D.C. Voting Rights Supporters Have Best Shot Yet With Obama in the White House
It is a feeling so widely shared in the District of Columbia, it's on the city's license plates. Beneath the words "Washington, D.C.," in big, bold, blue letters, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles has printed the phrase, "Taxation without representation."
John Adams couldn't have put it any better. Since the district's founding more than 200 years ago, the residents of the nation's capital, in an ironic twist that infuriates voters and city leaders alike, have had no vote in Congress. The city's lone representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is allowed to participate in debate and craft legislation, but she is prohibited by the Constitution from casting a vote on the House floor.
Unlike voters in every other state, the district's nearly 600,000 residents—a population larger than the state of Wyoming, and only slightly smaller than Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont—also live under the direct authority of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who oversee the city's budget and have the power to annul laws passed by the city government.
"It's extremely frustrating," Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP and a longtime Washington resident, said in an interview this fall. "I don't think most Americans know that we don't have full voting rights here. When I travel and talk to people about it, they say, 'Gee, I didn't know that.' We who live here know it and feel it very strongly."
Those feelings may finally be turning into political action. After decades of failed attempts to bring voting rights to D.C.—efforts that have been repeatedly foiled by Republicans with little desire to see one of the bluest cities in the country hand another seat to Democrats—two bills were introduced this week in the House and Senate that could give D.C. citizens their best chance ever to win the right to a vote in Congress.
The D.C. House Voting Rights Act, which is sponsored in the House by Norton and cosponsored in the Senate by Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, would add two new seats to the House of Representatives. One would go to Democratic-leaning D.C., while the other would go to Republican-leaning Utah, which narrowly missed getting an additional seat after the last census.
Experts say this political compromise, which pleases partisans on both sides of the aisle, has a strong chance of passing. In 2007, similarly worded legislation made it through the House, but came up three votes short of the filibuster-proof majority needed to end debate in the Senate. Many Republicans were opposed to the measure, as they have been for years, saying a constitutional amendment would be necessary to award a congressional seat to D.C. The Constitution only grants voting rights to states, but legal experts believe Congress, as the sole authority over D.C., has the power to give the District voting representation.
With Barack Obama, a longtime supporter of D.C. voting rights—and cosponsor of the '07 bill—about to move into the White House and with Democrats gaining at least seven more seats in the Senate, analysts say the political pieces are falling into place: D.C. is poised, at long last, to balance the taxes its voters pay with some representation.
None too soon, say many D.C. residents, who haven't had a vote in Congress since 1800. That was the year the District of Columbia was established as the seat of government, sending its voters into political purgatory. Because the district was not a state, residents lost their right to elect a representative. But because they lived in a federal district, they were also directly governed by that same Congress. Until 1961, D.C. voters weren't even allowed to cast ballots in presidential elections.
"People live with this every day, and they're upset about it," says Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group that pushed the city council to print "taxation without representation" on D.C. license plates in 2000. "Most people who oppose it now just do so for political reasons. The constitutional arguments are just a smokescreen."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
to Cengiz Pamir:
No it is not. Re-read Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which says:
"[Congress shall have the 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,..."
Nowhere does it say that representation is forbidden.
As a resident of DC, I have to say, quite frankly, it is NOT really OUR Constitution anymore. We have not had an opportunity to participate in amendments 12-27 (since 1801). It is NOT our Congress, we have no vote and precious little voice (since 1801). They are NOT EVEN our Courts; we have had not say in their staffing or operations for over 200 years (since 1801). We have in effect been evicted from our own native land, and we want back IN!
I respectfully suggest that it is not in the long-term interest of this country, nor is it in any way compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded, to continue to exclude, alienate, and disillusion the population of this nation's capital. If you recall, the original Constitution, in spite of "all men are created equal", counted non whites as three-fifths of whites for roughly the first fifty years (say 1770-1820); black men were not allowed to vote (and then reluctantly in many cases) until 1870; women were not allowed to vote until (after who-knows-how-many bedroom skirmishes) 1920; 18-20 year olds were sent to war but not allowed to vote until 1970. All of these recognized deficiencies in our Constitution have been, over time, remedied. An additional deficiency has been identified and needs to be remedied. Catch 22 is that DC denizens cannot petition their representatives to correct this deficiency because they HAVE none.
In 1978 Congress passed an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification that would have made DC a state. Only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified. In 2000 DC's complaint was heard by the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and the response was basically "Go away, kid, ya BOTHER me!
The Virginia Bill of Rights (written by George Mason, instrumental in our Bill of Rights, and mentor to, among others, Jefferson and Madison) says, in Article 6:
"That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Do we still believe this or do we not?
As a resident of DC, I have to say, quite frankly, it is NOT really OUR Constitution anymore. We have not had an opportunity to participate in amendments 12-27 (since 1801). It is NOT our Congress, we have no vote and precious little voice (since 1801). They are NOT EVEN our Courts; we have had not say in their staffing or operations for over 200 years (since 1801). We have in effect been evicted from our own native land, and we want back IN!
I respectfully suggest that it is not in the long-term interest of this country, nor is it in any way compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded, to continue to exclude, alienate, and disillusion the population of this nation's capital. If you recall, the original Constitution, in spite of "all men are created equal", counted non whites as three-fifths of whites for roughly the first fifty years (say 1770-1820); black men were not allowed to vote (and then reluctantly in many cases) until 1870; women were not allowed to vote until (after who-knows-how-many bedroom skirmishes) 1920; 18-20 year olds were sent to war but not allowed to vote until 1970. All of these recognized deficiencies in our Constitution have been, over time, remedied. An additional deficiency has been identified and needs to be remedied. Catch 22 is that DC denizens cannot petition their representatives to correct this deficiency because they HAVE none.
In 1978 Congress passed an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification that would have made DC a state. Only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified. In 2000 DC's complaint was heard by the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and the response was basically "Go away, kid, ya BOTHER me!" and suggested we seek another venue.
If the supreme law of the land becomes destructive toward the lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of the people, " it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Virginia Bill of Rights (written by George Mason, instrumental in our Bill of Rights, and mentor to, among others, Jefferson and Madison) says, in Article 6:
"That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Do we still believe that, or do we not?
Madison and Mason (and others) recommended "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles" as we refine our Constitution over time "in order to form a more perfect Union."
Mr. and Mrs America: I believe the ball is (as they say) in YOUR Court.
DC Voting rights
Isn't it specifically/literally in the constitution that they get no representatives since it is the capital. The belief during the writing of the constitution was that the capital would already have inordinate influence and hence giving it reps would give it overbearing influence. Also the capital is not a state but a territory.
How can congress pass a law that is plainly against the constitution. Furthermore if they are given representation then shouldn't every territory in the U.S. such as Peurto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands... be given representation as well?
advertisement
