Thursday, May 11, 2006

Utah getting a 4th District

Even though it likely means another GOP rubber-stamp vote, I still think the appearant swap of 4 districts for Utah in exchange for DC's vote in the House is a good idea. Here's why:

  1. DC will get a vote in the House. Again, even if the DC was GOP dominated, which it isn't I think it is only fair that they have a right to vote in Congress especially when Congress is so directly in charge of the city. They basically can overrule the mayor and city counsel at will with impunity.


  2. Utah will get an at large district, which means the resulting GOPer could be a moderate. Just think, Huntsman and Walker were fairly moderate for Utah, and they we both elected statewide (Walker for LG, Huntsman for Gov). I wonder who will run in this food fight. Will Walker stage a comeback? Enid Greene? Nolan Karras? Merrill Cook? On the Democratic side, will some one convince Scott Matheson, Jr. to run again? Or Bill Orton? What about Karen Hale? Patrice Arnet? Would Jim jump from the second to this new 4th?


  3. Jim Matheson's seat is still just as safe. In fact, even under the 4 normal districts scenerio, Jim could win in that new 4th too (which was drawn around Taylorsville, where Jim did really well in 2000). Giving Jim an opportunity to truely run statewide for Congress wouldn't be that much of a change. The ad buys wouldn't change, he would need more yard signs, but statewide he is loved. The addition of the Avenues, west side (WVC, Magna, etc.) Taylorsville, and Carbon County would more than outweigh the addition of Utah County. Plus then Jim would make a smooth transition to a Senate run when Hatch or Bennett retire in 2010 or 2012.

No comments: