District of Columbia home rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia home rule is a term encompassing the controversy regarding the lack of an intrinsic right for citizens of the District of Columbia (i.e., the city of Washington, D.C.) to govern their local affairs. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives jurisdiction over the capital city (yet to be built when the Constitution was ratified) to the United States Congress in "all cases whatsoever". This arrangement, unique in the United States, is due to the fact that the District is neither a state, nor part of a state. At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has provided for D.C. government to be carried out primarily by locally elected officials. However, Congressional oversight of this local government still exists at a much higher level than would be allowed for any part of a state. Furthermore, this arrangement exists at the pleasure of Congress, and could theoretically be revoked at any time.
A separate yet related controversy regards the lack of voting representation for D.C. residents in Congress. For more on this, see District of Columbia voting rights.
Contents |
[edit] Congressional oversight
The District is, according to the United States Constitution, under the jurisdiction of the United States Congress in "all cases whatsoever" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17). Specifically, the House and Senate each had standing committees charged with the oversight of the District, known as the District committees.
The District committees were long regarded as the least-powerful of all of the Congressional standing committees; there was little interest from constituents "back home" as to whether the District was well-governed or not, and little ability to use a seat on these committees to engage in projects of direct benefit to the senators' or representatives' constituents. This often made the District committees into "dumping grounds" for congressmen judged to be unworthy of major assignments or unpopular with their peers or even for violators of party discipline. The most notorious such case may be the placement of Senator Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi on the Senate District Committee in the 1930s and 1940s, apparently as the place deemed that he could do the least harm. Bilbo's virulent racism and abrasive manner had made him something of a Senate pariah; however inflicting someone of his nature on the District and its increasingly-black population was of course somewhat disastrous for District residents. Subsequent reorganizations of the committee system resulted in the functions of the District committees being assumed by other committees.
[edit] Devolution of authority
Constitutionally, the District remains under the jurisdiction of Congress. However, at various times in its history, Congress has chosen to devolve some of its authority to District residents. For part of this time, the District was formally organized as a United States territory, the Territory of the District of Columbia. The results have been mixed, at best; in the 19th century the District government built a canal where the National Mall now is; in fact the bricks used to build the "Castle" building of the Smithsonian Institution were floated down this canal. The District government was later to abandon this expensive project and left the canal to become something of an open sewer; this was one of the reasons cited for abolishing District government at the time and returning to direct Congressional rule.
Beginning in the 1960s, steps were taken to grant District residents increased political rights. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution provided a right to vote in Presidential elections starting in 1964. In 1971 the District received a non-voting delegate to Congress, much like a territory.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, giving D.C. voters the right to elect a mayor and council. This move resulted in the election of Walter Washington as mayor and the formation of the Council of the District of Columbia. While the move was widely celebrated as making government more responsive to the needs of residents, all legislation passed by the D.C. government remains subject to the approval of Congress.
[edit] Increased congressional oversight
The tenure of Marion Barry as D.C. mayor during the 1980s and 1990s was marked by increased strain between the local and federal governments, as well as an increase in the exercise of congressional authority over the District. Barry was elected in 1979 as a reformer, and was well respected for his history as a civil rights worker. However, his tenure was criticized for the growth of government payrolls, careless administration of government programs, poor municipal services and, as in many other cities at the time, a rising crime rate and deteriorating infrastructure. The city's financial problems were exacerbated by limitations on its taxing authority and by obligations, such as unfunded pension costs inherited from the days of Federal government administration and Medicaid and other costs normally borne by state governments. The prospect of fiscal crisis for the city led the Federal government to intervene, in 1995, with the appointment of a financial control board. The board took charge of most city spending, and legislation relieved the city of its inherited pension obligations, as well as Medicare costs. In 2001, after four consecutive balanced budgets and with a new mayor, the locally elected D.C. government regained budgetary control.
One issue that is likely to become contentious between the District and Congress in the near future is guns. In 1976, the District's home rule government passed the most severe gun restrictions in the United States. Possession of handguns is prohibited to ordinary citizens, and the District requires registration of long guns. This is considered by gun-rights advocates to violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A substantial number of gun-rights advocates within the current Republican party majority in Congress are proposing to end the District's handgun ban and gun registration system by federal law.
[edit] Proposals for Change
[edit] Limiting Congress' oversight power
Proposals have been made for Congress, while maintaining the current oversight over the District, to significantly restrain the degree of oversight, perhaps requiring a supermajority vote of both houses to overturn local laws passed by locally-elected officials. This proposed modification of the current system could be accomplished through simple legislation, although a constitutional amendment would preclude the changes from being withdrawn by a future Congress.
Advocates claim that this approach would largely preserve for D.C. governance the fundamental democratic principle that "just power derives from the consent of the governed", while still allowing the national legislature to exercise the last word in cases where the overriding national interest requires, as defined by a supermajority "national consensus" vote in both Houses.
[edit] Statehood or Retrocession
Either the granting of statehood to the District or its full retrocession to Maryland would strip Congress of any authority to regulate local affairs that it does not exercise in the rest of the United States. This has been proposed from time to time, but has never been enacted.
[edit] See also
- Washington, D.C.
- District of Columbia voting rights
- D.C. Statehood
- Retrocession (District of Columbia)
