The full text of this testimony is available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

H. R. 5388 would increase the size of the House to 437 members. It treats the District of Columbia as a district that will be represented in the House. It also calls for a second new district to be located in Utah, as Utah narrowly missed out on a seat in the last reapportionment. That Utah district would be an at-large district, and the three current Utah districts would remain intact. After the next reapportionment, the District of Columbia would still be considered a district with a representative, and the remaining 436 seats would be apportioned among the states based on the current method of apportionment.

I wrote my weekly column in the Hill on this bill last spring, which I described somewhat facetiously as “much-needed, ingenious, and blatantly unconstitutional.” I say somewhat facetiously because even though the sentence had a provocative tone, I believe all three of these descriptions of H.R. 5388 are true. First, a proposal to grant the citizens of the District the right to vote for congressional representatives is much needed. It is an injustice that for over two hundred years District residents have not had congressional representation. Second, H.R. 5388 is ingenious in the way it balances the partisan concerns of Republicans and Democrats that arise over such an issue. Third, as much as I agree with the aim of the legislation and admire the political savvy of its authors, H.R.5388 is not the answer to the District’s problems. The central premise that Congress can by simple legislation create a representative for the District is wrong. The Constitution, not Congress, has determined that the House and Senate will be made up of representatives of states and states alone. Congress can no more change the Constitution on this matter by simple legislation than it could repeal the first amendment or allow sixteen year olds to serve as president.

The unfortunate conclusion of my remarks is that because H.R. 5388 is not constitutional, the road to representation for DC residents is difficult. There are three legitimate ways to accomplish this end: (1) to admit the District as a state into the United States; (2) to “retrocede” the District to Maryland; (3) to amend the constitution to allow DC to retain its current status but also grant it representation in Congress. All are legitimate means to a just end, but all would face significant political opposition.

It is an injustice that DC residents are not represented in the House and Senate.

 The full text of this testimony is available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.