By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Delegate Stacey Plaskett highlighted the exclusion of delegates from U.S. territories—representing four million Americans—from the Speaker of the House vote, prompting a standing ovation from Democrats. House Parliamentarian Jason Smith explained that only voting Representatives are eligible to participate in the Speaker election, citing House rules. Plaskett, however, underscored the ongoing issue of the territories’ lack of full voting representation, before her microphone was cut off amidst further Democratic support. This incident has since gained significant attention online and in the media.
Read the original article here
The US Virgin Islands delegate’s pointed questioning regarding the exclusion of territories from the Speaker vote highlights a fundamental inequity within the American political system. This exclusion underscores a long-standing debate about representation and the status of US territories.
The very fact that this question needs to be asked reveals a deep-seated problem. The territories, despite being integral parts of the United States, are consistently treated as second-class citizens, lacking full political participation in key national decisions. This disparity is particularly stark during pivotal moments like the Speaker vote, where the lack of a voice for territorial representatives further marginalizes their already limited political power.
The argument that this omission is due to a lack of statehood is a convenient, yet ultimately insufficient, justification. Statehood is undeniably a significant factor affecting representation, but it shouldn’t completely negate the territories’ inherent right to have their voices heard in crucial national matters. The territories contribute to the nation’s economy and are subject to federal laws and regulations, yet they lack proportionate representation in the legislative process.
The historical context of “taxation without representation” is strikingly relevant here. While the territories may not pay federal income tax on earnings within their boundaries, they still contribute financially through various other federal taxes, including payroll and excise taxes. This situation mirrors the pre-Revolutionary grievances of the American colonies, raising the question of whether a similar principle of self-determination should apply to the territories.
The size and population of the territories are often cited as reasons for their exclusion. However, arguments about population size ignore the inherent right to representation regardless of population. The principle of “one person, one vote” shouldn’t be arbitrarily applied, selectively granting full participation to larger states while silencing the smaller territories.
The question of statehood itself is fraught with complexity, both politically and procedurally. While some territories may lack a strong movement towards statehood, that shouldn’t be the sole determinant for their political inclusion. Even if statehood is a long-term aspiration, there’s no reason to deny territories a voice in matters that directly affect them and their inhabitants in the interim. The territories deserve a place at the table, regardless of their official political status.
The fact that the House of Representatives has the power to include or exclude territorial delegates in the Speaker vote raises another crucial point. This power lies not within the Constitution itself, but within House rules, further emphasizing the inherent imbalance of power. The House, by its own internal rules, effectively dictates the level of participation afforded to the territories. This discretionary power underscores the need for a fundamental reassessment of the territories’ standing within the US political system. It’s a clear demonstration of how the system can and does marginalize these vital parts of the nation.
In essence, the US Virgin Islands delegate’s question serves as a crucial reminder of the persistent inequalities within American democracy. The ongoing exclusion of territories from pivotal votes like the Speaker election highlights a deeply rooted problem demanding immediate attention. Addressing this requires more than simply referencing procedural rules or the complexities of statehood. It demands a fundamental reevaluation of the relationship between the federal government and its territories, guaranteeing a fairer and more representative system for all. Simply put, the territories are an integral part of the nation, and ignoring their political contributions is both unfair and undemocratic.