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 House of Representatives. 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[1] that it is constitutional, but its constitutionality is disputed.
Few people dispute that it would be constitutional for Congress to (1) grant full statehood to Washington D.C., or (2) retrocede parts of Washington D.C. back to the State of Maryland, or (3) propose a constitutional amendment granting Washington D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives. However, constitutional law experts do have concerns about the proposed D.C. Vote solution, which would give D.C. citizens a vote in Congress by a simple statute like the DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006.
Each citizen of Washington D.C. currently has more than three times the voting power of a Texan 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 D.C. Vote proposal, 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 delegate.
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; it is also a potent argument in favor of the various other solutions to this problem such as 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:
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.[2]
In a sense, the District has had a federal representative since 1961: namely, the President of the United States. It was in 1961 that the Twenty-Third Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted, giving D.C. citizens a right to vote in presidential elections.
Primary Constitutional Provisions at Issue
The second sentence of the U.S. Constitution (after the Preamble) states:
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.
One of the legal issues now is whether Congress can, by statute, affect how this clause (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:
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....
There are other pertinent constitutional provisions as well. The following words can be found in both Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 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. Likewise, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 is relevant, since it gives Congress power to grant statehood:
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.
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 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,[3] and Turley has also been quoted in the press:
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."[4]
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."[5]
Viet Dinh and Adam Charnes have also written on this subject, in favor of a statutorily granted House vote to the District.[6] Turley calls the analyses of Starr and Dinh, "uncharacteristically liberal interpretations of the text of Article I."[7]
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,[8] in which the federal district court stated:
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."
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...."[9]
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."[10]
Footnotes
- ^ DCVote.org
- ^ Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)
- ^ House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution,Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5388, the "District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006
- ^ Johanna Neuman, Plan would give D.C. a House vote, Los Angeles Times (November 22, 2006)
- ^ Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C., Washington Post (September 17, 2006).
- ^ Viet Dinh and Adam Charnes, The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia With Voting Representation in the House of Representatives (November 2004)
- ^ Jonathan Turley, 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).
- ^ Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (2000) (citations omitted)
- ^ John Fortier, D.C. Colony, The Hill (May 17, 2006).
- ^ Spencer S. Hsu, Kerry Skeptical of Bill on D.C. Vote, Washington Post (May 15, 2004)