I am a resident of Washington DC. I am denied the basic rights of every other non-felonious citizen of the United States. Washington DC does not have representation in Congress as most of you know.
I moved here last year and had no idea how much my disenfranchisement would bother me. I am curious as to the legal and moral reasoning behind this policy. Specifically I have wondered about the following:
Why doesn’t the Democratic party seem to care about this issue? They would win two guaranteed Senate seats and a House seat if DC had voting rights.
What articles of the Constitution are relavent to voting rights of District residents?
Does anyone see this changing at some point in our lifetime?
Part 2 of your post is easy to answer. Article I, Section 2:
Article I, Section 3:
Article I, Section 8:
In other words, Section 8 allows Congress to create the District of Columbia, and Sections 2 and 3 prevent it from having votes in Congress.
There are three ways in which this could be changed: (1) amend the Constitution; (2) grant statehood to D.C., or (3) return the district to Maryland.
The first approach requires a supermajority but, oddly enough, has come closest to realization. Congress passed a Constitutional amendment granting representation in both chambers to D.C. by the requisite two-thirds majorities in 1978, but it failed of ratification–more through apathy, as I recall, than through outright opposition.
Statehood could be enacted through ordinary legislation, but has generated little support, mostly because of the off-and-on fiscal crises the District government has experienced since gaining home rule in 1974. In 1992 the Democratic-majority House of Representatives voted 277-153 against DC statehood. Members of Congress and their staffers have to live in DC, and I don’t think they want to be held hostage to the taxing and legislative power of a sovereign state government. Congress likes controlling the purse strings of the city in which they live and work.
So no, I don’t think this will change in our lifetimes.
As a fellow DC resident, I am very, very, very pro-DC voting rights. I damn near hit the roof whenever I hear people say things like, “If you want your vote to count, move to Virginia.” It just drives me batty.
That being said, I think statehood for DC is a poor goal. This place was never designed to be a state - god forbid that we lose the large sums that are given to the District every year by Uncle Sam.
For the moment, I’m pulling for that bill the exempts DC residents from the federal income tax until such time as we have voting representation in Congress.
Thank you both for your excellent answers. I am familiar with the clause of the Constitution that gives representation to the states. I didn’t frame my OP quite right. What I meant to ask was if there was a legitimate constiutional argument to be made in favor of voting rights.
I am also baffled by the Democratic party’s inattention to the issue. Whether DC becomes part of Maryland, Virginia, or its own entity as regards representation it can only be good for the party. It would seem to me that the idea of a voting District would be a very frightening thing to the Republican party.
I am sure there are legitimate arguments for keeping DC as a non-voting entity. Problem is those are rarely the arguments I hear. I have heard the 'move to VA, MD, etc . . . line more than once. Worse than that I have heard people opine that if DC can’t manage their own affairs then we didn’t deserve voting rights. Using that logic East St. Louis, Orange County and Gary, Indiana would long since have lost the right to vote.
I wonder if this issue is even on most people’s radar.
Yeah, it does seem to be somehow wrong. Although no one is forced to live in DC. One could just as easily live in MD or VA if the franchise is that important. It’s not like either state is 100 miles away.
The state idea doesn’t make much sense. The area is just ridiculously small.
No, as long as the District exists as an independent entity (that is, not part of any state), it is simply not possible for it to be given voting representation in Congress.
I certainly agree that this is unsatisfactory from a moral standpoint; after all, one of the principles of the Revolution was “no taxation without representation”, and DC residents pay federal taxes. But, realistically, I don’t see it changing.
As far as Democratic indifference to this issue goes, I think there are several factors–futility (with Congress as closely divided as it is today, Republicans would never agree to any change), love of power (politicians recoil at giving up control over anything, even when it might benefit their party), and lack of resonance outside of DC (politcians win by running against “that crowd in Washington”, not by crusading on its behalf).
So in other words you want Federal money but you don’t want to pay taxes becase you don’t have the privilege of paying state taxes in addition to Federal and local like the rest of us?
There is no other demographic group in america who votes so overwelmingly for one party. Black americans vote over 90% for democrats. No other group even comes close to such a one-sided voting pattern. The republicans are well aware of this.
Since most residents of DC are black, the republican party will fight giving the vote to DC as long as they can.
It is as simple as that. The voting rights of DC residents are prevented by republicans, just as you are. Giving the vote to DC residents automatically creates 2 democrat senators and one house member, forever. It is politics.
Until the republican party loses power on a national scale, it will prevent DC residents from ever getting the vote. You wont see voting in DC until the democrats are again in power, which may not be too long.
I dont think the republicans will continue to exist much longer if they keep exporting jobs and factories out of the United States. Sooner or later, there will be enough impoverished towns, and enough jobless americans, to kick out most republicans from office.
The republicans have not won the popular vote for president since 1988, 15 years ago, and I doubt that they ever will again. It is only a matter of time before they lose the house and senate also if they continue to destroy our economy.
Thats is a great idea Ravenman. Then every rich business person and actor in the United States will move to DC driving up prices even more and driving out everyone who lives there now.
You know what they should have done, zillions and zillions of years ago, is zone the District for business and government only. Seems like it would have made the voting thing a nonissue. But they’re there, so the issue’s there.
Myself, I don’t blame the Republicans for anything. In their shoes I would do anything to keep DC non-voting. I would not necessarily expect the Democrats to succeed in getting voting rights for the District. I would have expected them to make more noise over the issue and scare the bejezuss out of the Republican party.
I don’t know if size is really the issue. Population would seem more important to me. In that respect we are not that much smaller than Wyoming and Alaska. I know I will have to suck it up, because I don’t see change coming soon. I just wish I could see hope on the horizon.
1961 - The 23rd Amendment is ratified, granting D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections for the first time. The District is entitled to the same number of electors as though it were a state.
1970 - The U.S. House of Representatives restores the position of nonvoting delegate from the District of Columbia.
1978 - Congress approves the D.C. Voting Rights constitutional amendment by two-thirds majorities of both chambers.
1985 - The D.C. Voting Rights constitutional amendment fails when it is ratified by only 16 of the required 38 states.
1993 - The U.S. House of Representatives votes to allow the delegates from the District of Columbia and the four territories to vote on the floor of the House in the Committee of the Whole. Previously, the delegates had been permitted to vote only in committee.
So, Fruitbat, I wouldn’t exactly say the democrats have been inattentive to the matter. In Conceivable, it seems to me that the republicans aren’t too worried about taking the blame on this issue. To wit: Look what happened on the very first day of the new Republican-controlled congress:
1995: The District of Columbia’s delegate is terminated from the official House roster and no longer has voting privileges, even in cases where her vote is nondecisive.
Because democrats never had the 3/4ths majority control of state legislatures or 2/3rds control of both houses?
I was mostly speaking about Susanann’s post blaming Republicans for everything.
Because I am curious - in 1985 how many of the 34 states did not ratify the amendment were Democrat? I am noting finding an answer from my google searches.
Actually, Bricker, when it was determined that delegates could in fact vote on the floor of the House of Representatives during the Democrat-controlled 103rd Congress without violating the Constitution, Eleanor Holmes Norton was allowed to do so.
That right was taken away in the 104th Congress. I’ll give you one guess as to why.
Um, I hate to poke a hole in your sarcasm, but there are a number of states with no state income tax that have yet to become haven for the wealthy and famous (including NH and WA). In DC, you would still be subject to the district income tax (which amounts to around 10%) as well as a fairly hefty sales tax. The rich and famous will probably stick around in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, among their own kind.
Why should DC residents pay federal taxes, if they receive no legislative representation from the federal government? It sounds reasonable to me. If you don’t want us to be represented in the federal institutions, then you shouldn’t support the government with our tax dollars. That is what I would argue if I lived in DC.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was being serious. The rich pay way much more in federal income tax then they do in state and local taxes. An area with no federal income taxes would become a haven for the rich and famous in numbers that you even imagine. What is a measily 10% district income tax when you can save about 38% on your income above $310,000?
If the residents of DC became exempt from paying federal income tax then the poor black democratic voters wouldn’t be able to afford to live there anymore.
DC residents will get the vote when its residents become multicultured, and more representative of the population at large.
2.Another possibility would be that DC residents will get the vote as soon as african-americans assimilate into our culture to the extent that their voting patterns more closely resemble the population at large(as other cultures have done).
As soon as african americans vote like the other demographic groups, instead of 90%+ democrat, then the republicans will stop trying to keep them from voting. When the black vote is “up for grabs” then republicans will cater to them and try to get their votes in all elections.
)