The column "D.C. voting needs creative solution" paints the issue of D.C. voting rights as a choice between statehood and retrocession, ignoring the fact that a bill currently before Congress is, in fact, constitutional. Statehood is a problematic option that would require a constitutional amendment. This was attempted once before, but not enough states ratified the amendment. Retrocession to Maryland, meanwhile, is considered by some scholars to be constitutionally flimsy and is opposed by Marylanders.
A bill before Congress that would give D.C. a vote in the House (balancing it with an extra vote to Utah) is constitutional, however. Yes, D.C. is not a state - despite the fact that the 16th Amendment says only states can pay federal income taxes, and we pay among the highest taxes per capita in the nation - but that doesn't matter. The District Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution allows Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over D.C. This includes approving (or rejecting) our budget and any laws our duly elected city council passes.
Many scholars, including Kenneth Starr, have said this puts the bill on solid constitutional footing. And if you're still unsure, the bill allows for expedited legal challenges, so we can let the Supreme Court decide who's right. But the best argument I can give as to why Washington, D.C., should be given representation is this: We're Americans. We call this country home too. We pay our dues to keep this country strong. All we're asking for is the same right you take for granted. Taxation without representation shouldn't exist. Not here.
Zachary Bernstein Sophomore, College of Arts and Sciences
