District of Columbia voting rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Voting rights in the District of Columbia differ from those of United States citizens in other parts of the country. In particular, citizens of the District of Columbia (i.e., the city of Washington, D.C.) have only limited representation in the United States Congress. Formerly, District residents had no participation in the federal government at all, but they have participated in presidential elections since passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 (in practice, since the election of 1964). Citizens of Washington are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate who may vote in committee and participate in debate but cannot vote on the House floor. D.C. does not have any representation whatsoever in the United States Senate (see Shadow congressperson).
A "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006" attempted to address this issue by giving D.C. a voting member in the House, but not in the Senate; however, the bill failed. Its sponsors have reintroduced the bill in January of 2007. There are many arguments for and against this legislation giving the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives.
A separate yet related controversy regards the lack of an intrinsic right for D.C. residents to govern their local affairs. For more on this, see District of Columbia home rule.
Contents |
[edit] Principles and concepts
Democratic representation calls for universal suffrage and representation for all members of the community in good standing, unless an overwhelming and compelling governmental necessity precludes it, perhaps such as in cases where non-citizens, felons, children, etc. are excluded. The burden is on the government to demonstrate such a compelling reason for exclusion from equal voting and representation. Prior constitutional exclusions from voting and representation, such as those based on race, gender, and age (18- to 20-year-olds) have been largely discredited in the US. Current exclusions from full voting rights include some felons, non-citizens, children, and residents of the US capital.
[edit] Political and racial complications
African Americans make up a very high percentage (60%) of the D.C. population, compared to the national average, and critics charge that opposition to D.C. voting rights is largely based on racism. Whether or not that is true, it is clear that the granting of voting rights would result in a clear benefit to Democrats and a corresponding disadvantage to Republicans; for example, 89% of D.C. voters supported the Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, a higher percentage than any state mustered for either candidate. Any voting representatives sent to Congress by a future D.C. with voting rights could similarly be expected to be Democrats.
[edit] "Taxation without representation"
While the District's official motto is Justitia omnibus ("Justice to All"), the words "Taxation Without Representation", echoing the Revolutionary slogan, "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny!", were added to D.C. license plates in 2000 (although alternative plates featuring the D.C. website URL are available on request), and there was briefly a movement to add the words "No Taxation Without Representation" to the D.C. flag. Advocates who have supported these changes have said that they are intended as a protest and to raise awareness in the rest of the country. These measures in particular were chosen because the D.C. flag is one of the few things under direct local control without requiring approval from Congress. Critics noted, however, that the phrase was unlikely to raise much awareness.
In January 2001, President Bush ordered the removal of the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on the presidential limousines, replacing them with blank Washington, D.C. plates. This came shortly after President Bill Clinton had placed the new license plates on the limousines. Bill Clinton waited until his final weeks in office before ordering the new license plates to be placed on his limousines. [1]
[edit] Comparisons
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
The political status of Washington, D.C. is comparable to that of the original British colonies in North America (compare the Declaratory Act of 1766 and the District clause of the U.S. Constitution). Each of these documents is the assertion of absolute power by a national legislature over an unrepresented portion of the population. More recently, Washington DC's status is somewhat comparable to U.S. territories in times past. With the exception of the Eastern Seaboard and Texas, all parts of current U.S. states were at one time or another part of a territory, which had a non-voting delegate to the House and no representation in the Senate. Citizens of U.S. territories were not eligible to vote for President. Several other political entities currently administered by the United States (including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are currently identical to D.C. in having only a non-voting delegate to the House. However, the current examples are different from the territories of the past in that they are not being prepared for admission as U.S. states. The other current examples are also different from D.C. in that Washington has been an integral part of the U.S. for 200 years and still lacks representation in Congress. Furthermore, unlike modern U.S. territories, Washington D.C. is subject to all federal laws, including tax laws, and pays a higher than average tax per capita, although unrepresented in the national legislature.
Citizens of Washington, D.C. are not unique in having diminished representation in their federal legislature, although they are unique in having no voting representation at all. Other nations that have built capital cities from scratch, including Australia and Nigeria, have representation for their federal district. The Australian Capital Territory formerly had limited representation, but was granted equal representation in the Australian House of Repesentatives and 2 senators, compared with 12 for each state, in the Australian Senate. On the other hand, Brazil has an expressly-built federal district with full representation in federal government. Berlin is a state in its own right. Delhi is a union territory with equal repesentation in the Parliament of India. Mexico and Argentina also have federal districts with full representation, but they are less directly comparable in that Mexico City and Buenos Aires were major cities long before their federal districts were established.
[edit] History
The justification against statehood for the District is explained in the Federalist No. 43, where it is noted that the federal government needs to ensure a level of stability in order to perform its duties that could not be guaranteed by a reliance upon any state. The necessity of this provision is borne out by the riots outside the Pennsylvania hall that Congress met in before the District was established.[citation needed] Any organization has reasonable expectation that it control the rules governing how it conducts its business. Whether or not this implies that the residents of the District should not have representation in Congress or the Electoral College is debatable. Also debatable is whether this requires that Congress needs the same absolute control "in all cases whatsoever" as asserted by the British Parliament in the Declaratory Act of 1766, or whether the same result could be achieved with some lesser degree of control, while respecting the principles that power derives from the people, and that just power flows from the consent of the governed. DC residents would argue, with James Madison, that "EQUAL LAWS PROTECTING EQUAL RIGHTS ARE THE BEST GUARANTEE OF LOYALTY & LOVE OF COUNTRY." (Madison to Jacob de la Motta, August, 1820).
In 1961, the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, allowing District residents to vote for president and vice president. This right has been exercised by D.C. citizens since the election of 1964.
In 1978, Congress passed on to the states another constitutional amendment, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which would have given the District its own voting members of Congress, making it virtually a state. However, a seven-year time limit was placed on the amendment, which was subsequently ratified by only a handful of states, far short of the three-quarters (currently 38) required for it to be ratified.
In anticipation of the amendment's ratification, in 1980 District voters approved the call of a Constitutional Convention to draft a proposed state constitution, just as U.S. territories in the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries had done prior to their admission as states. The proposed constitution was ratifed by District voters in 1982 for a new state to be called "New Columbia". However, the failure of the proposed U.S. Constitutional amendment was deflating to the statehood movement, and the necessary authorization from Congress has never been granted.
Pursuant to the proposed state constitution, the District still selects two "shadow Senators" and a "shadow Representative" to lobby for statehood in the two houses of Congress. These positions are not officially recognized by Congress. In addition, Congress has passed a law forbidding the spending of any money to lobby for statehood.
[edit] Proposals for change
Advocates have proposed several, competing reforms to increase the District's representation in Congress. These proposals generally involve either treating D.C. more like a state or having the state of Maryland take back the land it ceded to form the District, as Virginia did in 1847.
[edit] Statehood
Full statehood for D.C. could conceivably be achieved in either of two ways: via a constitutional amendment, or instead via an act of Congress.
In 1978, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have given full congressional voting representation to residents of the District of Columbia passed through both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. However, by 1985, when the seven year limit on ratification of the amendment set within the Congressional resolution adopting it expired, the amendment had only been ratified in 16 of the 50 states (38 needed for adoption).
Outright statehood for D.C. was last discussed in the U.S. House of Representatives in November 1993. At that time, the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153.
Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced the "No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003" (S. 617) on March 13, 2003, in the U.S. Senate, and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the same Act in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1285). This legislation would treat D.C. as if it were a state for the purposes of voting representation in Congress. Unlike a constitutional amendment, a bill such as this, even if passed, could theoretically be repealed again by a future Congress.
[edit] Proposals to retrocede D.C. to Maryland
The process of reuniting D.C. with the state of Maryland is sometimes referred to as retrocession. The original District of Columbia was formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia, and from 1790 until 1801 citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for, and even run as, candidates for the U.S. Congress in Maryland or Virginia. In 1846 the land from Virginia was given back to Virginia, such that most all the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland. If both the U.S. Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding Capitol Hill, the White House, and the Supreme Court building.
Under a less ambitious proposal, residents of D.C. would be treated as Maryland voters for the purposes of Congressional elections. Congress could give D.C. residents the right to vote for Maryland candidates for the Senate and House, and Maryland's representation in the House could be calculated accordingly.
[edit] Proposals to grant voting representation only in the House
A compromise may be reached which would allow the District's delegate to Congress to be raised to the status of a full voting member of the U.S. House but still leave the District unrepresented in the Senate. However, this proposal for a District of Columbia vote in the House of Representatives did not come to a vote during the 109th United States Congress.
[edit] References
- ^ New York Times Article on January 19, 2001.
[edit] See also
- Washington, D.C.
- District of Columbia home rule
- D.C. Statehood
- Retrocession (District of Columbia)
- District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
- District of Columbia Vote in House of Representatives
[edit] External links
- D.C. Statehood Green Party
- DCVote.org
- History of Self-Government in Washington, DC, from the Council of the District of Columbia
- The Stamp Act Congress, Activists trying to raise awareness regarding the lack of Federal representation for Washington DC
- District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006
 |
District of Columbia Capital of the United States |
|---|---|
| Topics |
History | Geography | Economy | Demographics | Media | Transportation |
| Government |
Home rule | Voting rights | Former Mayors | Current Mayor | Statehood movement | Retrocession |
