Content deleted Content added
Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) →Introduction: fixing link |
m Bot: Fixing double redirect to District of Columbia federal voting rights Tags: Redirect target changed PAWS [2.1] |
||
(288 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[District of Columbia federal voting rights]] |
|||
{{current}} |
|||
=Introduction= |
|||
The [[District of Columbia]] has never had voting representation in the [[United States Congress]], but efforts are currently under way in order to enact a statute that would give the District one vote in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]]. Advocates of this approach assert<ref>[http://www.dcvote.org/advocacy/dcvralegal.cfm DCVote.org]</ref> that this proposal to give the [[District of Columbia voting rights]] is constitutional, although the 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 parts 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 fourth solution, which would give D.C. citizens a vote in Congress by a simple statute, such as the [[DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006]]. |
|||
<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> |
|||
Each citizen of Washington D.C. currently has more than three times the voting power of Texans in presidential elections, according to a [[list of U.S. states by population ]]. This disproportionate power of the District's citizens in presidential elections would continue, under the proposal to give Washington D.C. a House vote, although the proposal would give Utah an additional electoral vote (and an additional House member). |
|||
Washington D.C. currently has a representative in the House of Representative, [[Eleanor Holmes Norton]]. However, she is a non-voting representative. |
|||
=Taxation Without Representation= |
|||
Despite a very significant role in presidential elections, Washington D.C. has no voting representative in Congress. Nevertheless, 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 a potent argument in favor of a statute granting a vote in the House, and it is also a potent argument in favor of the various other solutions to this problem: statehood, retrocession, and constitutional amendment. |
|||
The problem 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>Representation is not made the foundation of taxation....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)]</ref></blockquote> |
|||
=Primary Constitutional Provisions at Issue= |
|||
The second sentence of the 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 in 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 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 I, Section 2, Clause I of the original unamended Constitution, as well as in 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. Also, Article IV, Section 3 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> |
|||
=Footnotes= |
|||
<references /> |
Latest revision as of 10:27, 7 April 2023
Redirect to: