Content deleted Content added
m →District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007: slight update, better refs |
m Bot: Fixing double redirect to District of Columbia federal voting rights Tags: Redirect target changed PAWS [2.1] |
||
(105 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[District of Columbia federal voting rights]] |
|||
The [[District of Columbia]] has never had voting representation in the [[United States Congress]], but efforts are currently under way to enact a statute that would give the District one vote in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], though not in the [[United States Senate|Senate]]. This proposal for a statute to give the [[District of Columbia voting rights]] in the House is called the "DC Vote" proposal. Advocates of this approach assert<ref>[http://www.dcvote.org/advocacy/dcvralegal.cfm DCVote.org]</ref> that it is constitutional, but its constitutionality is disputed. |
|||
Few people dispute that it would be constitutional for Congress to '''(1)''' [[D.C. Statehood|grant full statehood to Washington D.C.]], or '''(2)''' [[Retrocession (District of Columbia)|retrocede most of the territory of Washington D.C.]] back to the State of [[Maryland]], or '''(3)''' propose a [[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment|constitutional amendment granting Washington D.C. a vote]] in the House of Representatives. However, constitutional law experts do have concerns about the proposed "DC Vote" solution, which would instead give D.C. citizens a vote in Congress by a simple statute like the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (discussed below). |
|||
Washington D.C. already has a [[United States congressional delegations from the District of Columbia#Delegate to the United States House of Representatives|delegate in the House of Representatives]]. That delegate is currently [[Eleanor Holmes Norton]], but she does not have a vote on the House floor. Under the DC Vote proposal, the District of Columbia would be given a full voting seat in the House of Representatives and [[Utah]] would be given an additional House member. |
|||
The DC Vote proposal would also have an impact on the [[Electoral College]]. Under the DC Vote proposal, the voting power of the District's citizens in presidential elections would remain unchanged at three electoral votes (i.e. [[List of U.S. states by population|193,843 people per electoral vote]]), pursuant to the [[Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution|23rd Amendment]]. The DC Vote proposal, by awarding Utah an additional House seat, would result in that state gaining an additional electoral vote. |
|||
=="Taxation without representation"== |
|||
The citizens of Washington D.C. are able to vote in presidential elections, but they have no voting representative in Congress. Still, citizens of Washington D.C. are required to pay federal taxes. The notion of "[[taxation without representation]]" was a rallying cry during the [[American Revolution]], and it continues to be an argument in favor of a statute granting a vote in the House; however, it is also an argument in favor of the various other solutions to this problem such as statehood, retrocession, and constitutional amendment. |
|||
The issue of taxation without representation in the District of Columbia is not new. For example, Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] addressed it in an 1820 opinion for the Supreme Court, as follows: |
|||
<blockquote>The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to tax a part of the society...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the district, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=18&invol=317 ''Loughborough v. Blake'', 18 U.S. 317 (1820)] (also mentioning that "representation is not made the foundation of taxation").</ref></blockquote> |
|||
In the years since Marshall wrote those words, the District of Columbia has [[Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution|achieved]] voting rights in presidential elections, and its delegate in the House of Representatives has also achieved [[Delegate (United States Congress)|voting rights in committee]]. |
|||
==Primary constitutional provisions at issue== |
|||
The second sentence of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] (after the [[Preamble]]) states: |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
One of the legal issues now is whether Congress can, by statute, affect how this clause ([[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 2.2C Clause 1: Term and Electors|Article I, Section 2, Clause 1]]) of the Constitution should be applied. Proponents of a statute giving Washington D.C. a vote in the House say that Congress has the requisite power under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8]], Clause 17 of the Constitution: |
|||
<blockquote>The Congress shall have Power....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....</blockquote> |
|||
There are other pertinent constitutional provisions as well. The following words can be found in both [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 2.2C Clause 3: Apportionment|Article I, Section 2, Clause 3]] of the original unamended Constitution, as well as in [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Apportionment of representatives|Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment]]: "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers...." |
|||
The [[Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution]] is also relevant, since it gives D.C. residents a vote in presidential elections. Likewise, [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: New states|Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1]] is relevant, since it gives Congress power to grant statehood: |
|||
<blockquote>New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.</blockquote> |
|||
These seem to be the primary pertinent parts of the Constitution. But, there are other constitutional provisions that may come into play (e.g. the provisions in [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]] related to new amendments). |
|||
==Legal arguments for and against== |
|||
Professor [[Jonathan Turley]] testified on September 14, 2006 at House Judiciary Committee Hearings on this subject,<ref>House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution,[http://judiciary.house.gov/Hearings.aspx?ID=153 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5388, the "District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006]</ref> and Turley has also been quoted in the press: |
|||
<blockquote>Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor, believes the D.C. portion of the bill is "flagrantly unconstitutional" because the Constitution gives representation to "the people of the several states." |
|||
It would take a constitutional amendment to give the district unquestioned congressional and Senate representation, he said. Addressing it legislatively means another Congress could always revoke the voting privilege later. |
|||
"This is the equivalent of having Rosa Parks go to the middle of the bus, the ultimate compromise of principle," he said, referring to the civil rights protest Parks launched when she refused to move to the back of a bus, as required by Jim Crow laws. "Either D.C. residents are entitled to be full citizens or not."<ref>Johanna Neuman, [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dcvote22nov22,1,4035948.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo Plan would give D.C. a House vote], Los Angeles Times (November 22, 2006)</ref></blockquote> |
|||
Other constitutional law experts have reached a different conclusion. For example, [[Patricia Wald]] and [[Kenneth Starr]] have written: "There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy they founded."<ref>Patricia Wald and Kenneth Starr, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500935.html Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C.], ''Washington Post'' (September 17, 2006). ''Contra'' Matthew Franck, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzlmZDJiYzY2MThjZjA3Yzg0YzJlMTUyYmYwYTNlMDA= Hammering to Fit], ''National Review'' (September 18, 2006)(rebutting Wald and Starr)</ref></blockquote> [[Viet Dinh]] and Adam Charnes have also written on this subject, in favor of a statutorily granted House vote to the District.<ref>Viet Dinh and Adam Charnes, [http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/vietdinh112004.pdf The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia With Voting Representation in the House of Representatives] (November 2004)</ref> Turley calls the analyses of Starr and Dinh, "uncharacteristically liberal interpretations of the text of Article I."<ref>Jonathan Turley, [http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/turley091406.pdf Statement for the Record], Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5388, the "District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 (September 14, 2006). It seems to be an uncharacteristic interpretation even for Wald. See ''Representation for the District of Columbia: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Comm. on the Judiciary'', 95th Cong. 131 (1978) (statement of Assistant Attorney General Patricia M. Wald opining that "Article I was in part intended precisely to distinguish the Federal District from the States," and that "we do not believe that the word 'State' as used in Article I can fairly be construed to include the District under any theory of 'nominal statehood'").</ref> |
|||
Even in the absence of an enfranchising federal statute, some DC citizens have argued that their disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. However, that argument was rejected in the case of ''Adams v. Clinton'',<ref>[http://www.dccitizensfordemocracy.org/98-1665-majority.htm ''Adams v. Clinton'', 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (2000) (citations omitted)]</ref> in which the federal district court stated: |
|||
<blockquote>Such evidence as does exist ... indicates a contemporary understanding that residents of the District would not have a vote in the national Congress. At the New York ratifying convention, for example, Thomas Tredwell argued that "[t]he plan of the federal city, sir, departs from every principle of freedom . . . subjecting the inhabitants of that district to the exclusive legislation of Congress, in whose appointment they have no share or vote."</blockquote> |
|||
In contrast, there is no direct evidence that any of the framers believed that citizens of the federal district could have a vote in Congress. According to John Fortier, "Only the people of the states may choose members of Congress, and the District of Columbia is not a state. This language is confirmed again and again in the Constitution...."<ref>John Fortier, [http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JohnFortier/051706.html D.C. Colony], ''The Hill'' (May 17, 2006).</ref> |
|||
Even if a statute could legitimately give the District of Columbia a vote in only one of the two houses of Congress, questions would remain about the legitimacy of apportioning an additional representative for Utah. Senator [[John Kerry]] has declined to support the DC Vote proposal: "I would not sign the congressman's bill into law because I think that bill would create all kinds of side issues about reapportionment across the country....Given the current games that have been played with that, I think that would be very dangerous."<ref>Spencer S. Hsu, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28362-2004May14.html Kerry Skeptical of Bill on D.C. Vote], Washington Post (May 15, 2004)</ref> |
|||
The voting power of each citizen of Washington D.C. in presidential elections is currently more than three times that of Texas citizens, according to a [[list of U.S. states by population]]. However, the voting power of each citizen of Washington D.C. in presidential elections is currently less than that of Wyoming citizens. |
|||
==DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006== |
|||
The "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006"<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5388: HR 5388, "District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006," 109th Congress, 2d Session]</ref> was the bill to give the [[District of Columbia]] voting representation in the [[United States House of Representatives]]. |
|||
The bill was proposed by Rep. [[Thomas M. Davis]] (R) of Virginia, and received support from 24 other co-sponsors. In the [[109th United States Congress|109th Congress]], it was introduced on [[May 3]] [[2005]] and more recently on [[May 16]] [[2006]]. The bill would have given the District of Columbia its first and only representative in the House of Representatives with full voting privileges. In order to mollify Republicans (a District House seat would almost certainly be occupied by a Democrat), the bill would have granted one more seat to [[Utah]] (which fell just a few hundred residents short of a fourth House seat in the [[United States Census, 2000|2000 census]]), and the Utah seat would almost certainly go to a Republican. This would have temporarily raised the number of members of the House to 437, from 435, until the 2010 census and the following elections. More recent revisions to the proposal would make the increase to 437 permanent, in order to minimize the impact after the [[United States Census, 2010|2010 Census]]. Under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 2.2C Clause 3: Apportionment|Article I, Section 2, Clause 3]] of the United States Constitution, the number of Representatives may not exceed one per every 30,000 citizens; the current limit on the size of the House, 435, was [[Reapportionment Act of 1929|set in 1929]], and could in theory be raised to more than 10,000 based on the [[Demographics of the United States|current United States population]]. |
|||
Despite significant support,<ref>See [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398824 Plan Would Bring House Vote to D.C.], NPR (May 11, 2006)</ref> the D.C. Voting Rights Act was not brought up for a vote in the 109th Congress. |
|||
The proposal for a D.C. House vote would, to some extent, reflect the original logic that Senators are supposed to represent states (which the District is not), while members of the House represent the people. Under the DC Vote proposal, the District would still be treated differently than a state for purposes of House representation, even if the bill passed. This is because the bill specifically states the number of House members from D.C. cannot exceed one, regardless of population. In the unlikely event that the population of D.C. approaches that of two districts, there may again be calls for a bill to give equal representation. |
|||
The DC Vote proposal would also have an impact on the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]]. Since D.C. already has an electoral vote for the House member they would have if they were a state, the bill would create only one more electoral vote, which would go to whichever state has the new seat. In 2008 that would be Utah, so in the very likely event Utah goes for the Republican candidate for President, the Republicans would get one electoral vote more than otherwise but the Democrats would have the same as otherwise. One additional electoral vote would also bring the total to 539, making a tie impossible unless an elector abstains or votes for a third party. |
|||
==District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007== |
|||
[[Nancy Pelosi]], a supporter of DC voting rights,<ref>Eleanor Holmes Norton, [http://www.dcvote.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=252 Press Release: "Pelosi Tells Norton and Fenty She Wants Voting Rights Bill Passed Next Week"] (November 30, 2006).</ref> became the new [[Speaker of the House|Speaker]] for the [[110th United States Congress|110th Congress]] and put it high on Congress' agenda. Within the first week of the new Congress, on [[January 9]], [[2007]], the "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007" (H.R. 328) was introduced in the House.<ref>{{cite news | author= Sheridan, Mary Beth | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901512.html | title=Bill to Give D.C. a Full Vote Is Revived] | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | date=January 10, 2007}}</ref> On [[January 24]], [[2007]] the Congressional Research Service issued a report<ref>Thomas, Kenneth. [http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33824_20070124.pdf CRS Report for Congress: The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives of the Committee of the Whole].</ref> concluding that, "it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District."<ref>Sheridan, Mary Beth. "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201462.html Report Questions Constitutionality of Giving D.C. a Vote]," ''Washington Post'' ([[2007-02-13]]).</ref> |
|||
On [[March 13]], [[2007]], H.R. 1433, titled "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007"<ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070312120808-52420.pdf H.R.1433, "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007" (110th Congress)]</ref> passed the [[United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform|House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]] by a vote of 24-5.<ref name="WP-20070314">{{cite news | title=Bill to Give D.C. Full House Vote Advances | author=Mary Beth Sheridan | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | date=March 14, 2007 | page=B01 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300760.html}}</ref>. The bill would permanently increase the size of the House by two members. One seat would go to the District of Columbia and the other seat would go to the next state in line to get a congressional seat. Based on the 2000 decennial census and apportionment calculations, Utah would get the second seat until the reapportionment taking place after the 2010 Decennial Census. |
|||
The [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]] approved H.R. 1433 on [[March 15]], [[2007]] by a vote of 21-13, whereupon the White House announced opposition to the bill.<ref>{{cite news | author=Struglinski, Suzanne & Bernick, Robert | url=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660203827,00.html | title=White House opposes bill that would give Utah a 4th congressional seat | publisher=Deseret News | date=March 16, 2007}}</ref> The full House approved the bill on [[April 19]], [[2007]] by a vote of 241-177.<ref>{{cite news | title=House Approves A Full D.C. Seat: Biggest Step Toward Vote Since '70s; Bill Faces High Hurdles in the Senate | author=Mary Beth Sheridan |coauthors=Yolanda Woodlee | publisher=[[Washington Post]] | date=April 20, 2007 | page=A01 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902849.html}}</ref> |
|||
==Footnotes== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*Will, George. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801879.html The Seat Congress Can't Offer], ''Washington Post'' ([[2007-03-29]]). |
|||
*Pence, Mike. [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19858 Why I Voted for D.C. Representation in the House], ''Human Events'' ([[2007-03-17]]). |
|||
*''Wall Street Journal''. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009822 D.C. Con], editorial ([[2007-03-23]]). |
|||
*''Los Angeles Times''. [http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-dcvote23mar23,1,3223092.story?coll=la-news-a_section Give D.C. representation], editorial ([[2007-03-23]]). |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*[[District of Columbia home rule]] |
|||
*[[D.C. Statehood]] |
|||
*[[District of Columbia voting rights]] |
|||
*[[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment]] |
|||
*[[Retrocession (District of Columbia)]] |
|||
*[[United States Congressional Delegations from the District of Columbia]] |
|||
*[[Washington, D.C.]] |
|||
[[Category:Home rule and voting rights of the District of Columbia|Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006]] |
|||
[[Category:Legislative branch of the United States government]] |
|||
[[Category:Politics of the United States]] |
|||
[[Category:United States proposed federal legislation]] |
Latest revision as of 10:27, 7 April 2023
Redirect to: