Home Voting Rights 2007 DOJ testimony on constitutionality of DC Voting Rights Act
Feb 03
Friday
Free DC! - Statehood Now!
2007 DOJ testimony on constitutionality of DC Voting Rights Act E-mail
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/dcvotingrights-act-2007.pdf
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF D.C. VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007
.
S. 1257, a bill to grant the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives as well as to provide an additional House seat for Utah, violates the Constitution’s provisions governing the composition and election of the United States Congress.

 

May 23, 2007
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS,
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department‟s views on S. 1257, a bill to grant the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives as well as to provide an additional House seat for Utah.  For the same reasons stated in the Statement of Administration Policy on the House version of this legislation, the Administration concludes that S. 1257 violates the Constitution‟s provisions governing the composition and election of the United States Congress.  Accordingly, if S. 1257 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.  I will confine my testimony to the
constitutional issues posed by the legislation.
The Department‟s constitutional position on the legislation is straightforward and is dictated by the unambiguous text of the Constitution as understood and applied for over 200 years.  Article I, section 2 of the Constitution provides:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch
of the State Legislature.
This language, together with the language of eleven other explicit constitutional provisions, including the Twenty-Third Amendment ratified in 1961,1 “makes clear just how deeply Congressional representation is tied to the structure of statehood.”2 The District of Columbia is not a State.  In the absence of a constitutional amendment, therefore, the explicit provisions of the Constitution do not permit Congress to grant congressional representation to the District through legislation.
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the District of Columbia was established as the Seat of Government of the United States in accordance with Article I, § 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution.  The Framers deliberately placed the capital in a federal enclave that was not itself a State to ensure that the federal Government had the ability to protect itself from potentially hostile state forces.  The Framers also gave Congress “exclusive” authority to enact legislation

____________________

1
E.g., U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2-4; art. II, § 1, cl. 2; amend. XIV, § 2; amend. XVII; amend. XXIII, § 1.
2
Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46-47 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 940, 941 (2000).
Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31

____________________________________________

Page 2

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31


for the internal governance of the enclave to be chosen as the Seat of Government—the same
authority Congress wields over the many other federal enclaves ceded by the States.
Beginning even before the District of Columbia was established as the Seat of
Government, and continuing to today, there have been determined efforts to obtain congressional
representation for the District.  Apart from the various unsuccessful attempts to secure such
representation through litigation, such efforts have consistently recognized that, because the
District is not a State, a constitutional amendment is necessary for it to obtain congressional
representation.  S. 1257 represents a departure from that settled constitutional and historical
understanding, which has long been recognized and accepted by even ardent proponents of
District representation.
One of the earliest attempts to secure congressional representation for the Seat of
Government was made by no less a constitutional authority than Alexander Hamilton at the
pivotal New York ratifying convention.  Recognizing that the proposed Constitution did not
provide congressional representation for those who would reside in the Seat of Government,
Hamilton offered an amendment to the Enclave Clause that would have provided:
That When the Number of Persons in the District of Territory to be laid out for the
Seat of the Government of the United States, shall according to the Rule for the
Apportionment of Representatives and Direct Taxes Amount to [left blank] such
District shall cease to be parcel of the State granting the Same, and Provision
shall be made by Congress for their having a District Representation in that
Body.3

Hamilton‟s proposed amendment was rejected.  Other historical materials further confirm
the contemporary understanding that the Constitution did not contemplate congressional
representation for the District and that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to make
such provision.4 These historical facts refute the contention by proponents of S. 1257 that the
Framers simply did not consider the lack of congressional representation and, if they had
considered it, that they would have provided such representation.  In fact, Framers and ratifiers
did consider the question and rejected a proposal for such representation.
__________________
3
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 189-90 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1962) (emphasis added).
4
See 10 Annals of Congress 991, 998-99 (1801) (remarks of Rep. John Dennis of Maryland) (stating that
because of District residents‟ “contiguity to, and residence among the members of [Congress],” that “though they might not be represented in the national body, their voice would be heard.  But if it should be necessary [that they be represented], the Constitution might be so altered as to give them a delegate to the General Legislature when their numbers should become sufficient”); see also The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 621 (Merrill Jensen, John P. Kaminski & Gaspare J. Saladino eds., 1976) (statement by Samuel Osgood, a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, that he could accept the Seat of Government provision only if it were amended to provide that the District be “represented in the lower House,” though no such amendment was ultimately included in the amendments recommended by the Massachusetts convention).

______________________________

Page 3

Constitutionality of D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007

In more recent years, major efforts to provide congressional representation for the
District were pursued in Congress in the 1960s and 1970s, but on each occasion Congress
expressly recognized that obtaining such representation would require either Statehood or
a constitutional amendment.  For example, when the House Judiciary Committee favorably
recommended a constitutional amendment for District representation in 1967, it stated as
follows:
If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress,
a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.
This is the case because provisions for elections of Senators and Representatives
in the Constitution are stated in terms of the States, and the District of Columbia
is not a State.5

Congress again considered the District representation issue in 1975, and the House Judiciary
Committee again expressly acknowledged that, “[i]f the citizens of the District are to have voting
representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action will not
suffice.”6
Of course, the courts have not directly reviewed the constitutionality of a statute
purporting to grant the District representation because, for the reasons so forcefully reiterated
by the House Judiciary Committee, Congress has not previously considered such legislation
constitutionally permissible.  But numerous federal courts have emphatically concluded that
the existing Constitution does not permit the provision of congressional representation for the
District.  In Adams v. Clinton, a three-judge court stated, in a decision affirmed by the Supreme
Court, that “the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for
purposes of the apportionment of congressional representation” and stressed that Article I
“makes clear just how deeply Congressional representation is tied to the structure of statehood.”
90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46-47 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 941 (2000); see generally S. Ry. Co. v.
Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., 442 U.S. 444, 462 (1979) (stating that summary affirmance is
a precedential ruling on the merits).  In Banner v. United States, 428 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(per curiam), a panel of the D.C. Circuit that included Chief Justice John Roberts flatly
concluded:  “[t]he Constitution denies District residents voting representation in Congress. . . .
Congress is the District‟s Government, see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, and the fact that District
residents do not have congressional representation does not alter that constitutional reality.”  Id.
at 309.7 The court added:  “[i]t is beyond question that the Constitution grants Congress
exclusive authority to govern the District, but does not provide for District representation in
Congress.”  Id. at 312.  And in explaining why the Constitution does not permit the District‟s
____________________________
5
Providing Representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, H.R. Rep. No. 90-819, at 4 (1967)
(emphasis added).
6
Providing Representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, H.R. Rep. No. 94-714, at 4 (1975).
7
Judge Roberts was a member of the D.C. Circuit when Banner was briefed and argued, but was serving
as Chief Justice when the opinion issued.  See Banner, 428 F.3d at 304-05 n.1. Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31

_________________________________________

Page 4

 

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31

 

delegate in Congress to have the voting power of a Representative in Michel v. Anderson, 817 F.
Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), the court stressed that the legislative power “is constitutionally limited
to „Members chosen . . . by the People of the several States.‟  U.S. Const. Art. I, § [2], cl. 1.”  Id.
at 140.
The numerous explicit provisions of the constitutional text; the consistent construction
of those provisions throughout the course of American history by courts, Congress, and the
Executive;8 and the historical evidence of the Framers‟ and ratifiers‟ intent in adopting the
Constitution conclusively demonstrate that the Constitution does not permit the granting of
congressional representation to the District by simple legislation.
We are aware of, and not persuaded by, the recent and novel claim that this legislation
should be viewed as a constitutional exercise of Congress‟s authority under the Enclave Clause,
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, to “exercise exclusive legislation” over the Seat of Government
and other federal enclaves.  That theory is insupportable. First, it is incompatible with the plain
language of the many provisions of the Constitution that, unlike the Enclave Clause, are directly
and specifically concerned with the composition, election, and very nature of the House of
Representatives and the Congress.  Those provisions were the very linchpin of the Constitution,
because it was only by reconciling the conflicting wishes of the large and small States as to
representation in Congress that the Great Compromise that enabled the Constitution‟s ratification
was made possible.  Consequently, every word of Article I‟s provisions concerning the
composition and election of the House and the Senate—and particularly the words repeatedly
linking congressional representation to “each State” or “the People of the several States”—was
carefully chosen.  In contrast, the Enclave Clause has nothing to do with the composition,
qualifications, or election of Members of Congress.  Its provision for “exclusive legislation”
concerns legislation respecting the internal operation of “such District” and other enclaves.
The Enclave Clause gives Congress extensive legislative authority “over such District,” but that
authority plainly does not extend to legislation affecting the entire Nation.  S. 1257 would alter
the very nature of the House of Representatives.  By no reasonable construction can the narrowly
focused provisions of the Enclave Clause be construed to give Congress such sweeping
authority.
Second, whatever power Congress has under the Enclave Clause is limited by the other
provisions of the Constitution.  As stated by the Supreme Court in Binns v. United States, 194
_____________________________
8
See, e.g., Letter for Mr. Benjamin Zelenko, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, from
Martin F. Richman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Aug. 11, 1967) (expressing the
view that “a constitutional amendment is essential” for the District to obtain voting representation in Congress in the recommendations for the Committee Report on a proposed constitutional amendment); District of Columbia Representation in Congress: Hearings on S.J. Res. 65 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 16-29 (1978) (statement of John M. Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel).  In endorsing a constitutional amendment as the means of obtaining congressional representation for the District, Mr. Harmon discussed the alternative ways of obtaining such representation, particularly the option of statehood legislation.  Conspicuous by its absence was any suggestion that such representation could be provided through legislation granting the District a seat.
_______________________________________
Page 5
Constitutionality of D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007

U.S. 486 (1904), the Enclave Clause gives Congress plenary power over the District “save as
controlled by the provisions of the Constitution.”  Id. at 491.  As the Supreme Court has further
explained, the Clause gives Congress legislative authority over the District and other enclaves
“in all cases where legislation is possible.”9 The composition, election, and qualifications of
Members of the House are expressly and specifically governed by other provisions of the
Constitution that tie congressional representation to Statehood.  The Enclave Clause gives
Congress no authority to deviate from those core constitutional provisions.
Third, the notion that the Enclave Clause authorized legislation establishing
congressional representation for the Seat of Government is contrary to the contemporary
understanding of the Framers and the consistent historical practice of Congress.  As I mentioned
earlier, the amendment unsuccessfully offered by Alexander Hamilton at the New York ratifying
convention to authorize such representation when the Seat of Government‟s population reached
a certain level persuasively demonstrates that the Framers did not read the Enclave Clause to
authorize or contemplate such representation.  Other contemporaneous historical evidence
reinforces that understanding. See supra n. 4. Moreover, Congress‟s consistent recognition
in practice that constitutional amendments were necessary not only to provide congressional
representation for the District, but also to grant it electoral votes for President and Vice President
under the 23rd Amendment, belies the notion that the Enclave Clause has all along authorized
the achievement of such measures through simple legislation.  Given the enthusiastic support for
such measures by their congressional proponents, it is simply implausible that Congress would
not previously have discovered and utilized that authority as a means of avoiding the enormous
difficulties of constitutional amendment.
Fourth, the proponents‟ interpretation of the Enclave Clause proves far too much;
the consequences that would necessarily flow from acceptance of that theory demonstrate its
implausibility.  As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he power of Congress over the federal
enclaves that come within the scope of Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, is obviously the same as the power of
Congress over the District of Columbia.”10 It follows that if Congress has constitutional
authority to provide congressional representation for the District under the Enclave Clause, it has
the same authority for the other numerous federal enclaves (such as various military bases and
assorted federal lands ceded by the States).  But that is not all.  The Supreme Court has also
recognized that Congress‟s authority to legislate respecting the U.S. territories under the
Territories Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, is equivalent to its “exclusive legislation”
authority under the Enclave Clause.  See, e.g., Binns, 194 U.S. at 488.  If the general language
of the Enclave Clause provides authority to depart from the congressional representational
provisions of Article I, it is not apparent why similar authority does not reside in the Territories
Clause, which would enable Congress to enact legislation authorizing congressional
representation for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other territories.  These unavoidable
corollaries of the theory underlying S. 1257 demonstrate its invalidity.  Given the great care with
_____________________________
9
O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 539 (1993) (citation omitted).
10
Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 263-64 (1963). Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31
______________________
Page  6

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31

which the Framers provided for State-based congressional representation in the Composition
Clause and related provisions, it is implausible to suggest that they would have simultaneously
provided for the subversion of those very provisions by giving Congress carte blanche to create
an indefinite number of additional seats under the Enclave Clause.
Finally, we note that the bill‟s proponents conspicuously fail to address another logical
consequence that flows from the Enclave Clause theory:  If Congress may grant the District
representation in the House by virtue of its purportedly expansive authority to legislate to further
the District‟s general welfare, it follows logically that it could use the same authority to grant the
District (and other enclaves and territories) two Senators as well.
At bottom, the theory that underlies S. 1257 rests on the premise that the Framers drafted
a Constitution that left the door open for the creation of an indefinite number of congressional
seats that would have fatally undermined the carefully crafted representation provisions that were
the linchpin of the Constitution.  Such a premise is contradicted by the historical and
constitutional record.
The clear and carefully phrased provisions for State-based congressional representation
constitute the very bedrock of our Constitution.  Those provisions have stood the test of time in
providing a strong and stable basis for the preservation of constitutional democracy and the rule
of law.  If enacted, S. 1257 would undermine the integrity of those critical provisions and open
the door to further deviations from the successful framework that is our constitutional heritage.
If the District is to be accorded congressional representation without Statehood, it must be
accomplished through a process that is consistent with our constitutional scheme, such as
amendment as provided by Article V of the Constitution.
/s/
JOHN P. ELWOOD
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
 
Home Voting Rights 2007 DOJ testimony on constitutionality of DC Voting Rights Act

Profile Information

Application afterLoad: 0.001 seconds, 0.29 MB
Application afterInitialise: 0.081 seconds, 1.36 MB
Application afterRoute: 0.088 seconds, 2.04 MB
Application afterDispatch: 0.121 seconds, 2.55 MB
Application afterRender: 0.266 seconds, 2.98 MB

Memory Usage

3155288

16 queries logged

  1. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = '1vv4q8ihuh7gqbfh1pc9k67ag7'
  2. DELETE
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE ( TIME < '1675402122' )
  3. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = '1vv4q8ihuh7gqbfh1pc9k67ag7'
  4. INSERT INTO `jos_session` ( `session_id`,`time`,`username`,`gid`,`guest`,`client_id` )
      VALUES ( '1vv4q8ihuh7gqbfh1pc9k67ag7','1675404522','','0','1','0' )
  5. SELECT *
      FROM jos_components
      WHERE parent = 0
  6. SELECT folder AS TYPE, element AS name, params
      FROM jos_plugins
      WHERE published >= 1
      AND access <= 0
      ORDER BY ordering
  7. SELECT *
      FROM jos_migration_backlinks
      WHERE url LIKE 'option=com\_content&view=article&id=103:2007-doj-testimony-on-constitutionality-of-dc-voting-rights-act&catid=55:voting-rights&Itemid=114%' OR sefurl LIKE 'option=com\_content&view=article&id=103:2007-doj-testimony-on-constitutionality-of-dc-voting-rights-act&catid=55:voting-rights&Itemid=114%'
  8. SELECT *
      FROM jos_migration_backlinks
      WHERE url LIKE 'index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=103:2007-doj-testimony-on-constitutionality-of-dc-voting-rights-act&catid=55:voting-rights&Itemid=114%' OR sefurl LIKE 'index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=103:2007-doj-testimony-on-constitutionality-of-dc-voting-rights-act&catid=55:voting-rights&Itemid=114%'
  9. SELECT m.*, c.`option` AS component
      FROM jos_menu AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_components AS c
      ON m.componentid = c.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      ORDER BY m.sublevel, m.parent, m.ordering
  10. SELECT template
      FROM jos_templates_menu
      WHERE client_id = 0
      AND (menuid = 0 OR menuid = 114)
      ORDER BY menuid DESC
      LIMIT 0, 1
  11. SELECT a.*, u.name AS author, u.usertype, cc.title AS category, s.title AS SECTION, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug, g.name AS groups, s.published AS sec_pub, cc.published AS cat_pub, s.access AS sec_access, cc.access AS cat_access  
      FROM jos_content AS a
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      LEFT JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = cc.SECTION
      AND s.scope = "content"
      LEFT JOIN jos_users AS u
      ON u.id = a.created_by
      LEFT JOIN jos_groups AS g
      ON a.access = g.id
      WHERE a.id = 103
      AND (  ( a.created_by = 0 )    OR  ( a.state = 1
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )   )    OR  ( a.state = -1 )  )
  12. UPDATE jos_content
      SET hits = ( hits + 1 )
      WHERE id='103'
  13. SELECT a.id, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      WHERE a.catid = 55
      AND a.state = 1
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND ( a.state = 1 OR a.state = -1 )
      AND ( publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR publish_up <= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
      AND ( publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR publish_down >= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
      ORDER BY a.ordering
  14. SELECT id, title, module, POSITION, content, showtitle, control, params
      FROM jos_modules AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_modules_menu AS mm
      ON mm.moduleid = m.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      AND m.access <= 0
      AND m.client_id = 0
      AND ( mm.menuid = 114 OR mm.menuid = 0 )
      ORDER BY POSITION, ordering
  15. SELECT a.*, cc.title AS ctitle, s.title AS stitle,  CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
     
      FROM jos_content AS a
     
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
     
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
     
      WHERE ( a.state = '1'
      AND a.checked_out = '0' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
     
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
     
      AND ( a.catid IN (39,42) )
     
      ORDER BY a.created DESC
      LIMIT 0,5
  16. SELECT a.*, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      WHERE a.state = 1  
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
      AND (a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )  
      AND (a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2023-02-03 06:08:42' )
      AND cc.id = 82
      AND cc.SECTION = s.id
      AND cc.published = 1
      AND s.published = 1
      ORDER BY a.ordering
      LIMIT 0, 5

0 legacy queries logged

    Language Files Loaded

    Untranslated Strings Diagnostic

    None

    Untranslated Strings Designer

    None
    Smok Nord 4 Poppers Türkiye bahis siteleri slot siteleri canlı casino siteleri İstanbul VIP Taksi Kiralama Şehirler arası nakliyat Kacak bahis sitesi Şehirlerarası evden eve nakliyat instagram takipçi bedavasohbetodalari.site instagram takipçi Evden eve nakliyat Türkiye'den Almanya'ya evden eve nakliyat Almanya'ya ev taşıma fiyatları Gebze Evden eve nakliyat Kilit taşı istanbul ofis taşıma Depolama istanbul evden eve nakliyat casino siteleri deneme bonusu veren siteler bahis siteleri deneme bonusu slot siteleri güvenilir bahis siteleri gaziantep escort gaziantep escort Deneme Bonusu Betz 1 Deneme bonusu veren siteler Bonus veren bahis siteleri Casino siteleri Freespin Yatırımsız deneme bonusu istanbul şehirler arası nakliyat Freebet veren siteler Çevrimsiz deneme bonusu veren siteler Slot casino Deneme bonusu forum Bahisikayet.com Deneme bonusu Deneme bonusu veren siteler Bahis forum Forum bahis Bahis forumu Banko tahmin Sosyal içerik platformu Deneme Bonus bahisdene.com jetbahis Rexbet hovarda güncel adres mobilbahis güncel adres sekabet.net asyabahis güncel adres maltcasino güncel adres> pinbahis100.com betduman.com olabahis.top سایت شرط بندی shartkade.com لیست سایت های شرط بندی سایت های پیش بینی یک بت شهر پوکر شرط وین شرط برو 1xbet-mobil.com