Z forwarded an e-mail message he’d received the other day from an old colleague who moved to Washington, D.C. some months ago. The mass e-mail urged all Americans reading it to write to their representatives in Congress and urge him/her to support a bill for Congressional voting rights in the District of Columbia. Some say the bill, which doesn't give full Congressional representation to the capitol, is currently the best way to ensure that residents of the federal capitol get SOME full representation in the legislative branch.
But is it?…
For anyone unfamiliar with the situation, here’s a lesson in American government. Thinking Caps on, people:
Article I of the Federal Constitution sets up the legislative body of the American federal government, creating “a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I, Section 2 describes members of the House, who are elected every two years by “the people of the several States.” Representation in the House is based on population, with every state guaranteed at least one Representative (Congressperson), and other states getting more of the 435 seats based on the most recent census. For the Senate, Article I, Section 3 promises two Senators per state, regardless of population. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution specifies “two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years.” (Previously, state legislatures had appointed Senators.) Thus, currently, with fifty states, the Senate is composed of 100 members, with the Vice President acting as President of the Senate.
Pretty sweet deal, if you’re a state. But, the District of Columbia is not a state. A territory? Sort of. Unlike another “famous” U.S. “territory”, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, D.C. citizens are able to vote in Presidential elections (thanks to the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, giving D.C. three electoral college votes) and pay an income tax annually to the federal government. There’s the catch: Congress levies taxes. But the Constitution contains no method for the citizens of D.C. to elect representatives to Congress. Granted, they elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives (just like Puerto Rico and other federal territories), but he or she has no voting power outside of a committee. Taxation without representation? That’s what the D.C. license plates say. The War of Independence rhetoric of “No taxation without representation!” is alive and well on the north shore of the Potomac.
Washington, D.C. is a bit unique in American history. A planned city, put deliberately near the meeting of North and South (as far as the original 13 colonies are concerned). Thus, no side (north or south) could claim the other has more influence in federal affairs. Geographically, the capitol sat in between the cultural divide that existed at the time (and perhaps persists today, albeit in a slightly different form). Taking land from Virginia and Maryland, Virginia won back its lands just south of the Potomac River several decades prior to the Civil War (I believe they now make up tiny Arlington County). The Maryland-derived lands that currently make up the District now have a dilemma: we pay taxes, but we have crap for power in Congress.
Does it matter? The District of Columbia has over 500,000 residents, more than the State of Wyoming (which sends two Senators and one Representative to Congress). I say a Delegate is not enough. They may get to vote for the President and Vice President, but they need real teeth for legislative affairs. This “in the middle” status for D.C. (more powers than a territory or commonwealth, but fewer than a state) seems infantile, at best. Do one or the other. Either take away the three electoral college votes and (come tax time) say “thanks, but keep your money” OR let them send representatives to Congress.
I somehow doubt the federal government would want to deprive itself of billions of dollars in income taxes it would get in the future from Washington, D.C. Thus, let’s give them some Congressional representation. I say if two Senators and one Representative work fine for Wyoming, then do the same for D.C. That, apparently, has been tried time and again, though. Some don’t like the idea of giving a non-State the rights of a State. Others (particularly Republicans, it seems) note that D.C. is heavily African-American and traditionally falls to Democrats in local elections… thus, full Congressional rights for D.C. might add one Democrat to the House and two to the Senate. To those partisans, I ask, what if D.C. went Republican in the next decade? Would your opposition subside? As you blush, I’ll rest my case.
Some argue that representation in the House would be sufficient. One out of 435, since D.C. is not as populated as California, New York, Florida, or Texas. They’re an Alaska, or Wyoming, at best. In fact, the bill that Z’s friend was drooling over would temporarily increase the House to 437 members, giving Utah an extra seat (which would probably go Republican, thus alleviating fears that D.C. would elect a Democrat) while D.C. gets a full representative. But, what about the Senate? The Senate and the House do not necessarily share equal powers. The Senate, among other duties, must confirm cabinet-level positions, certain federal positions, and all nominations to federal courts (including the Supreme Court). The House has the power to impeach, but impeachment trials are handled by the Senate. Since the powers between the houses differ, I say at least one Senator is needed, bringing the Senate to an awkward 101 membership (and pretty much rendering the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote moot)… so two would be preferential!
They’ve tried this before, including D.C. statehood through an act of Congress, an Amendment to the Constitution (it got through Congress and sixteen state legislatures before dying off after the seven-year deadline due to fears that D.C. would elect Democrats to Congress), and a bill introduced twice in recent sessions to give D.C. as much representation (again) as Wyoming. Will this new “halfway” (one House, no Senate) bill work? Maybe. But is it worth it? I say no. Enough of this halfway bullsh*t. A halfway territory/state didn’t please anyone (look for the Washington, D.C. license plates). So why go halfway with Congress? It might get through, but does that make it right? Two Senators, one Representative, and quit b*tching.
Posted by James at June 25, 2004 03:11 PM