Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Opinion

Robert Schlesinger

Constitutional Precedent for D.C. Voting Rights: Congress Granted Them Before

March 16, 2009 02:25 PM ET | Robert Schlesinger | Permanent Link | Print

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

For 10 years, once upon a time, Washington, D.C. residents had congressional representation—even though they were not residents of a state. This is a very strong argument for the constitutionality of the D.C. voting rights bill currently stalled in the House—especially since the constitutional framers were still on the scene at the time.

As I blogged earlier, conservative legal luminaries Kenneth Starr and Viet Dinh wrote a recent op-ed making the case that the founding fathers (and the Constitution) would approve of Congress granting D.C. a voting representative by way of regular legislation rather than constitutional amendment.

Their case includes an interesting historical tidbit of which I had been unaware—that the original D.C. residents had voting rights.

If any doubt remains whether America's founders would allow Congress to provide voting rights for District residents, the fact that they did it themselves should put that doubt to rest. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788-89. An act of Congress in 1790 provided that residents in that area, even though they no longer lived in a state, could vote in congressional elections. If Congress in 1790 could grant voting rights to Americans who lived in the land ceded for the District, Congress in 2009 can do so again.

Left unanswered is this question: What happened to those voting rights?

According to the American Bar Association, they were taken away when D.C. became the seat of the federal government.

The same constitutional authority was exercised by the very first Congress, in 1790, when Congress accepted the cession by Maryland and Virginia of the ten-mile-square area constituting the District and provided by statute that its residents would continue to enjoy the same legal rights—including rights to vote in federal and state elections—which they had possessed under Maryland and Virginia laws prior to acceptance by Congress of the Cession. Act of July 16, 1790, chapter 28, section 1, 1 Stat. 130. Under this federal legislation, residents of the District were able to vote, from 1790 through 1800, for members of the United States House of Representatives (and for members of the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures, which then elected United States Senators).

Voting representation in Congress for District residents ceased in 1801, when the District of Columbia became the Seat of Government, and Congress enacted the Organic Act of 1801, which provided for governance of the nation's capital but which contained no provision for District residents to vote in elections for the Congress that had the "exclusive" power to enact the laws which would govern them. Since the 1801 Organic Act also had the effect of terminating District residents' right to vote in any elections held in Maryland and Virginia, they were left disenfranchised from voting for Members of Congress.

Whether the fundamental right of D.C. residents to representation in the federal government was denied by design or omission is unclear and beside the point. Here's the bottom line: There's legal precedent for Congress passing laws enforcing that basic right.

On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.

Tags: Congress | Washington, DC

Tools: Share | | Comments (5) | Print

Reader Comments

heh..

nice, really nice!

Mr. Schlesinger Misunderstood The 1790 Law

The 1790 law to which Robert Schlesinger refers was about the status of the area which was to become the District of Columbia. It was not yet the Seat of Government of the United States. The 1790 law clarified that the areas to be ceded by Maryland and Virginia had not yet been accepted by the federal government; that happened in 1801. When the federal government did accept those areas, it became the District of Columbia and automatically lost all representation in the Congress. That loss of representation was required by the Constitution, not because of any Act of Congress. In 2000, this was explained in greater detail in the 3-judge federal district court panel in Alexander v. Mineta (a.k.a., Adams v. Clinton).

Sounds good

So Virgina would welcome their vote. Suits me

But as to first principles, I agree and the first principles of the founding fathers was a federal government that was strictly limited to enumerated powers with all those that are not named to the Federal powers were reserved to the States OR the people

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

advertisement

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Now

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Robert Schlesinger is a deputy editor at U.S. News and World Report and oversees all opinion editorial content. He is the author of White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...

Thomas Jefferson St.

GOP Can Be Thankful for Strong Polls

But they cannot get complacent.

5 Reasons for a Democratic Thanksgiving

Michael Steele and healthcare reform top the list.

Women Have Say on Health Reform

If it's the year of the women, why are there so few of them?

Turkey Tax

Uncle Sam is joining in on your Thanksgiving dinner.

Ideological Labels Just Don't Fit

Hard-liners don't understand that some of us don't toe an ideological line.

A Decade in Biased Review

How well does the video sum up the last decade?

GOPers Push European-Style Litmus Tests

Some RNC members want strict party platforms. Why do they hate America?

Cartoon Gallery

Editorial Cartoon

Political Cartoons

Check out our most recent cartoons.

Public Opinion

Should the GOP Have a Litmus Test?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.