Voting Rights Tangle in D.C.

Research Fellow John C. Fortier
On Thursday, residents of the District of Columbia will walk the halls of Congress to advocate for the D.C. Voting Rights Act. D.C. residents should be represented in Congress, but the proposed bill to grant such representation by simple legislation is unconstitutional. If the bill does pass into law, all of the hours of advocacy will be wasted when the courts strike it down.

The District has 580,000 residents who, like other U.S. citizens, pay taxes, fight in wars, and vote in presidential elections. But unlike citizens in states, District residents have no voting representatives in the House or Senate.

D.C. congressional representation is being addressed in two ways in the 110th Congress. First, Democrats amended House rules, as they did in 1993, to allow delegates from D.C. and the territories to vote in committees and the committee of the whole, as long as the delegate votes do not actually count toward final passage of a bill.

Republicans complained bitterly about the 1993 policy, brought suit against it, and ultimately reversed it when they took over the majority in the 104th Congress. Columnist George Will has recently taken up the case that such a procedure is unconstitutional. But Will is wrong. Leaving aside the wisdom of such a proposal, federal courts in Michel v. Anderson ruled that delegates may be permitted to vote in committees and the committee of the whole. The courts’ reasoning mirrored a quip by then-Rep. Bob Walker (R-Pa.), who noted that “when they vote when it counts, it does not count, and when it does not count, it counts.”

In other words, Congress has the right to design its committees and other internal structures as it sees fit. The only constitutional requirement is that the representatives who vote on final passage of a bill are those who represent states.

The other D.C. voting proposal is more ambitious and constitutionally dubious. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) have introduced a revised version of a bill they sponsored in the 109th Congress. The bill increases the size of the House to 437 members and gives the two new seats to the District of Columbia and Utah, the state that barely missed out on a seat in the last reapportionment.

The problem with this approach is that it is not Congress but rather the Constitution that specifies what entities are represented in Congress. The Constitution says explicitly that only states shall have representatives, and the District of Columbia is not a state. Similarly, the original Constitution provided for people to vote through their states in the electoral college. D.C. residents did not participate in the election of a president until the 23rd Amendment changed the Constitution to allow it. Congress could not have given the presidential vote to D.C. residents by simple legislation.

The advocates for this approach rely heavily on the seat-of-government clause that gives Congress power to “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever” when governing the District. But this great legislative power is akin to the power a state government has to govern over its people, not a power to override the Constitution.

There are only three constitutional ways for D.C. to gain representation in Congress. First, D.C. could be admitted as a state. Second, the Constitution could be amended to give House and/or Senate representation to the District. Third, D.C. could be ceded back to Maryland, just as Arlington and Alexandria were ceded back to Virginia in the 19th century.

All legitimate constitutional options, all difficult to accomplish, but the only possibilities for District citizens to have representation in Congress.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

John C.
Fortier

What's new on AEI

To secure southern border, US must lead international effort to stabilize Central America
image The Ryan pro-work, anti-poverty plan: Thomas Aquinas 1, Ayn Rand 0
image Does SNAP support work? Yes and no
image Obama Democrats lose their big bet on health exchanges
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Monday, July 21, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
Closing the gaps in health outcomes: Alternative paths forward

Please join us for a broader exploration of targeted interventions that provide real promise for reducing health disparities, limiting or delaying the onset of chronic health conditions, and improving the performance of the US health care system.

Monday, July 21, 2014 | 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Comprehending comprehensive universities

Join us for a panel discussion that seeks to comprehend the comprehensives and to determine the role these schools play in the nation’s college completion agenda.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014 | 8:50 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Who governs the Internet? A conversation on securing the multistakeholder process

Please join AEI’s Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy for a conference to address key steps we can take, as members of the global community, to maintain a free Internet.

Thursday, July 24, 2014 | 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Expanding opportunity in America: A conversation with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan

Please join us as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveils a new set of policy reforms aimed at reducing poverty and increasing upward mobility throughout America.

Thursday, July 24, 2014 | 6:00 p.m. – 7:15 p.m.
Is it time to end the Export-Import Bank?

We welcome you to join us at AEI as POLITICO’s Ben White moderates a lively debate between Tim Carney, one of the bank’s fiercest critics, and Tony Fratto, one of the agency’s staunchest defenders.

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.