the District over a year and a half before the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution.11 During the post-Civil War period, District blacks, led by Frederick Douglass, made some progress in promoting legislation which expoused racial equity. The City Council passed laws prohibiting racial discrimination in public places in the late These laws, however, were largely 1860's and early 1870's. The plight of blacks in the district deteriorated in the late nineteenth century. They found it nearly impossible to rise above the lowest ranks of jobs offered by the city government. In the private sector, black professionals could not develop a sizeable patronage and unions barred them from membership.13 federal government did nothing to help District blacks; it tolerated segregation, hired few blacks except at the lowest levels, and ignored Washington's expanding slums. The Racial unrest came to a head in 1919 when white servicemen attacked a group of blacks: That attack led to five days of 14 rioting and thirty-nine deaths. It became all too clear that despite civil rights legislation, segregation and discrimination worsened in both public and private areas. Progress in civil rights and on the issue of self-determination was slow in the 1950's and 60's because the congressional committees that governed the District were relatively insensitive to these issues. However, despite congressional resistance to home rule, President Johnson made some progress for District residents in the early 1960's when he declared the District a federal agency and appointed a Mayor and City Council for the District.15 The House District Committee at that time was dominated by Southern Whites. Representative John McMillan of South Carolina chaired the committee from 1948 to 1972. During his reign, bills to implement home rule in the District of Columbia invariably 16 died in committee. McMillan lost his bid for reelection in 1972.17 McMillan's defeat marked the beginning of a new, more promising era for progress on the home rule issue.. Cari `Albert, the Speaker of the House, took up the cause, as did many citizens' groups. In 1973; their collective efforts ripened into fruition when Congress finally passed a bill granting the 18 District limited home rule. 15, 16 17. 18, Id. at 13. Smith, supra note 7 at 142-43. Schrag, supra note 5 at 13. See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973). Nevertheless, the provisions of the bill fell far short of full self-determination. The District was allowed to elect a Mayor and City Council, levy taxes, float bond issues, and assume control over several areas of government authority formerly 19 controlled by federal agencies. Yet Congress imposed many limitations on these powers. Congress could still pass legislation for the District by means of riders on appropriations bills and other similar techniques. Furthermore, Congress could restrict or abolish the new limited home rule at any time. 20 Even before the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, a statehood movement had already begun in the District. In 1969, Julius Hobson, a prominent civil rights leader in the District, founded the Statehood Party. And while the Home Rule Act took some of the steam out of the statehood movement, as most local politicians set about the more mundane task of trying to derive benefits from the new limited home rule, the movement did not 21, die. Although the District was more populous than four states, the idea of statehood was dismissed by most local politicians who doubted that Congress would seriously consider admitting a black, urban state into the Union. Ever persistent, the District of 22 19 20. See Smith, supra note 7 at 166. See Id. at 166-67; Schrag, supra, note 5 at 13-14. Columbia held a Statehood Constitutional Convention in 1982. The Convention proceeded despite opposition from some residents of the district's white neighborhoods who objected to the Statehood Initiative in 1980. Interestingly, these objections were reminiscent of the 19th century City Council attack on black suffrage. 23 It becomes hard to avoid the belief that much of the opposition to statehood (in the District and in the country at large) comes from whites who fear that statehood for the District 24 of Columbia will give blacks too much power. Now that I have discussed some of the political history of the District, I want to respond to the questions put to me last month by Mr. Fauntroy, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health. Indeed, the five questions he posed are ones that are continuously raised as the matter of statehood is discussed. The first question is: What steps must Congress take to pass a statehood bill for the [non-federal part of the] District of Columbia? · The Constitution says that "New States may be admitted by ,25 the Congress into this Union .... This provision gives " Congress immense discretion in deciding whether to admit new states; however, "neither house of Congress has ever voted to reject or deny admission to the Union by any state which had petitioned it."26 Congressional action for admitting states depends, in some respects, on the method the proposed state utilizes to seek admission. Proposals for statehood have typically made use of one of the following five methods in seeking admission to the Union: 1) 2) 3) A direct act of Congress, without preliminaries. A joint resolution of Congress, dealing with a foreign government. The passage of an enabling act, followed by the 4) drafting and ratification of a constitution. Prior preparation of a constitution by the people of the area seeking admission, without Congressional approval, through an act of admission. 5) Prior action by the people on the assumption that they 27 could enter into the Union as of right. The residents of the District of Columbia have chosen to pursue statehood by method four: Prior preparation of constitution by the people of the area. Regardless of the procedures a state follows in seeking admission into the Union, however, Congress 26 Davila-Colon, Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination and the U.S. Statehood Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 13 Case W. Res. 315, 317 (1981) [hereinafter cited as Equal Citizenship]. 27. Park, Admission of States and the Declaration of Independence, 33 Temp. L.Q. 403, 405 (1960). |