Rodriguez, Hector, chairman, National Hispanic Committee for the District of Columbia Full Voting Representation in the U.S. Congress Pearl, Natasha, senior student, Woodrow Wilson High School, Washington, Waxman, Bruce I., Washington, D.C. chapter of the National Lawyers Guild ... Hays, Paul, chairman, District of Columbia, Republican Party. Saltzburg, Prof. Stephen A., University of Virginia Law School Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, accompanied by James McClellan, minority counsel, Separation of Powers Subcommittee...... Memorandum to Hector Rodriguez from Silverio Coy, chairman, Metropoli- sures...... 174 Amended resolution on statehood for the District of Columbia -"Division on Statehood Shown in Local Poll," the Eagle, April 15, 1977 Viewpoints: "Voting Rights for D.C.," from the Board of Trade News, "Statehood Guarantees Self-Government as Well as Full Voting Rights," "Bill for D.C. Statehood Backed," from the Washington Post, Feb. 26, 1976.. National Capital Service Area, Federal Enclave, Public Law 93-198, Sec. Remarks by Julius W. Hobson, D.C. Statehood Party, before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Judiciary Committee, July 22, 1971. Excerpt from the "Captive Capital: Colonial Life in Modern Washington,' by Sam Smith, Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University Press, 1974; chap- Bayh, Hon. Birch, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on direct 291 Citizens Advisory Committee to the District of Columbia Bar, letter to Hon. 294 District of Columbia: "Voting Representation in Congress," Issue Brief, Library League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, prepared statement 352 292 298 297 Wright, Prof. Charles Alan, Charles T. McCormick professor of law at the 296 H.J. Res. 554, joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room 5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Metzenbaum, Scott, and Hatch. Staff present: Nels Ackerson, chief counsel and executive director; Mary K. Jolly, staff director; Linda Rogers-Kingsbury, chief clerk; Fred Williams, professional staff member; Ben Dixon, professional staff member; Christi Johnson; and Bobbi Douglas. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BIRCH BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Senator BAYH. The subcommittee will come to order. This morning we will convene the hearings of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary on Senate Joint Resolution 65. I personally hope that our actions this morning will be remembered as a very important historical event, marking the beginning of the end of the disenfranchisement of over 750,000 American citizens. It is rather appropriate that we begin these hearings on April 17. As you are probably aware, this is the last day for filing income tax returns. And I say it is appropriate to begin these hearings on this day, because the 750,000 citizens of the District must file income tax returns, but they are denied a very basic right that goes along with paying taxes, and that is the right to be represented in the Congress of the United States. Taxation without representation is an anathema to the concept of justice, equality, and liberty, the basic conceptual foundations of our great democracy. It is with a great deal of optimism that I begin these hearings this morning. I believe the end result will be the eradication of a grave injustice to a population that is larger in size than 7 of the 50 States. I would like to add that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join Senator Kennedy and eight other of my distinguished colleagues as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 65. I think it is also interesting (1) that we are beginning these hearings on the date of that great athletic event in his State, the Boston Marathon. He and I and several others on the committee have participated in this great legislative marathon which we hope will result in the success of our efforts. I am ready to take appropriate action to move this important amendment toward quick approval by the Senate, so that the resiIdents of the District, like all other citizens of this Nation, will receive the representation to which they are entitled. It is with a great deal of optimism that we begin these hearings this morning. I believe that the end result will be our ratification of this amendment and eradication of a great injustice to a population that I would emphasize is larger than 7 of our 50 States. The District of Columbia has been for many years what we might call a living paradox in the American scheme of government. It is the seat of the greatest representative democracy the world has ever known, yet it was not until 1964 that its residents were permitted to vote for the President of the United States. I felt fortunate in the late 1950's as a member of the Indiana general assembly to introduce Indiana's ratification of that amendment to resolve what should have been done a long time ago as regards that part of the problem. It was not until April 1971 that they were given the right to elect a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives. And let me add that the citizens of the District have been extremely well represented in the person of Congressman Walter Fauntroy for the past 7 years. But more must be done. We must go further in extending voting representation to the District. I say this because I firmly believe that the conditions that led to the original decision denying the right to vote have drastically changed. The Framers of the Constitution were intent on providing a site over which the Federal Government would exercise exclusive control in those early days. They wanted a separate capital which would not only protect the national image, but which would be immune from both jurisdictional disputes as well as potentially harassing incidents. For many of the Founding Fathers, national representation for the District would necessarily have precluded the establishment of exclusive Federal control over the capital site. As James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers, "Complete Federal authority at the seat of Government" was necessary to avoid the "dependence of the members of the general Government on the State comprehending that seat for protection in the exercise of their duties." Clearly, the founders perceived the need for a strong Federal territory, free of State encroachment, and secure from domestic unrest. But that was 200 years ago. However, it should be noted that while the framers fully intended to establish a separate capital city, they never fully decided to exclude the residents of that city from political representation. As a matter of record, it is important to note that between 1790 and December 1800, residents of the District participated in State |