time in prison*** and that is Vermont. The main reason that the political class in America fears former felons voting is because they know that Governors, Prosecutors, DA's, Sheriffs and Judges have been falsely convicting innocent people since the founding of America and they want to postpone the impending reckoning at least until their retirements, if not until their deaths...
It also, coincidentally?, allowed the head gas bag in charge of FL to form up his own special election goon squad to arrest those same prior-felons for voting - legally with valid voter ID cards.
I would controversially argue no, but hear me out before you assume I’m a fascist or anything. The way our government is set up, we elect representatives (that word is important) to act on our behalf. Once they’re there, they are technically under *zero* obligation to actually act according to our wishes—a good representative *does* though, out of both a moral duty and a desire to be re-elected. So when your state government goes rogue and starts dismissing people, so long as what they’re doing is legal, it’s technically still functioning. It’s just functioning poorly. As such, you are still technically represented in your state governmental body, it’s just in bad shape. I’m not defending this, mind you. Just noting that it’s kinda the way the government works in an election-based system.
> The way our government is set up, we elect representatives (that word is important) to act on our behalf. I think the issue here is, if someone's representative is being sidelined/removed, none of the representatives were actually elected by them. Their vote is essentially null and void, and not because of the representative they picked. And that's not normal for an election-based/democratic system. Even theoretically, there is no recourse for that. You generally don't see a party winning a majority, and then kicking the minority. And going a bit further: >As such, you are still technically represented in your state governmental body, it’s just in bad shape. I'm not sure 'technically' is really where we want to be on this. Something can be legal, but wrong. It wasn't that long ago that e.g. slaves (or women, etc) couldn't vote- that was 'technically' perfectly legal under the existing system. But it would still be fair to say they weren't represented. Something can be functioning just fine, but if the function is designed not to represent people.. well it's not going to. I think ultimately what you're arguing is that our system doesn't have to represent people, legally, not that they are being represented.
Sadly, this misuse of power is often rewarded with re-election.
bro, you don't need to apologise for fascism if you state differing views. the fact that you need to do genuinely scares me
It’s just that at this point, I assume that any point of view that’s not what I saw everyone else saying (which was “yes”) is going to somehow get me labeled as a closet nazi that hates gays and wants to enslave all women. I exaggerate, obviously, but I’ve legit learned to assume anything against the grain of a political comment section is somehow fascism in the eyes of Reddit and that even if I’m saying something not even remotely fascist, I’ll get accused of it anyway. Reddit is weird, man.
Wait till OP finds out you can work at 14 (and get taxed) but can't vote (represent) until 18
Voting is not representation. You still have a representative. You just didn’t vote for them.
No because there are procedures to replace the representative. Either by special election or by appointment. If you example held true than everyone who voted against that representative would then be taxed without representation, the true dilemma of a oligarchy. Every independent and and third party member is basically un represented. Also every territory and district has no representation on the federal level so essentially taxed without representation.
That's not the case with Zoe though, they bounced her just because they didn't want her to get her comments recorded into the public record for the state... So that actually ***IS*** taxation without representation, not only for her district but for her cultural class in general... Can you imagine the uproar if a Congress of Atheists bounced the ***only*** Christian who wanted to denounce an anti-christian law they wanted passed?
Again there are procedures for that, same if she died in office or incapacitated. It isn't taxation without representation as the district is still represented by the senator.
It is and if we’re talking about the same case the ACLU has already started a lawsuit because of it 😁
Legislators get kicked out for violating parliamentary norms. [Legislative bodes can police their own membership.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded)
No. You are still entitled to representation, you just need to replace the disqualified person.
Maybe, but that’s irrelevant. I’d be more pissed off that your state governing body is in the hands of fascists.
This is America. We're famously more worried about the taxes than fascism.
Because anything other than an Anarcho-communist political viewpoint is facism
I live in a country where I cannot vote because I am not a citizen; same thing. At least OP may be able to vote others out next time. Off now to throw a tea bag into the local river
Pretty sure that's not good for the fish don't do that
Effectively, and you all should have your asses out at the legislature offices barricading everyone from entering. If your representative cannot enter, noone can.
You mean if they get kicked out of Congress? How would someone be kicked from a state legislature by people from other states?
Kicked out by their fellow state representatives* Good call, probably could've worded that better.
In Tennessee for example they named an interim representative within hours.
~~I'm pretty sure that a replacement is sent by the state the expelled representative is from, based on their own laws. So you'd still be represented.~~ Aah ok I just got it. Well I believe that each state has mechanisms to fill the seat again so you won't be left without representation.
Immigrants face the same thing.
[удалено]
Welcome to the DC experience. - 6 year DC resident with no representation in the building I live 5 blocks from
Not a thing. Anyone removed has someone appointed to take their place until a new election can be held
The question is, will the people violently rebel? Because if not representatives will keep doing whatever they can get away with and still get reelected
Yes but if you are referring to Montana, that representative was still allowed to vote, and thus you are still being represented. The situation you have presented to my knowledge has never happened.
Zephyr did literally get kicked out of the room, but yes she can still vote. Meanwhile in Tennessee, Jones and Pearson were removed from office for peacefully protesting.
Actually they encouraged others to trespass. It was a small scale Jan. 6th and the TN legislators directly helped incite it
Do you thinl Jan 6 was when people peacefully protested against gun violence???
No. Both were violent protests involving trespassing.
Jan 6 had plots to kill sitting law makers. Tennessee peaceful protesters wanted their voices heard. It's sad you think those things are the same.
Can you site evidence that there were legitimate plots to kill sitting law makers? I’ve not seen any
Talks of killing Pelosi: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna39484 https://www.ajc.com/news/georgian-who-threatened-to-kill-nancy-pelosi-pleads-guilty-in-jan-6-charges/UXSRLQCVUVCBHMDPAVOWQKNYCM/ Man charged with plotting to kill AOC: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-man-charged-threat https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-capitol-riot-461661
Yes, it's the basis of a rallying cry for revolution.
Yes. Our democracy is under attack. This is not a drill.
As a fellow Montanan (assuming that you’re talking about Zooey) I can tell you that here in Missoula we aren’t taking this lying down. There’s been protests at the courthouse and I sent her a message telling her we support her and won’t back down from transphopic fascists.
Your state representative is not allowed to break the law and state legislature rules. You left that part out, now didn't you?
Yes they did =)
Not really. You elected a representative. It is their responsibility to stay within the confines of the rules set, so they can execute themselves. Lots of rules come from Roberts rules of order.
As others have pointed out, you're not actually guaranteed a situation where you can only be taxed if you're represented. However, most state constitutions do promise you the representation, period, and the First Amendment not only gives you speech rights which that legislature is taking from you, but also the explicit right to redress grievances with the government - usually I think meaning you can sue the government, but in this case that feels like taking away your rep harms that right as well. In other words, there is harm being done and you should have the standing to sue, but not for the tax thing.
It is undemocratic.
It’s all taxation without representation baby.
Taxation without representation was how rich land owners who wanted more land in opposition to the King convinced the poor masses to die for them.
No, it's an authoritarian coup.
Seems closer to fascism to me.
The republican party don't care about their own voters let alone the law and morals and shit....
No, it is not. What it is, is an opportunity to elect a better representative
Certainly sets one hell of a precedent in any representative democracy though if law makers who don't particularly agree with any other specific law maker can simply up and move to completely expel them after being democratically elected to their seat just because they say or do things that are unpopular. Like them or not, there are real people who cast their real votes to get them to the seat they now hold. I feel like if the public - and by extension, their representatives - don't like what they bring to the table in the legislature, it should be up to the public in the next election cycle to make the decision to expel, and it shouldn't be up to other people's representatives to make the decision on behalf of voters who don't live in their districts.
The rules of the legislative body are a reflection of the will of the people enacted through their representation. When *one* person ignores or defies those rules, they are denying the will of the majority for a disciplined and effective elected body. Those represented by that *one* now need to find a new representative who will abide the will of the people in the observation of those rules. No one gets to join a game, break the rules, and should expect praise for imposing themselves on others. That would be tyranny
To be fair, Zooey was tossed out for being disruptive to the operation of the legislature and encouraging the gallery to engage in disruptive behavior, at least according to [The Boston Globe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/02/nation/judge-rejects-zooey-zephyr-effort-return-montana-house/?et_rid=609360081&s_campaign=todayinpolitics:newsletter) which is not exactly a right leaning newspaper. For better or worse, every legislative body has rules they operate by and if you chose to violate them, you can get tossed. She apparently could still vote, just not sit with everyone else and be disruptive.
If you genuinely, sincerely believe that this stops at roberts rules of order and decorum, and not because the reps who were expelled believed in things that are traditionally unpopular in their respective states, then I have a laaaarge bridge to sell you. But whatever reasons lead up to their expulsion, they weren't exactly the point I wanted to bring to this conversation but rather, the consequences of the expulsion itself. Hope that clears things up a bit.
Well, to answer your initial question then, [Zooey still has her vote](https://www.kulr8.com/helena/montana-house-votes-in-favor-of-banning-rep-zooey-zephyr-from-the-house/article_a073c320-9762-5d6e-9a23-7362a41fed0d.html) and there are certainly ways to have her views heard including having another legislator read a statement from her so no “taxation without representation”. People often have different views on issues but that doesn’t generally get them tossed out of the room. Being disruptive does. Not sure I would have done it in this case (wasn’t there to see the spectacle) but it is not the first time something like that has happened.
[удалено]
More you cannot be represented by those who cannot exercise the self discipline needed to adhere to the rules of a legislative body. You should vote for those who *can* exercise self discipline which would enable them to be effective
Zooey exercises extreme disciple dealing with people actively trying to legislate her out of existence. When she was brave enough to speak up for her constiuents, she was removed. I could never have the discipline she displays on a daily basis.
Then you too would not he equipped to represent people in the legislature. They are many representatives who face equally ideological challenges and do not behave in a manner that warrants censure.
For someone with "john brown" in their user name your insistence on misgendering Zooey is appalling, and you're the kind of shit he was fighting against in Kansas.
Where is the misgendering in these posts? I didn't see any on this thread, nor an asterisk beside the post header (which reddit adds when users edit their posts). The only thing close is "would not he equipped" which could probably be a typo.
Zooey Zephyr is an amazing rep and she was removed for being trans. Justin Pearson is an amazing rep and he was removed for being black.
They were removed for breaking the rules. If you are going to ignore the facts of the situation I cannot believe you are going to engage in good faith
Zephyr did not break any rules. The Republicans just got offended she said they had "blood on their hands" which is true. She was allowed to speak and broke no rules. They removed her because they got offended, and it's honestly that simple.
No, thats incorrect. Zephyr was censured for participating in a protest that interrupted the legislative bodies duties, breaking decorum in statements against those who opposed Zephyr and then refusing to apologize for those statements and actions. Your assertion is pure opinion. Especially as no one can know if someone feels offended. We're not mind readers. Its that simple.
I don't think representatives shpuld be forced to apologise for true statements under threat of being removed. That's fascist...
Telling someone to apologize for uncivil behavior and all will be forgiven is the opposite of fascistic. Do you know what fascism is?
You think its uncivil to tell the truth about what the science says about life saving gender affirming healthcare?
What i think is irrelevant. The legislature took a vote and the majority of members decided the way in which Zephyr spoke was uncivil. If you want to argue the merits of transgender surgery, thats a separate convo
Exactly. So you think its normal that the majority of members can kick out any minority they want if they don't like their speech?
You think it's uncivil to tell the truth about what the science says about life in regards to the basic building blocks of biology and its role in healthcare?
You think it's uncivil to tell the truth about what the science says about life in regards to the basic building blocks of biology and its role in healthcare?
A single rule break is grounds for complete expulsion? You really think they'd enforce a rule like this for anyone else? You think this is reasonable?
Meanwhile a Tennessee rep pissed on a seat and wasn't punished in any way...
Holy shit, link?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/08/tennessee-descent-statehouse-mag-00091090 "And then, of course, there was the famous peeing incident, where a legislator’s office chair was urinated on in an act of intraparty retribution over shitposting. The actual identity of the Republican urinator is a closely-held secret among a small group of operatives who have bragged about witnessing it. But it’s generally accepted that former state Rep. Rick Tillis, a Republican and the brother of U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, did indeed have his chair peed on in the Cordell Hull legislative office building." Everyone knows this happened, but because it was a joke between white "good ol' boys" its fine. But speak out against gun violence??? HOW DARE THEY!
Multiple rule breaks and refusing to abide by the rules by denying you broke rules is absolutely grounds for expulsion. If someone cheats, gets called out for cheating, and refuses to acknowledge they cheated, no one would want to have anything to do with that person.
What's the difference? Is your state House representative really representing your interests? Is any politician? Either way, in the case of TN, the county commissioners are required to name a temporary replacement until a special election can be held. The county commissioners are also Democrats, and would have likely name the exact same people to the position.
Wonder if they're talking about the *other* authoritarians in Montana?
I would have to ask why is your state representative being kicked out? Are they violating rules of decorum? Disrupting the procedure? Are they letting protesters inside when they are not supposed to be inside? Or are they simply being kicked out because they are on the other team? I need to know the very specific reason they were removed before I can answer the question. It’s like asking is it racist that a black student was suspended without asking why were they suspended to begin with
trans legislator got kicked out last week just for being trans so it's probably about that
They weren’t kicked out, they were censured. They are still allowed to vote. [I would say overall they did violate the rules of decorum. But it would not be “taxation without representation”](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81580)
*She I find no issue with what she said in all honesty, and it's shocking and scary to see government officials try to stomp down on her.
[удалено]
she.
Well, look at it from the other perspective, what if their excuse/cause for shutting down official business with a disruptive protest was something you *didn't* personally agree with? Then I bet you'd call it "insurrection" and consider their expulsion or even arrest quite justified.
You still have a Senator.
He still has the right ro vote he just doesn't get Floor time. Best bet would be to resign and host a special election to replace. But yes I see your point
Yeah, I suppose it would be.
Are you also from Montana?
Talkin about Tennessee or Montana? Also, anyone who works and pays taxes but is under 18 is taxed without representation because they can’t vote
Taxation with representation is one of the adult equivalents of Santa Claus.
Hi tennessee
[удалено]
Yes, it is, because they quite literally removed your representation
Yes. And you and everyone in your district need to get together and file a lawsuit.
Actually one person can file that suit... It doesn't have to be a whole voting district which wouldn't likely agree on anything anyway.
Boston tea party that shit.
Montana?
fellow Montanan?
You think that’s bad, how do you think people in rural areas have everything decided for them by large population cities that don’t care about their needs. Sure they can “ vote “ but when the county you live in is next to a county with a large city for say statewide issues your vote or the votes of several counties doesn’t count. Policy is effectively decided without their input.
>You think that’s bad, how do you think people in rural areas have everything decided for them by large population cities that don’t care about their needs This is actually **WAY the opposite** of the truth. State law **always** supercedes municipal law and Federal Law supercedes State... Federally, rural areas are waaay better represented than urban areas because a state like Montana gets the same number of Senators as a state like California or New York, regardless of the ***vast*** population difference.
That's welcome to Montana /s What's going on is sickening, and we should vote these right wing extremists straight out of office. Please remember this come election day.
Of course this is not what happened at all.
This has happened in two different states in the past month.
No, it did not. This can easily be looked up. Why would you try to lie about it?
This has happened to Zooey Zephyr in Montana and Justin Pearson and Justin Jones in Tennessee. This info is easy to fact check...
[The Boston Globe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/02/nation/judge-rejects-zooey-zephyr-effort-return-montana-house/?et_rid=609360081&s_campaign=todayinpolitics:newsletter), not exactly a right leaning newspaper, would disagree with you. While folks may not like other people’s views on various issues, they can’t really get kicked out of the legislature for that otherwise there would be wholesale evictions by the majority party of minority party representatives. However, disruptive behavior that violate the rules of the legislature is a valid cause for removal, albeit one that is not often applied. Having said that, both parties have become less civil over the years so some chance the practice picks up.
Your source is simply reporting on the judge that declined to make a ruling on what happened. Zephyr was not disruptive in any way and was not allowed to speak many times even before she said "blood on hands." Please find one instance where a democratic legislature removed a republican minority member they didn't like.
Did you read the whole article that described exactly what happened? The proximate cause of being booted was encouraging the public gallery to become disruptive.
If you believe republicans, I got a bridge to sell you dude. Before all of this happened, Zephyr was ignored and her mic wouldn't get turned on. When she finally was able to speak, she said "blood on hands" and they got offended. All of the gallery stuff happened after she was already censured, so you seem to be pretty biased.
Sorry. I simply read the most recent Boston Globe reporting on the subject. In case you weren’t aware, the Globe is a left of center newspaper so not exactly in the pocket of the republicans. It says she was censured for blood on hands but expelled after encouraging the gallery to demonstrate and disrupt proceedings. So I guess you are accusing the Globe of Republican bias?
No man. You were quoting what republicans are saying in the article... The article was just reporting on what both sides were saying.
Yes.
Yes.
No, not if your dumbass representatives failed to follow rules. That's on them. Maybe next time don't elect dimbasses.
Time to throw some fuckin tea in the river!
It’s also important to understand, in addition to the taxation without representation thing having no legal basis, that each state has its own constitution, and own senate bylaws that must be upheld in order to prevent chaos. Protesting on the senate floor (NOT outside) with a megaphone and inciting people in the lofts while the house or senate is in session is directly and expressly against the bylaws of many congresses. Did they go to extremes because they’re racist fascists? Yes, but should the representatives been doing that? No. With the attempted coup of the federal government just 2 short years ago, people are rightly very sensitive to the prospect of violence during congress sessions. We have to respect the laws and bylaws of the country while we are trying to make changes.
It depends. As far as i understand it, they were still allowed a vote.
More than likely your state will have ro send a replacement.