Why I Don’t Like the D.C. Voting Rights Act
There are three levels to my dislike of the D.C. Voting Rights Act, which was passed by the House earlier this year but was blocked in the Senate on Tuesday. This act would add two seats to the House of Representatives. One would represent the District of Columbia, and for the 111th and 112th Congresses, the other would be an at-large seat elected by all voters in the state of Utah.
My first objection to the act is constitutional. Legal scholars debate whether Congress has the authority to add these seats. If such a thing is constitutional, it shouldn’t be. Nothing is more constitutional than determining the composition of our federal legislative bodies. Congress shouldn’t have authority to determine it’s own composition.
My second objection is the racial angle to this particular bill. The political logic of this bill is: D.C. = black = Democratic; Utah = Mormon = Republican; Republican = -Democratic; therefore, D.C. + Utah = 0. Anyone who opposes Mormon identity being equated with the Republican party and being opposed to black ethnic identity should have a problem with this bill. (Also, those who insinuate that opposition to this bill is racially motivated have to ignore two centuries of history to do so. In 1950, the District’s population was 802,178, 65% white. As with many older American cities, Washington’s population dropped by a third over the next 50 years so that in 2000 it was 572,059, 62% black. Over that same span the population of the entire country more than doubled from 123 million to 281 million. In 1950, 0.7% of U.S. citizens lived in the District of Columbia, more than in 13 of the 48 states; in 2000, 0.2% of U.S. citizens lived in the District. Frankly, if the District were not a majority black city today, then adding a House seat would not be on the table.)
Suppose, however, that my two objections above were dealt with and that this bill were instead put forward as a constitutional amendment with Utah left out of it. My feelings against the measure would be much, much smaller, and if that’s what the rest of the country as a whole wanted, it wouldn’t worry me much. My preference would still be against it, though.
A vote from the District of Columbia amounts to a vote by the government for the government. There’s not a single increase in spending or federal power that a voting representative from the District would oppose. However, Daniel Boone died a long time ago; the day is past when the post office was the only entanglement with the federal government for most people. Dependent connection to federal spending is not limited to any particular population within our nation, as Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd exemplify. So, I could support giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, and statehood and senators while we’re at it, if such action includes disenfranchisement of all federal employees, such as myself.
——————
[A couple days before posting this piece, I shared it with Lamonte, who writes at Nine Moons. He has posted his views there in a post titled "By the People."]
Do you have thoughts about the justice of imposing taxes on those half-million residents of Washington DC without giving them the right to representation in the taxing body?
Do you have thoughts about why areas of the country with lower populations than DC should get representation, and those who live in DC should not?
Do you have thoughts that might suggest that not everybody who lives in Washington DC works for the government?
Frankly, the least constitutional thing I can imagine is to impose governance on a population without taking into account the population’s own opinions — isn’t that the definition of tyranny?
greenfrog:
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution reads that “the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States….”
Section 3 gives similar instructions regarding senators.
This means that only states are authorized to have representation in Congress. Washington D.C. is not a state, and therefore it is unconstitutional for it to have representation. (The same applies, BTW, for United States territories and possessions.)
From a Constitutional standpoint, the Senate is correct. The addition of a voting Representative from D.C. would likely have been overturned by the courts on that basis alone.
The solutions to this problem are:
(1) Make Washington D.C. the 51st state.
(2) Amend the Constitution to permit voting representation from non-states.
(3) Reduce Washington D.C. to the federal area and apportion its outlying residential areas to Maryland.
Personally I prefer option 3, as it requires the least tinkering.
People I know who live in would rather live in Virginia, but I agree with Mike’s #3. Plus, wouldn’t it be funny if the 4th seat in Utah would have turned Democrat? Would have made for a lot of mad Republicans…
I agree with Mike’s #2. The problem is one that needs to be dealt with constitutionally. I don’t like “taxation without representation,” but any solution needs to take into account what the Constitution says.
Orrin Hatch, if I remember correctly, once argued that DC should simply revert back to Maryland. It would then have both a Congressman and two senators. It is one of the few things I’ve ever agreed with him on.
“Do you have thoughts about the justice of imposing taxes on those half-million residents of Washington DC without giving them the right to representation in the taxing body?”
The “no taxation without representation” line is pretty clever, but remember that the Stamp Act of 1765 was a tax specifically imposed on the American colonies and not in England. D.C. is not a special target of any U.S. taxes. I wonder how it would play out if District residents were exempt from the federal income tax as the four million U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico are.
“Do you have thoughts about why areas of the country with lower populations than DC should get representation, and those who live in DC should not?“
My thought is that as of the 2000 census, there is only one such place: Wyoming, population 515,004. But let’s turn the clock back to 1950: my thought is that ours is a nation composed of states with its capital located in a neutral district that isn’t a state. Anyone who doesn’t wish to be a resident of our union’s Switzerland should move ten miles in any direction he may choose.
“Do you have thoughts that might suggest that not everybody who lives in Washington DC works for the government?”
In a company town, you don’t have to work directly for the company to care a lot if the company expands or reduces operations.
“Frankly, the least constitutional thing I can imagine is to impose governance on a population without taking into account the population’s own opinions — isn’t that the definition of tyranny?”
This makes it sound like the District of Columbia was conquered instead of created with the approval of Maryland and Virginia. As Article I Section 8 puts it, “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…”
A couple days before posting this piece, I shared it with Lamonte, who writes at Nine Moons. He has posted his views there in a post titled “By the People.”
Mike and John M have hinted as this issue, but we need to consider that there are several U.S. territories that are in exactly the same situation as DC: ie, they are not fully represented in Congress. Puerto Rico, US VI and Guam. The Constitution specifically mentions that only states can have full representation in Congress. As Mike clearly says, we can easily solve the problem by letting the majority of the DC population join Maryland and decreasing the size of DC to include the area around the Mall, which is not a residential area and would include the offices of the three branches of government.
I know this is somewhat repetitive (meaning I am basically posting the ideas of others in different words), but for those of us who are slow, perhaps this spells out the situation more clearly? Wouldn’t this be a better solution than extra representatives for DC and Utah?
Except that it would give the Mall three electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment.
My personal choice would be to give the entire District to Maryland (Virginia already has the Pentagon) and render the 23rd moot.
John I disagree with your assertion that a representative of the District would automatically vote for every spending bill that passes through the Congress. As a self described Democrat I can think of many spending bills that have passed over the previous 6 years that I definitely would have voted against. I don’t think the record of Republican administrations over the past 25 years is any indication they are any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. In fact I believe there is evidence to the contrary.
I also think it is disingenuous for anyone to claim they are in favor of representation for the people of DC without taking advantage of every opportunity presented to see that it happens. John Warner says now, after 30 years in the Senate and with a year left before he leaves the Congress, that he will introduce a Constitutional amendment giving that representation to the District. Poppycock! He knows that process could take years and it may still not pass because it will require approval from 38 state legislatures, not an easy task and one that he won’t have to worry about after he leaves office next year. Why not let the legislation pass and let the courts decide if, indeed, it is constitutional?
Geoff B Your comments about the other territories having American citizens is a valid one but I think there is a vast difference. We are talking about the capital city of the nation. Imagine if you went to another world capital and were told that citizens there had no voice in the government simply because they lived in the capital city. Wouldn’t you find that amazing. Wouldn’t you be appalled?
For the record, I’m for retrocession to Maryland (and was even when I lived in Maryland).
The constitutional issue is a tough call. I have no idea which way the courts would rule. One might claim that if the framers had intended District resident to have a vote, they would have either given it to them, or made explicit provision for Congress to give it to them. Eleanor Holmes Norton asserts, however, that promises were made by the framers that Congress would take care of them.
(see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/23/DI2007032301264.html, about two-thirds of the way down)
Unfortunately, she does not provide any documentation for her claim. If it exists, however, I think the constitutionality issue goes away.
As for disenfranchising federal employees (yes, I am one), you have to understand that soldiers are federal employees, too. And aren’t Social Security recipients just as dependent on the government as federal employees? Better disenfranchise them too. Oh, and defense contractors, subsidized farmers, student borrowers, etc.
Last Lemming - and don’t forget about subsidized home owners.
Subsidized homeowners means anyone who itemizes mortgage interest on their home.
Puerto Rico and Guam are a little different. It is easy to conceive of them as independent nations a few decades from now. Washington, D.C., our nation’s capital, is integrally part of America.
Residents of D.C. should have full representation in Congress. I’d favor amending the Constitution to provide for that. Trying to do it the way they did seems a lot like pandering.
Something to think about is how well represented the District already is. Mark Plotkin is a reporter who covers D.C. local politics, and he has been pushing for a House seat for the District. Here’s what he wrote Tuesday on the Washington Post’s website:
This spring Eastern Market was badly damaged by fire. This is a historic public food market located seven blocks east of the Capitol Building. You’ve probably never heard of it, but after the smoke cleared several Representatives from the U.S. House toured the ruins.
Tuesday, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty was on the floor of the Senate lobbying for the D.C. Voting Rights Act. This is not a place the mayor of your city or the governor of your state may go.
Copedi, yes, I think the Democratic leadership know the measure wouldn’t pass judicial review, but part of politics is rallying the base and demonizing the opposition with empty gestures. It’s like those extreme abortion prohibitions that surface from time to time.
Last Lemming, I considered including Social Security recipients under my proposed disenfranchisement. It’s mostly a rhetorical flourish. Serving military officers are under restriction how they may express themselves politically. Eisenhower had to resign his commission to run for president. (Not just retire; resign: no pension.)
John The only ones “demonizing the opposition with empty gestures” are those who oppose the right of 500,000 people to have representation in Congress and do it in the name of “preserving the constitution.” Why would the Democratic leadership believe that it wouldn’t pass judicial review when so many legal scholars have said it it should? And don’t make this a Democratic Republican thing. Remember it was a Republican who introduced and fought for this bill.
It would be nice if there could be more discusion of whether a House seat for D.C. is a good idea, and not just whether or not it is constitutional. For me, though, the constitutional question is an important one, much more fundamental than the usual constitutional questions that come up regarding the Bill of Rights. If Congress really does have authority to change its own composition by creating a seat for the District, then does it have authority to create seven? Can Congress select who will select its members?
How about a compromise alternative: we have DC made, officially, part of Utah?
greenfrog - I’d be more in favor of Texas annexing Utah.
Or perhaps just move the seat of government to Missouri. Think of all the fuel we would save.
Why can’t everyone who lives within the District simply be required to select either Maryland or Virginia their state of residence (or, heck, pick ANY state)? There are thousands of “Ohio residents” that are living abroad right now, hundreds of thousands of college students who are registered either at “home” when they live in the dorms or at the dorms when they’re “home” for months at a time, and plenty of insert-state-here residents who spend six months minus a day in someplace a lot sunnier or snowier or whatever than the place they pay taxes in. And it would create a very slight incentive for states to try and persuade DC residents to declare residence in their state — possibly creating minor benefits for their own residents. Up to and including gaining an extra House seat, if a single state can convince enough people to declare their way.