"[Representation for the District) recognizes that the right to vote is the last we should ever withhold, because it can protect all others." November, 1967 Ramsey Clark, Former Attorney "The need for an amendment [providing representation for the District] at this late date in our history is too self-evident for further elaboration; continued denial of voting representation from the District of Columbia can no longer be justified." June, 1970 William Rehnquist, former Assistant Attorney General (now a U.S. Supreme Court Justice) "No serious constitutional issues exist as to the power or right of Congress to amend the Constitution to provide full national voting representation for the District of Columbia... the basis exists, in history, in the Constitution, and in fact, for Congress to bestow equality of national representation upon the citizens of the Nation's Capital as it has in other legislation provided equal voting status to all citizens of the United States." July, 1971 Sherman L. Cohn, Professor of Law "Among the many considerations related to full voting representation,one point stands out above all: If no Constitutional purpose is served by exclusion of the District, the broader principles of government which the Constitution is meant to effect favor [Congressional representation]." June, 1975 Peter Raven-Hansen "It seems to me that the clear purpose of [the 'equal suffrage' clause] was to ensure that the Great Compromise would not be undone and that representation in the Senate would not be put on the basis of population. That purpose is not compromised by allowing the District to have two Senators any more than it is when a new state is admitted." October, 1977 Professor Charles Alan Wright "Representatives... raise a threshold question that must be answered before any specific amendment to the Constitution is considered: i.e., is representation for the District necessary? The right answer must be 'yes'." October, 1977 Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg 11 "In my judgement, H.J. Res. 554 and H.J. Res. 565 [which provide for D.C. fullvoting representation] raise no substantial constitutional issues. Most respectfully, I suggest that the constitutional issues that have been raised about the various amendments for voting representation are without substance and are little more than roadblocks thrown up by those who seek to prevent the District from obtaining representation in the Houses of Congress." October, 1977 Attorney Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. "There is no constitutional mandate that says the Senate must have 100 members. Should Congress decide to amend the Constitution and allow citizens of the District congressional representation, there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid it." October, 1977 Professor Herbert O. Reid, Sr. "... the purpose of [Article V] is to insure that no state gets more representation in the Senate than any other state. This principle would not be contravened by a constitutional amendment allowing the District two Senators. The practical effect of such an amendment would be no different from the practical effect of admitting new states to the union. The number of Senators has increased since the adoption of our Constitution from 26 to 100." October, 1977 Patricia M. Wald, Assistant Attorney "The Constitution is entirely clear in that Congress has plenary power to do whatever it wishes with respect to the District... October, 1977 Professor Arthur S. Miller George Washington Since 1800, there have been more than 150 congressional resolutions introduced which have been aimed at providing voting representation, in some form, for the District of Columbia. On more than 20 different occasions, hearings have been held on the subject. Not since the Dred Scott decision or the former language of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, have we said to a group of Americans that they are less than whole citizens. Continued inaction and indifference by the Congress can only be viewed as deliberate discrimination. THE CONSTITUTION AND FULL VOTING REPRESENTATION The Constitution is a living, expanding document. The amendments to the Constituion are testimony that it is not static and inflexible. The historical problem of District representation in Congress has been that representation is conditioned on statehood. Yet, the District has been deemed a state for other purposes of government. İn Loughborough v. Blake (1820), Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Congress has the authority to directly tax residents. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states that direct taxes are to be appointed “among the several states which may be included in this union." Nevertheless, District residents have equally shared this burden of citizenship for the 158 years since the Court's decision. The District was able to participate more fully in the rights originally bestowed on state residents when the Supreme Court ruled that its residents had a Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. This was affirmed in Callan v. Wilson (1887) even though the Amendment referred only to “an impartial jury of the state and [judicial] district wherein the crime shall have been committed." In Stoutenburgh v. Hennick (1889), the Court ruled that Congress could exercise-but not delegate-its commerce power to regulate business across District borders, despite the language in Article I, Section 8 referring only to "comamong the several states." merce And in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater (1949), the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute which included the District under diversity jurisdiction in federal courts along with the states. The longtime inclusion of the District in several government contexts normally reserved for the states not only illuminates the similarity between the functions of the District and the states, but also gives precedence for the proposed amendment on voting representation in Congress. Moreover, there is general agreement in case law that some words in the Constitution are “technical”—describing the mechanics of government-and are meant to be strictly and narrowly construed. Other words are “general”, for which time and experience are intended to give meaning. The word "State" belongs in this category of general terms. Were it not for the general words, the Constitution would not be a living document and would have surpassed its usefulness long ago. The word "State" in the Constitution appears to be ambiguous as it pertains to the District. Moreover, the term need not be interpreted in a singular capacity, when it is realized that there are examples of inconsistent word usage in the Constitution. The word "manner” has been held to include the setting of voter qualifications in Article II, Section 1, but not in Article I, Section 4. If it is realized that "State" is ambiguous, then its logical interpretation demands including the District when necessary to carry out the intent of the Founding Fathers to achieve basic Constitutional principles. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Classic (1941): "We read ... [the Constitution's] words, not as we read legislative codes which are subject to continuous revision with the changing course of events, but as the revelation of the great purposes which were intended to be achieved by the Constitution as a continuing instrument of government." Amending the Constitution to extend the right to vote to a previously disenfranchised group is not a new concept. Indeed, there have been six amendments which resulted in enfranchisement. The 15th amendment made race, color or previous condition of servitude illegal factors in denying the right to vote. The 17th amendment provided for the popular election of Senators. Women achieved the right to vote when the 19th amendment was ratified. In 1961, District residents were extended the right to vote for President and Vice-President pursuant to the 23rd amendment. The 24th amendment abolished poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in federal elections, and the right to vote was extended to 18 year old persons following ratification of the 26th amendment. There are several commonly raised points associated with the Constitution which opponents use to argue against full voting representation for the District. Those points are addressed in an issue/answer format which follows: ISSUE: ANSWER: Why is it appropriate for the federal district to be represented in the Senate as well as in the House? There is no Constitutional prohibition against providing the federal district representation in the Senate as well as the House. The Senate and the House have different functions. Partial representation maintains under-representation. Moreover, accepting the concept of representation renders partial representation illogical. Artical I, Section 3, of the Constitution provides that the Senate be composed of two senators from each state. Historically, the Constitution provided that these two senators were to be chosen by the legislatures of the several states, giving effect to the Great Compromise, which holds that the United States is a nation composed of people who live in discernible political entities whose representation in the legislature must take cognizance of their relative population sizes. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the method of senatorial selection so that senators no longer represent "states," they represent "people." Equally important is the fact that there is no language in the Constitution which prohibits senatorial representation for the federal district. Indeed, the broader principles of democracy encourage both Senate and House representation. Senate representation is also justified by the Constitution's vesting all legislative powers of the United States in a Congress which is composed of two bodies. Both the House and Senate consider legislation, and both must act before a measure becomes law. Further, each of these bodies possesses unique powers. The House originates all bills for raising revenues and has the sole power to impeach a President, while the Senate has the sole power to ratify treaties and to confirm Cabinet members, ambassadorial appointees, and other officers of the United States, including federal judges. Furthermore, the legislative process requires action by both bodies, and any suggestion of House represen ISSUE: ANSWER: ISSUE: ANSWER: tation only is not unlike stating that our Constitution purports inequality. Therefore, once House representation for the federal district is deemed Constitutionally acceptable, it is a contradiction to argue against Senate representation. Does Article V* of the Constitution prohibit the granting of full voting representation to the District? The plain meaning of the Article and the intent of the Framers was that each state should have an equal number of votes in the Senate, while representation in the House would be based on population. Nothing in the language of the Article states that the Constitution cannot be amended to give an entity other than a state voting power in the Senate. Thus ratification by three-fourths of the states is all that is required. The clear purpose of that clause was to ensure that the Great Compromise would not be undone and that representation in the Senate would not be put on the basis of population. That purpose is not compromised by allowing the District to have two Senators. This resolution does not favor one state over any other state, nor does it favor the District over any stateall are still treated the same. Over and over again, Congressional committees, including Senate committees, have come to the conclusion that senatorial representation for the District would in no way violate Article V. Further, the equal suffrage clause of Article V was used in an attack on the Nineteenth Amendment in the case of Leser v. Garnet, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). In sustaining the amendment, the Supreme Court did not even bother to mention the argument in its opinion. Is it proper for the federal district to participate in the ratification of proposed Constitutional amendments? This is a policy issue which support for the concept of full political participation for residents of the federal district would demand. *(Article V: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, small propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states. shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. "See also the various excerpts relating to Article V. Chapter 2 from statements made by Constituional scholars. |