Should D.C. have representation in Congress? A new bill working its way through committee would give D.C. a voting House member while adding another seat for Utah. Although D.C.'s lack of voting rights is profoundly undemocratic, we oppose this bill because it has the pesky problem of being unconstitutional.
Unlike most Americans, residents of the District don't have voting representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives or in the Senate. It's an out-dated condition utterly incompatible with the "Yes We Can" era, but the thorny problem defies a simple solution.
D.C.'s disenfranchisement is as old as the nation itself. The Constitution enumerates rights and privileges of "the several states" but specifically creates a separate federal district. This "Federal District" clause is what frustrates efforts to give D.C. voting rights. This city of Southern efficiency and Northern hospitality, it seems, was designed to be different.
More than 180 years passed before D.C. got its first taste of self-determination, when Congress granted home rule to local D.C. government. But to this day, Congress has the final word. For a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all, Congress can overturn laws created by the City Council and interfere in local affairs. It's the mean older brother we can't quite get rid of.
There's one silver lining on this cloud, and her name is Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. Although D.C. residents lack full representation in Congress, they have a voice - a delegate who can participate but cannot vote on the House floor.
The million-dollar question: is this enough?
Anything short of a full vote for Ms. Norton is definitely not enough. Unfortunately, the major proposals to fix this - retrocession, statehood and constitutional amendment - all have weaknesses. The retrocession idea arises from the fact that D.C.'s land was once part of Maryland. Why not give it back? It wouldn't be unprecedented. The original District was a perfect square until Congress returned Virginia's portion in 1846. Sadly, returning the rest of D.C. to Maryland probably violates the clause of the Constitution establishing a separate federal district. No dice.
So why not make D.C. its own state? Although Congress can recognize new states, this proposal would fare no better than retrocession because creating a new state out of D.C. would violate the "Federal District" clause.
The best solution - and the most difficult one - is to amend the Constitution. Concern for District residents' rights produced an amendment once before. The 23rd Amendment, passed in 1961, gives the District electoral votes so it has a say in presidential elections. Shockingly, it wasn't until almost 50 years ago that D.C. citizens could help choose their own neighbor at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. On the congressional representation front, there have been 27 attempts to import D.C. voting rights into the Constitution. The last attempt failed in 1985. It's time to try again.
Smarter people than us struggle with how to get enough support to pass a D.C. voting rights amendment. We don't know how to do it. All we know is that a person doesn't stop being a citizen of the United States just because she lives in this city. Congress shouldn't waste time passing well-meaning but unconstitutional legislation that will inevitably be struck down in court. It should focus on a constitutional amendment.
Change begins at home for such an enormous undertaking. If you're from out of the District, call your senators and representatives. Tell them to pick a solution that will stick - a constitutional amendment giving D.C. residents voting representation in Congress. And if you're from D.C., call your ... oh, wait.
Ben Moss and Brittany Meyer are students in the Washington College of Law and columnists for The Eagle. You can reach them at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
