The issue has been largely silent until the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the past elections, but before that the House had tried on a couple of occasions to grant the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House. At one point there was an amendment passed by Congress that attempted to grant D.C. the right to vote in the House in 1978, but it failed to receive the 2/3rds majority. In 1993 the House of Representatives rejected the proposal to make D.C. a state. Currently, along side America Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico the District of Columbia has a single non voting representative in the House. This past week the House of Representatives passed a law that would provide D.C. full voting rights within the House. Putting aside the fact that none of the other Commonwealths were even considered along side D.C. (even though Puerto Rico has frequently been talked about as becoming our 51st state in recent decades), this new law is wholly unconstitutional regardless of whether D.C. alone gets a voting Representative or all four Commonwealths receive voting Representatives in the House. The text of the Constitution is clear:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” – Article I section II sentence 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
D.C. is not a state, nor was it ever intended to become a state. D.C. is a Federal district, set aside for our Federal government to set up shop. While our government originally called New York City home, it was always assumed that the government would be moved to a neutral site outside of every state. D.C. is made up of sections of both Virginia and Maryland, yet it is neither Virginia nor Maryland. If D.C. were in a state, or considered a state, it could in theory hold sway over the Federal government. This is why the Founders never intended to make D.C. a state, or they would have back when Hamilton and Jefferson worked out a deal to put the capitol in the South.
The fact that the 23rd Amendment gives the District of Columbia the right to vote in Presidential elections, does not mean it should have the right to Representation along side the states. The 23rd Amendment, in so far as it provides American citizens in D.C. the right to vote is fine. However, the District itself should not be given representation in the electoral college as the amendment allows. But even then, the 23rd Amendment makes it clear as day,
“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State…” -23rd Amendment
The District should never have been given votes in the electoral college; it is to be comprised of electors from the several states. The inhabitants of the District should hold citizenship in another state, preferably Maryland or Virginia. Again, I point to the Federal Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”- Article III section 1 sentence ii.
It is clear that the District of Columbia possesses no legal claim to statehood, as the 23rd Amendment makes clear. Only states ought to have electors in the Electoral College, as Article III of the Federal Constitution states. And the House of Representatives is to be made of members of the several states, as Article II section ii states. Thus as D.C. is not a state, it ought not to have claim to electors in the Electoral College and should not have Representation in the House of Representatives.
Lastly, the District of Columbia would only be gaining a right to vote in the House but not the Senate. This bill that has been passed would throw off the balance; Each state is given a right to vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. You will now have 50 states plus 1 Commonwealth voting on matters in the House of Representatives but only the 50 states voting in the Senate. How is a law that is to effect the states, but would not effect the District, to be considered fair when the House of Representatives allows a body to vote that has not subject to the law? Part of what makes our system work is that the members comprising both chambers of Congress are subject to the laws they pass. If the House (now comprised of voting members from the District) and the Senate (still with the traditional 50 states represented) pass a bill that only applies to the States, but not the District, you are throwing off the delicate balance that was initially established to prevent tyranny from developing.
This bill is both wholly unconstitutional (as it violates Article II of the Federal Constitution) and violates the most sacred principle of representative government (that the people who make the laws are subject to them.) I can only hope the Senators realize the grave mistake made by their colleagues in the House.
