On February 25, 2009, Senator Lisa Murkowsi (R–AK, pictured) introduced a Constitutional amendment allowing the District of Columbia to elect a voting representative to the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia, the location of our nation's capital, is not a state nor is it part of any state. Thus the residents of Washington, D.C. are not represented in Congress, except for one delegate in the House of Representatives who may vote so long as her vote does not determine the outcome of a bill's passage.A law with the same effect has been passed by the Senate and is currently stalled in the House of Representatives due to debate on an amendment to the law regarding gun control in D.C. Obama has said he would sign such a law if passed by Congress. The problem is if Congress has the authority to grant the District a voting representative in the first place. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states in part that:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...
Note the use of the word "States." The District is not a state, thus its residents, according to this provision of the Constitution, are not able to vote for Representatives. However, those in favor of the law justify its Constitutionality by citing the District Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), granting Congress the authority "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District..." Does "all cases whatsoever" include the right to bypass the "several States" requirement in Article I? The Congressional Research Service (CRS) says that they do not. They cite the Supreme Court case National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co. 337 U.S. 582 (1949) which holds that Congress's power in the District clause does not grant them the authority to change the structure of the federal government.
I agree with the finding of the CRS and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The District Clause allows Congress to act in a capacity similar to a state legislature, passing laws that are applied within the District. This clause should not allow Congress to change the structure of the federal government. Also, the District clause is not an amendment to the Constitution, so there is no reason to believe that it would over-ride Art. I, Sec. 2 which specifies that only states may send Representatives to Congress. I agree with Murkowski, that while DC should be entitled to voting representation, this would have to be done via the amendment process unless DC were made a state.
Making DC a state (excluding federally owned land), would probably be in fact the best solution to this dilemma. This would only require a law passed by Congress and not a Constitutional amendment. Being incredibly Democratic, DC would be sure to elect two Democratic senators and re-elect its Democratic Representative (only this time to a position of voting capacity). The Democratic majority in Congress should be jumping on this plan. And while DC is tiny, and would be the smallest
state by area, it would still have a larger population than Wyoming and Alaska. This would also grant DC representation in the Senate, which the proposed law and Constitutional amendment does not provide for.The only other solution would be for DC to be retroceded to another state, probably Maryland. However, according to the Constitution this would require the consent of both Congress and the legislature of the state receiving DC. No state would probably want to take on the burden of maintaining the city.
Hopefully this post has given you an overview of the DC Voting Rights issue currently at play in the 111th Congress.
Note that I cannot at the moment find any updates regarding this amendment.
Resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment