UPDATE by David: The Senate passed this bill today, which means that it is essentially guaranteed to become law – the House has passed it several times before, and President Obama has said he supports it. So I guess we will find out the answer to these interesting constitutional questions soon enough!
The Senate today approved a cloture motion that will allow passage of S. 160, a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House of Representatives.
I support full D.C. voting rights, but this is not the way to achieve them. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. According to the Constitution (Article I, Section 2):
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
The only real solutions that I can see are: (1) D.C. statehood, or (2) a constitutional amendment giving the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives or the Senate, or both, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a state.
The drafters of the bill are of course aware of the serious constitutional problem the bill presents, and they have provided for quick judicial review with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. There may not be a good opportunity to challenge the law until a law passes by a one-vote margin, with the D.C. representative in the majority, and someone who is harmed by or punished under the law challenges the validity of its enactment. But I have little doubt that if and when the law is challenged, it would be struck down.
I wish our representatives were more punctilious about the Constitution, particularly in simple cases like this.
TedF
Even though they live in DC.
<
p>Come to think of it, I’d say every American is a person “of the several states” no matter where they live.
<
p>Presto: problem solved.
<
p>Read literally, of course, the clause would arguably restrict voting to a very small number of people — those who live in “several” states at the same time … although how many states one might have to live in simultaneously to cross the “several” threshold seems unclear to me. The rest of us couldn’t vote at all for Representatives.
<
p>So much for blatant violations.
<
p>We can talk about “natural born” citizens and c-sections next week.
<
p>I’m here every night.
When I vote in each of them, I can become a person of the several federal penitentiaries.
<
p>The one thing the Republicans can do well is appoint Supreme Court justices, and thank goodness there are enough of them to swat silliness such as this down.
Earl Warren was a great appointment. John Paul Stevens wasn’t bad either.
<
p>Doesn’t make up for Scalia or Thomas, but sometimes they get it right.
Among the greatest writers of fiction of the last fifty years.
Bob, if your reading were correct, then D.C. has been constitutionally entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives since 1789, right? And I suppose the same is true of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, from the time when their peoples became U.S. citizens? And on your view these districts and territories are entitled to representation in the House of Representatives but not the Senate because their people are “people of the several states” but they themselves are not “states” right?
<
p>Is that really your view?
<
p>I’m going to assume this is some kind of sarcasm that went over my head. Otherwise, I’d have to say you were being awfully flip while taking a view that is self-evidently ridiculous.
<
p>TedF
That’s what it is.
<
p>One person’s silliness, as CMD points out, is another’s sober and well-reasoned analysis.
I was just playing along.
it’s pretty hard to see a plausible reading for granting representation to DC via a statute. DC got electoral votes via a constitutional amendment. Hard to see how the same logic wouldn’t apply to representation in Congress. It’s unfortunate that partisanship will likely prevent an appropriate amendment, and thus will continue the disenfranchisement of thousands of people. It’s amazing that this has been allowed to continue as long as it has.
Or how law-abiding U.S. citizens could be rounded up and put in concentration camps (sorry, internment facilities). But the Supreme Court managed both of those (Dred Scott and Korematsu), in its wisdom.
<
p>They are a clever bunch. I am sure they could manage it if they set their minds to it.
<
p>All of this is just to Ted’s question about constitutionality.
<
p>Where there is a will, there is a way.
is that the Court could write a really awful, craven opinion, as they did in the two cases you cite? Sure, they could do that. But it would be a bad idea. The proper thing for them to do, if this bill passes, is to say that it’s unconstitutional, since it pretty clearly is.
I’m just teasing Ted, and making the point that the determinative issue isn’t so much what the words say, but how the justices interpret them.
<
p>The issue, exactly as you write, is thus not whether the idea of DC representation is “unconstitutional,” to use Ted’s phrasing, because that can mean anything, including the extreme cases I cited, but whether it is a good idea or not.
<
p>That is a whole different kettle of fish.
but the decisions made interpreting it are anything but that. For every Gideon v. Wainwright there are one hundred Plessy v. Ferguson cases. It is a shame but it is so true. The same could be said about the Massachusetts Constitution. For every Goodridge case, there are one hundred Amirault cases.
<
p>The documents may be divine but the black robes interpreting the documents are not.
…what you describe above IS precisely my view. I can’t speak for Bob.
…that the 14th amendment’s equal protection guarantee provides the rationale for giving them representation. After all the Supreme Court has already used this to insist that states use a one-person-one-vote principle in drawing balanced districts. Personally, I’ve always thought of the House representing people and the Senate states, which means that DC, PR, American Samoa, Guam, USVI, and CNMI could have House votes but not Senate votes.
<
p>I think some historical context might be in order as well. I’m not sure the framers envisioned permanent residents of the federal district who were not also residents of states. Old maps of DC when it was a complete square on both sides of the Potomac label Alexandria and Arlington as “Part of Virginia Within the Federal District” and Georgetown and the Anacostia region as “Part of Maryland Within the Federal District”. It seems that anybody who happend to live in those areas would be residents of MD or VA depending on which side of the Potomac they were on. As such their congressional districts would be included in those states.
<
p>Our country was founded largely on the principle of no taxation without representation. I think we could probably get away with it constitutionally the same way abortion rights are constitutionally protected. Neither is explicitly guaranteed by the letter of the Constitution, but can be argued to adhere to thes spirit of the Constitution.
it would better if the words of the document meant something. IMHO.
Who would have standing to challenge this in court? Would it have to wait until some piece of legislation passed or failed in the House by one vote?
to which there is no clear answer, AFAIK. It’s possible that other House members could challenge it, claiming “vote dilution,” but it’s not obvious to me that that’s a cognizable claim.
In the original post, I suggest that a challenge by a private party may need to wait until the D.C. representative casts the deciding vote on a bill, when the question becomes whether the bill is really a law.
<
p>I wonder whether this might be the rare case where an action in the nature of quo warranto is appropriate? If so, that fact may or may not have a bearing on the standing question.
<
p>TedF
This is another “whatever the supreme court says it is, it is” answers. Their decisions on standing are all over the map. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in particular because conservatives are often fond of tossing cases for lack of standing. But foolish consistency…
<
p>How’s this for an answer — the legislature of whatever state is 436th in line for a CD after the 2010 census?
…but taking them to their logical and literal extreme leads to Scalian interpretations of the constitution, whereas I prefer a fuller picture. Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers do not appear to directly address this question.
Wouldn’t that galvanize support for DC’s statehood via the amendment process? Perhaps in a way that is now unattainable?
<
p>There is still wisdom in passing “blatantly unconstitutional” laws, even if our representatives seem less than punctitilious at times. imho.
I think it would be much more likely for someone to offer a simple amendment granting DC a voting congresscritter.
<
p>
I would be insulted by such a lukewarm, split-the-middle, paternalistic solution as this. If we’re going to invoke the slow and heavy machinery of the amendment process, let’s do it right the first time and grant statehood. That said, whether statehood or sole representative is the objective, there is still valid political value in passing unconstitutional laws.
so says you.
<
p>For the people who live in DC, having a congresscritter without their two senators is still taxation without representation. This is actually a huge issue for residents living in DC – I can’t tell you how many people I talked to about this in the few months that I lived there.
<
p>They should be made a state. DC has its own unique culture & feel and, by population, would not be the smallest state in the country. If Wyoming is entitled to have a congressperson and two senators, then by god so should the District of Columbia – and I don’t give a rats ass if Republicans would be made sad because it would be a “liberal” state. Equal rights should not be destroyed for partisan reasons.
As the federal capital, the rules should be different, and I do not want the District given the semi-sovereign status of a state. Home rule is fine, as is House representation, but I believe DC should relate to the federal government in the way most cities relate to their respective state governments. As undemocratic as this sounds that particular city does NOT belong exclusively to its residents. It belongs to all Americans and as an American not residing in the District, I want a say in how its governed, which I get through Congress. I’d rather retrocede more outlying areas to Maryland than make it a state.
When you say that DC does not belong to it’s residents, I’m guessing that technically that is not true. So it seems a stretch to appropriate the whole district for all Americans when in fact the land is privately owned.
<
p>I find Ryan’s idea or re-drawing the District a reasonable compromise with the reality of what the place has become: a full-time residence for a settled population that aren’t necessarily associated with the US government. They absolutely deserve 2 senators in addition to their rep. the same as I do. The constitutional provision may have made sense when the constitution was written, but it doesn’t any more.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m sure plenty of people and institutions own property. (My own alma mater is the largest private landholder in DC and always seems to be looking for more, much to the neighbors’ chagrin.) I was talking about who should control the fate of the city. In my opinion this city is a national concern and responsibility in a way that no other city is. It is OUR city and jurisdiction should rest with all Americans and not just its residents. I do find merit in Ryan’s suggestion and others that have been made.
<
p>Personally, if I were making the rules in the beginning, the federal precincts would have more of a Vatican model. The only “residents” allowed would be those who have voting addresses elsewhere. The city would be limited the downtown area between the Anacostia River and Rock Creek as L’Enfant envisioned with a bit of land on the Virginia side where the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery now sit.
the life and times of the Dupont Circle neighborhood is no more my concern than Downtown Springfield; I may have thoughts and opinions, but I don’t live there, don’t vote there and don’t have authority over those people. So I can express my opinions, but not lord over them. Honestly, I find your whole post here offensive and undemocratic. That I should have more of a say about what happens in DC (and I DO) than the people who actually live in DC is moronic.
<
p>Stop being so freaking selfish and realize that there are people who live in DC, have for years and will for many more years to come. I don’t give a damn what you think the district should have been – that’s water under the bridge right now. The fact of the matter is families live in DC, families that in some cases have been there for generations. They deserve to freaking vote!! More than you deserve to hold freaking reign over them.
<
p>The funding and appropriations for the mall, Smithsonians, etc. etc. etc. are of federal concern and will stay in the realm of the federal government no matter what. It’s not like you’ll have to start paying to go see the Air and Space museum, for heaven’s sake. But the actual parts of DC where people live should be its own state, where people get to do such novel and American things as vote for a Congressman and Senators. The parts where people don’t live can be redrawn to be the actual federal territory that belongs to the federal government – you and I.
I’m sorry you seem not to concern yourself with our nation’s capital. I have said that I would be open to redrawing the federal district and city home-rule is fine. Just like Boston is our capital city with home rule, but in a unitary system the state has more authority anyway. I have also said that House representation is in order, but I don’t like the idea of a city-state. When most cities fail a state can bail them out, but if it’s a city by itself that’s not an option. As for your Dupont Circle analogy I just fundamentally disagree. That particular neighborhood isn’t too bad and it’s also an embassy neighborhood which invokes federal interest. I have driven through other neighborhoods, however, that frankly make me embarrassed as an American that they constitute part of our capital. I cannot in good conscience just say there’s no federal property so it’s just the city’s problem. I have no interest in lording over the people; they are entitled to all the freedoms the rest of us enjoy. For me the concern is nurturing an environment worthy of the capital of the world’s only superpower.
there are also embassies in boston, new york and los angeles. that fact doesn’t seem to lead anyone to think federal jurisdiction of those cities is warranted. just pointing that out. besides, embassies are foreign soil, not american soil.
Just to be picky I believe there are consulates in those cities, but I’m pretty sure every embassy is in DC. (Random piece of trivia: There is a consulate in Andover for whatever reason; I believe it is Lebanon’s.) I do understand that these grounds are technically the sovereign soil of the country in question, but I still think we would be good hosts to see that the surrounding neighborhood is pleasant.
when you say things like this:
<
p>
<
p>Do you think the people living in DC are incapable of keeping the streets near embassies “pleasant?” If you do, I have some serious questions I’d like to ask you…
<
p>If DC were granted 1 rep and 2 senators, that doesn’t mean the federal government would suddenly stop taking a vested interest in the city. Try to think outside the box. Sheesh.
If the local people can keep things looking nice that’s great, but A) there are places in DC that are not well-kept; believe me I’ve been through them, and B) as a matter of principle the nation is their host, not the city.
and some would say racist.
You’re the first to mention race, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the merits of this discussion and certainly not my views on the matter. Your recent comments have been about me and my attitudes rather than about the merits of the issue and you downrated me for making I think reasonable (though possibly debatable) statements. (In case you’re wondering being called racist is an almost guaranteed way to get a downrating from me; that never moves dialogue forward.) I also didn’t appreciate your “barfing” and sarcasm in your other comment to which I just responded. It appears we have both run out of different ways to keep making the same points. I for one stand by mine.
Unless you count the United Nations as an embassy, you are correct.
<
p>And you are also correct about Lebanon’s consulate being in Andover. I also see that the Dominican Republic has one in Lawrence…
your the one who thinks DC residents should be second class citizens!
<
p>Some people don’t realize how offensive they really are. My tone was meant to point that fact out to you. Pardon me if I go slightly irate when people seek to deny people their basic civil rights!
<
p>
<
p>That’s assuming congress won’t continue to fund DC. It will.
<
p>You fundamentally disagree with the fact that people who live in Dupont Circle should have more control over its funding than you or I? Really? Do you really want to go there?
<
p>Except the vote, of course. You know, the biggest freaking civil right of them all. People in DC don’t need that. /snark off
<
p>Look, I find it moronic that you’d give me a 4 for being ‘rude’ and then go and say things like you have in this post. What you’re saying isn’t rude, it’s evil. EVIL. You may not be aware of that fact, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. You seek to deny people their vote because of some metaphysical need to control what happens to their destiny. You don’t own Foggy Bottom or Georgetown, no matter how many times you’ve “driven through,” whether there’s embassies nearby or not.
<
p>Here’s a question. If all federal buildings remained in federal control, including federal property (the mall, museums, monuments, etc.) – and if congress continued to take a vested interest in DC as it has a vested interest in that city (including funding, providing security, etc.)… how is your argument justified? As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t thought of one good argument that I can’t account for under the plan to turn DC a state that also redraws the map. Nothing would change if DC were granted statehood, except for the fact that their people would be able to vote. That’s it. If anything, that very fact would arguably give motive for Congress to care more about DC’s fate, not less, because DC would suddenly control a congressperson and two Senators who could have a large say over DC’s agenda.
I agree with Ryan that citizens of DC are entitled to full representation at the Federal level.
<
p>I also agree with Christopher that DC is the nation’s city. While there are local areas I don’t care about, there are certainly issues in DC which are national. You could carve out the federal locations and call that a big ol’ national park, but I think it’s more complex than that.
<
p>So: why not give DC a proportionate number of House members (currently: 1) and two senators, and not call them a state? That would likely take a Constitutional amendment, but it makes sense to me.
and I tend to agree with Ryan that it isn’t, it hasn’t really worked out all that well, has it? Corruption; high crime; awful schools; the city’s a disaster. It’s gotten a bit better the last few years, but geez, having the whole country run it hasn’t exactly been a boon for the residents.
…the negatives you cite generally come under local jurisdiction. I’m fine with home-rule on local matters in principle, but the federal government needs to have the right to intervene in a way it could never get away with regarding states.
In what way does it need to intervene such that state control would be too cumbersome? The only way’s I can think of have more to do with the nature of Federal property, not the overall city. What am I missing?
Sometimes a city tanks so badly that the state needs to come in and basically take over. My understanding is that this is what constitutes “receivership” and I believe in MA this happened to Chelsea a few years ago. The idea is that the city cannot support itself, but the state with a larger pool of resources can get the city back on its feet. In the case of DC, the city and the state would be coterminous and I assume would have a unified government. I don’t think it makes sense to have both a city and a state government for the exact same jurisdiction, and even if that were the case, if the city government is in fiscal trouble I can’t imagine the state government being in better shape. This is why I said earlier that the city government should relate to the federal government the way most cities relate to their state governments. The federal government would be the entity which could take DC into receivership. If DC were a state on the level of the other 50 such action would raise a host of constitutional and political questions. I doubt the federal government could, would, or should act in such a manner relative to any of the states.
… but I’m not sure that they actually address my question. If what you are saying is that the Feds need to be able to deal with any potential receivership issue because there is no ‘state’ fiscal infrastructure to handle one if it came up, I don’t see how that would be impeded by statehood. You mention that “…the federal government needs to have the right to intervene in a way it could never get away with regarding states.” If you are talking about receivership, then it must be noted that if they can’t get away with it with regard to other states, it’s only because the state government would be expected to handle it. If it happened to DC, that wouldn’t be the case, so I think they’d have no problem ‘getting away with it’.
that DC will one day need to go into receivership, we shouldn’t allow it to become a state?
<
p>The entire state of California, 10% of this entire freaking country, is on the verge of the need to go into “receivership.” Should we revoke its status of being allowed to be a state?
<
p>BTW – the city of Springfield went into receivership. We only fucked it up worse when the state came in.
<
p>
<
p>You do realize that states are given a large leeway over how to govern themselves, right? They could simply have a city councilor and mayor be the governing body of the “state.” Again, please think outside of the box.
<
p>Moreover, Mr. Lynne has a point. Congress will always have a vested interest in DC. You won’t see its funding dry up and Congress will always be able to help DC, just like it DOES help states every year by handing out hundreds of billions in state aid. DC, like every other state in the country, struggles for a slice of that – but the biggest difference is they struggle without fair representation, thus ending up on the short end of the stick in comparison to their actual needs. There’s no question they would receive more, not less help if they had representation in the House and Senate.
…or I’m missing yours. You say the mayor and council could be the state government. That is fully what I would assume because to have that PLUS another structure seems redundant. I like what is currently being proposed. I’m fine with home rule, and I’d even be open to either retrodeing neighborhoods to MD or counting DC residents towards MD’s representation. My objections are that as long as it’s the capital city it should be federal jurisdiction and I have previously stated my concerns about it being a one-city state. FWIW I believe the current proposal can be done without constitutional amendment, but statehood would require one.
Jeez, how gracious of you! I’m sure it’s so tough living in Massachusetts and dealing with DC’s “home rule.” How tender and sweet of you.
<
p>/barf
<
p>Statehood would not require a constitutional amendment if the map were redrawn. There’s nothing in the constitution that specifies where, exactly, DC is – only that it not extend beyond a certain distance. This proposal is absolutely, positively 100% constitutional. It would not change a damn thing, either, except for the fact that DC’s population would suddenly have representation and be that much more likely to make the rest of DC “pleasant” as seems to be your big objection to the proposal – that it would somehow become less so, because DC’s population is apparently unable to have a ‘pleasant’ looking city. /barf
…at least constitutionally. I was assuming the full district as most people I’ve heard talk about this don’t seem to make that provision. My practical concerns about a city-state are still there and if we’re going to draw redraw the lines I still say give it to Maryland. In fact, MD gave the land to the US for the purposes of being a federal district. If it’s used to form another state MD may have a legal case for requiring the land be returned to it because it is no longer being used for its intended purpose.
the Metro is run by the Feds and it’s fantastic. There’s no way Washington DC could have afforded to pay for it anyway.
<
p>Which brings up another point — could Washington DC afford to pay for it’s own infrastructure, given that it’s got a huge amount of tax exempt property (gov’t, non-prof, and edu) and and extraordinary security issues?
it looks great, but the metro was horrendous for a decade +
<
p>it was horribly constructed, with the world’s longest escalators. That way, when the escalator broke down, everyone would have to share one side of a freaking gazillion foot escalator which was turned off, while the other side was being fixed. It often went on for weeks and weeks.
<
p>This, instead of building a small series of escalators to get you to the top, so if one track broke, the whole thing wasn’t doomed. Moreover, the escalators were often left outside, with no protection from the elements, which made them wear down faster.
<
p>Now to get to the trains! They broke down all the time and often for a very, very long time. I once left an hour early for work and got there a half hour late, because I was stuck for 45 minutes. That same week, the trains has pauses of at least 10 minutes were it went no where at least once every day. The same day I waited 45 minutes, there were an additional 2 delays, each around 10 minutes. The day before and the day after the delays were lengthy and multiple, too. I was really regretting the fact that I didn’t bring my car while I was living in DC. The Metro was a disaster.
<
p>But it looked great!
<
p>I’ve used the T for a very long time. It’s often late and doesn’t have the technology that the Metro has (like the screens that tell you which trains are coming next and where they’re heading – that’s very nice). But I’ll take “almost-kind-of-sort-of reliable” over technology advanced and FUBAR any day of the week. The Metro was one great, giant Lemon of a subway system. And the worst part of it all was you couldn’t even bring a coffee and a bagel on the train with you – or risk a ticket. Couldn’t have that litter. If only people with newspapers got the memo, because those things freaking carpeted the seats and floor.
<
p>The Metro system damn near ruined public transportation for me.
I’ve read (in print, not online) analysis which shows the Washington Metro to outperform most in the USA. It’s got good coverage, it’s reasonably fast, and it is indeed clean and safe.
<
p>Are escalators too long? Yip. They should be broken up and there should be three (defaulted to one down and two up since passenger station departures are clumped but arrivals aren’t), which allows for a backup if one fails.
<
p>So what can I say? It’s the second most used system in the USA (behind NYC) and it ain’t half bad.
who knows, in the few years since I moved away from there, they could have fixed it… but that would be a big change from its decades of being Big Dig-esque. They’ve spent a lot of money on that system without actually making improvements.
<
p>Ugh, I forgot the worst complaint of all: it’s freaking expensive! When I was there, a weekly pass was about $5 cheaper than a monthly pass for the T. The T’s gone up some since (as has the Metro, surely, albiet probably not as much), but it was a very expensive metro system if you didn’t live in DC proper.
<
p>But the coverage is good and, when it runs right, it’s reasonable fast. So, yes, good potential. I just wish they’d let people drink coffee in the morning. Maybe the real reason republicans are do-nothing obstructionists is because they get caffeine headaches in the morning since they can’t get their daily fix.
and I’m not sure if I like variable fare or not… after all, most of the cost of running the Metro is the same if people go one station length or many. Then again, it just seems more fare to charge people by distance.
<
p>Keep in mind though that the outer stations of the Metro are as many as 25 miles away from DC… it serves as something like a commuter rail at those distances. The D Line is about 12 miles from Newton Highlands and the Blue Line is about 7 miles from Revere… but those are the long ones. So, at least some of the Metro fares may be more comparable to the Commuter Rail in Boston.
<
p>The Metro also has congestion pricing because the rush hour fares are higher (IIRC). I think that’s also a reasonable approach if the trains are too crowded. Of course, I also think that running more trains is a reasonable approach!
“more fare”. Blogo-Freudian slip. 😉
I’m not saying that it isn’t.
<
p>However, the actual part of the city that people live in is vastly different than the mall, the capitol and the White House. People don’t live there – with one exception, the first family. Let them have ‘home rule’ as they always have done so. Redraw the map and let the federal zone take the city blocks that encompass the mall and most of the federal buildings – where no one lives.
<
p>Dupont Circle, Georgetown and Foggy Bottom are vastly different than the Supreme Court building or the Treasury. People live in those places and they deserve to have the same rights as you or I. They deserve equal representation under the law. Anything else is not only undemocratic, but un-American.
All I meant is that statehood is not a precondition to having a congressperson, and that DC is much more likely to get one sooner by a law or amendment if necessary. At least with a voting congressperson, they would get at least some direct representation.
<
p>Statehood is a whole different question, and you can bet that given the current balance in the senate, the last thing Republicans want is to hand two Senators on a plate to the Democrats, so I would expect there to a lot more resistance to that idea unfair or not.
<
p>
This bill is not “unconstitutional” in the sense that it goes against the basic principles and rights the Constitution is meant to uphold, so I don’t see that this is such a big deal.
<
p>Of course, the SC may decide it is technically unconstitutional, but I don’t see that any subsequent amendment to fix the issue would involve any debate over our Nation’s values. We all know that the only reason that DC does not already have representation is that the Republicans know this will give an extra seat to the Democrats.
…this particular bill gives an extra seat to Utah, which will almost certainly be Republican. Do I assume correctly that we’ll go back to a total membership of 435 after the next census with nationwide apportionment adjusted accordingly?
The bill calls for a permanent increase in House membership to 437.
This is a clear situation in which remedying a clearly unjust result (no representation for DC residents) is almost as clearly blocked by the terms of the Constitution. The argument against the constitutionality of this bill is quite strong, for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Unfortunately, even legislation granting DC statehood would run into constitutional problems given how DC is uniquely subject to federal control in the Constitution.
<
p>A constitutional amendment to give DC representation already passed Congress in the late 70s but failed to get anywhere close to 38 states for ratification. There are enough states concerned with diluting their representation that it is very unlikely to go anywhere.
<
p>I think the most likely method to give representation to DC residents is to include DC as part of Maryland for the purposes of representation in Congress. I believe this would grant Maryland an additional Representative because of the population increase, and DC residents would be able to vote for Senator. It seems you could craft a bill to ensure DC still has home rule such that its being part of MD is really for representation purposes only.
They just draw up a new map of the ‘federal zone’ and make the populated areas be the actual state. Basically, the mall, the capitol building, SC, some federal buildings and the White House would become the federal zone – but no one, except those who live in the white house, actually live there (and those who live in the White House usually vote in their home states anyway).
<
p>I also don’t think throwing DC into Maryland makes sense. For starters, DC has its own unique culture and feel. It’s its own entity and shouldn’t be forced to join with another one. Secondly, adding DC to Maryland would be likely to cause as many or more problems than actually just granting DC statehood.
<
p>Finally, not wanting to try for something that is intrinsically right and fair because it didn’t pass in the 1970s is asinine. If we mount a campaign, we can get our 38 states, because no one should have taxation without representation.
I think you misinterpret my point. It is hardly “asinine” to suggest an uphill battle for a constitutional amendment that already failed in the states a couple decades ago (it died in 1985) and in fact didn’t even pass Congress in 1993.
<
p>If one is serious about giving representation to the District, than we have to look for the most workable solutions. The concern of other states about diluting their representation is the same today as it was then. Voting rights for DC may be “intrinsically right and fair” (which I happened to agree with), but that doesn’t mean the disincentives for other states to ratify have magically gone away.
<
p>Further, since granting voting rights is “intrinsically right and fair”, we shouldn’t let the “many or more problems” of joining MD stop the movement — we should resolve the issues. Obviously I would say that DC residents should have some sort of a vote before joining with Maryland and shouldn’t be “forced to do so”, which I never implied. My point is simply that if joining with Maryland is the most politically and constitutionally possible argument here, we should do it.
That Maryland is on the same side of the Potomac seems pretty irrelevant — there are plenty of bridges and rivers run through many states.
<
p>I think it’s a convenient thought of the past 20 years because MD was perceived as liberal and VA conservative. It turns out that VA is much bluer now than it was five years ago, and continues to trend that way because of NOVA. Add DC to VA and Virginia would turn damned blue awfully quick.
but I doubt the Republicans would go for it. If it is politically easier to get it annexed to MD, we should do that even if it means giving up short-term political advantage. Of course, maybe the (or at least many) Republicans are against any voting rights at all for the District, in which case the Maryland strategy won’t even be possible.
All land currently in DC was granted by MD and thus should be given back to MD if it’s going anywhere. Of course there are bridges, but the Potomac has always been the boundary between the two states.
is a fair point, but hell — most/all of VT, NH, and ME were once part of Massachusetts… that doesn’t mean MA is entitled to claims if boundaries change in the future.
New England lines were drawn by agents of the Crown. The NH/MA line is three miles north of the Merrimack and then from Dracut the boundary was set to run due west from the property line of a Dracut farmer. At the time of ratification MA, NH, CT, and RI were established with ME as part of MA and VT as part of NY. Those last two became states under Article IV of the Constitution (in conjunction with the Missouri Compromise for ME) which requires the states from which they are seceding to approve. Other landclaims (such as MA’s in current Michigan) were ceded to the Conferderation as a condition for ratifying the Articles, but the understanding was that the land would be used to for states in the future. MD ceded land to the federal government for a capital city and if any part of it is given to VA or made its own state, MD may have cause to say, “Hey, that’s not what we agreed to!”
is to put the vote to the people via a voter-initiated amendment to the united states constitution! let the people vote!
<
p>just kidding. 😉
It will be interesting to whether they follow or limit National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Co. (1949). In that case, the Court held that Congress could create diversity jurisdication for DC residents even though Article III is limited to cases “between citizens of different states“. I personally support a modern interpretation of “states” that includes DC in all contexts (representation and diversity, e.g.). Or I could see the merits of a hardcore “textualist” who would say you can’t do either. What I can’t stand is the current crop of conservatives who so frequently say “this far but no further” in constitutional matter, leaving the law a jurisprudential and logical mess.
Another question is whether Obama should/would sign it. Any indications? He is unlikely to snub a constituency he values with a veto, and has shown a true ability to ignore the 14th amendment where lgbt people are concerned so may be unperturbed with the bill’s potential unconstitutionality.
<
p>So, any guesses as to what will happen if this crosses his desk? I guess that he will not veto it. But whether it goes into effect with or without his signature I’m less certain. Probably with.
Then-Senator Obama cosponsored this bill in the 110th Congress.
and a fair predictor, i agree. 🙂
Didn’t President Obama swear to upold and defend the constitution?(twice, actually)
<
p>Of course the folks in D.C. deserve full voting rights, but that doesn’t mean we check our principals at the door. There’s a way to do this the right way. Knowingly floating a bill that flouts the Constitution is bad policy, imho.
<
p>Plus why does Utah get the extra seat. What did they ever do to deserve it?
When the 2000 census came out, NC barely beat out UT for the 435th Congressional seat. Utah complained that they have a disproportionate number of citizens who call Utah home but who happen to be out of town at the census. It’s a valid point because of Mormon missionaries.
<
p>If in 1999 Congress decided that there would be 436 Congressmen after the census, Utah would have gotten that final seat. That’s why Utah.
<
p>
<
p>As a side note, it would almost certainly result in one more GOP congressman and one more Dem congressman, not altering the balance in the House — which allows the decision, at least in the short term, to be considered “bipartisan”.
If Utah gets that fourth seat, do they get to re-district? Doing so could re-district Jim Matheson into oblivion, giving the GOP another pickup.
Though they tried it previously and it didn’t work.
<
p>http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.c…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J…
<
p>Perhaps they will be happy with a 3-1 split and pack all the Ds in Utah (SLC and Park Co) into his district.
<
p>http://www.deseretnews.com/art…
In 2006, Ken Starr co-wrote an editorial in the Washington Post outlining the constitutional argument for DC voting representation:
<
p>
<
p>I’d say if this is an issue that can get Joe Lieberman and Orrin Hatch (the two co-sponsors of the bill), Ken Starr and most of the Democrats in the Senate to unite, then clearly this is a very complicated area of the law that will be fascinating to watch how it unfolds.
See, Ted, I told you someone could come up with an argument, even if it was from Ken Starr.
<
p>They are clever folks, those lawyers.
<
p>What we really need is nine Obama SC appointments, starting with David as Chief Justice. Then we’d see some progress in this country.
seems to be at the heart of the issue. Is that a constitutional issue? It’s certainly a founding principle of America.
<
p>With all due respect to TedF,and following up on what Bob said: the Constitution is rarely, if ever, the last word on a constitutional issue. I’m not a lawyer, but I know that there are test cases, precedents, and established interpretations to be considered in constitutional cases.
<
p>This blog, for example, suggests the consitutional issue is indeed the “equal protection clause” and that the existing law must pass a test of “rationality,” as indicated in two cases:
<
p>
<
p>Interesting Note: the District of Columbia didn’t receive the right to vote for President until 1960.
via a constitutional amendment, presumably because the language of the Constitution limiting the selection of presidential electors to “states” didn’t allow for DC to participate. If a statutory route was thought possible, surely they would have taken it, since it’s faster and easier than amending the Constitution.
to check out that blog? I don’t know what kind of law you practice, but I like to learn what I can about the law.
<
p>I’ll never be an attorney, but on my own, I study law as a hobby. I have a decent understanding of free speech and the establishment clause as it applies to public school settings, but that’s about it. I’m always eager to learn more.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.c… I can’t ever do HTML links right.
This is what you want.
unconstitutional ever stopped them?
If you read Article I of the constitution where it establishes the “District” it states the “places purchased
shall be approved by the states legislature in which the
district is in” and ” the Congress shall have full authority over” … federal places (paraphasing). The District is originally a part of Maryland. It would make sense that the “non-Federal” portion of the district would continue to be a part of the State of Maryland, inasmuch as
the Federal government did not purchase the private property or municipal property in D.C. The Constitution also says it will not exceed 10 square miles. Which in my view any of the proprety which is not federal would have remained a part of the state. I would conclude that the “District of Columbia” does not need or deserve a
representative or a delagate, because they are effectively supposed to be represented by the Congressmen and Senators of Maryland. I don’t know if this makes sense, but if you read it for yourself in Article I, you may come away with the same impression as I did.
<
p>No, I don’t think so. If the residents of DC were “supposed to be represented” by the Congressmen and Senators of Maryland, then eligible voters would have been able to vote for them. There’s nothing even close in the Constitution that implies that DC residents are “represented by” Maryland office-holders. That would take legislation (or possibly a constitutional amendment).
…as I commented above that may have been the idea. Old maps have most of DC north of the Potomac labelled as “Part of Maryland Within the Federal District”.
People here seem confused on that.
<
p>that’s why I support redrawing the map.
<
p>Read this post: http://yglesias.thinkprogress….
<
p>Basically, by redrawing the map to make the federal zone surround the mall, white house, congress, etc. you’re turning that into “DC” which meets the constitutional requirements of having a District of Columbia. Turn that sucker into the Vatican, but with only the Pope President living there. The rest can be Rome Washington.
Amendment XVI of US Constitution provides:
<
p>
<
p>If “States” means “States” then how are DC residents subject to the income tax?
It says “without apportionment” among the several states, meaning that “you don’t have to worry about apportionment.” That is, Congress can “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,” and you don’t have to worry about anything else. So … what’s the argument for excluding DC residents?
I heard this argument in a talk by Eleanor Holmes Norton, the DC Representative to Congress. Her view is that the omission of territories from the apportionment clause and the reference only to States by reverse implication means that if only States can have representation then only States were intended to be subject to taxation.
“Reverse implication” seems a bit weak. I’d suggest it’s “double-reverse triple-somersault implication.” That argument gets a 2.5 from the BMG judge. 😉
I tend to agree about the constitutionality of this. It’s definitely questionable at best. I’d much rather see one of the following three things happen.
<
p>1) Retrocession of most of the District back to Maryland, excluding the part with all the Federal buildings that nobody lives in. However, this is extremely unlikely to happen – Maryland doesn’t want the District and all its problems.
<
p>2) A Constitutional Amendment stating that, for the purposes of representation, the District shall be treated as a state. However, management and control of the District still fall under Congressional purview – it is not a state.
<
p>3) An Amendment stating that, for purposes of representation only, the District shall be considered to be a part of Maryland. Starting with the 2010 census (and 112th Congress in 2012), divide up the representation among the states as if Maryland had the extra ~600K people living in it. But Maryland takes on no responsibility for the District’s governance.
<
p>I like the third one the best. It respects the history of the District and its origins as part of Maryland and Virginia. For example, when the District was formally ceded from Maryland and Virginia, those states’ laws remained in effect in their respective parts of the District. So it makes some sense to have their representation in Congress be as part of Maryland.
<
p>And Maryland is pretty blue already, so it doesn’t change the balance of power (making it palatable to Republicans and Democrats alike).
…in its infinite wisdom has apparently added a provision to strip DC of its rights to legislate gun control. This according to the Washington Post.