*Section 2.

It has been suggested that the language of Section 2* of House Joint Resolution 554 provides direct election of the President and Vice-Presient. Section 2, however, must be read in conjunction with Section 1 of the joint resolution. Section 1 states in part: "For purposes of election of the President and Vice-President... the [federal district] shall be treated as though it were a state.” No state may elect the President and Vice-President by direct election. Moreover, the constitution is explicit as to how a President and Vice-President are to be elected-they are chosen by electors who are themselves selected by the states. The Congress could not Constitutionally select electors for the federal district, thus, Section 2 makes it clear that some entity other than Congress, which may be established by the Congress, would perform a role comparable to states in selecting electors from the federal district.

The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from determining the qualifications of the persons who elect its members. Presumably, this represented one of the many attempts to maintain states' sovereignty; but, there was also an historical basis, in that the various states' qualifications were quite different. Some required electors to own property, others required the payment of property taxes, others required nothing. Much controversy could have been generated by a Congressional attempt to set requirements. Several Constitutional amendments and the current nearuniversal suffrage reduce the importance of this right of the states, but not the intent. Congress could solve the problem of determining the qualifications of District electors by delegating, through the implementation of the Amendment, the responsibilitiy to the people of the District, who would then hold a Constitutional assembly on the matter. Congress would thereby not decide the qualifications of who would determine them. Precedence for this approach is found in the implementing legislation of the Twenty-third Amendment, delegating to the District the “authority to enact any act or resolution with respect to matters involving or relating to elections in the District."

Congress is also prohibited from prescribing the place(s) where Senators shall be chosen. Had the Constitution granted it this right, then the places of meeting of the states' legislatures would have been prescribed by Congress. With the direct election of Senators by the people, there is less rationale for this provision. This problem could also be solved through Congressional delegation of the responsibility to the people of the District.

A third responsibility of the states, that of drawing the boundaries for election districts, also stemmed from Con

*Section 2: "The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District Constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

gress' wish to stay out of the affairs of the states. Delegation to the people is again the apparent answer. The District already has election wards for its own elections, and these can provide a basis for drawing Congressional districts.

Because of the belief that when Congressional vacancies arise, the Congress should not select the persons to be a part of its own membership, this responsibility is placed with the governors of the states. Congress could also delegate to the people this power to fill vacancies. The people could, for example, lodge this power with the District mayor.

While it might be better for the Congress to have no role, just as it has no role in this process with respect to the states, Congress in the exercise of its exclusive legislative authority (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) may do so. The local government as an agency of Congress can not, under current authority, establish Congressional boundaries, decide on the place of choosing Senators, establish a process for filling vacancies or establish qualifications for electors. Thus, since the District has no indigenous legislature, Section 2 allows the Congress to assist the District in creating a structure by which these decisions can be carried out.

FULL VOTING REPRESENTATION,

THE UNITED STATES, AND THE WORLD COMMUNITY

The United States stands side by side with two military dictatorships in denying representative government to the citizens of its capital.

The vast majority of nations in the world community with national legislatures do not discriminate against residents of the capital city with respect to representation in the legislature. In these nations, the citizens of the capital are represented in the national legislature in the same way that all other citizens of the nation are represented. Thus, the citizens of London have voting representation in the British Parliament, and the citizens of Paris have voting representation in the National Assembly of France.

Seventeen nations in the world community are federations (that is, they have a federal constitution and a federal system of government): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Switzerland, the Soviet Union, the United States, Venezuela, West Germany and Yugoslavia. Of obvious note among these nations is the Soviet Union, in which residents of its capital city, Moscow, are represented in the national legislature. Only three of these federal nations - Brazil, Nigeria and the United States — deny the citizens of the capital city the right to representation in the national legislature. In fact, many federal nations that extend the rights of representation to the residents of the capital have modeled their governments after our own. Yet, on this basic issue of representation, they have taken the lead and surpassed us.

Six of these federal nations have actually adopted the United States Constitutional concept of a separate federal capital city under national jurisdiction:

Argentina (Buenos Aires)

Australia (Canberra)
Brazil (Brasilia)

India (New Delhi)
Mexico (Mexico City)
Venezuela (Caracus)

Of these six nations only Brazil does not give citizens residing in its capital the right to voting representation in the national legislature. But Brazil, governed by a military regime, is awaiting a 1980 census to determine if the population of Brasilia is sufficient to warrant representation. Indications are that the federal district of Brasilia may well be given representation. Rio de Janeiro, the former federal capital district of Brazil, was fully represented in the national legislature for over one hundred years.

In the case of Nigeria, also a military regime, the draft constitution now being considered would create a new federal capital territory, independent of other states in the federation, with voting representation in the legislature.

Two other examples are instructive: Canberra was accorded full representation in the Australian Parliament in 1967, after it was determined that the capital had a significant permanent resident population; Canberra, like the District of Columbia was a planned city, built on land that was largely uninhabited. Mexico City was given full voting representation in 1928, only a few years after the ratification of the Mexican Constitution. Yet 178 years have passed since the District of Colu:nbia became the official seat of government of the United States.

Thus, the United States stands virtually alone in its denial of voting represen tation to the citizens of our nation's capital. Once Brazil and Nigeria act, we shall stand entirely alone.

23

CONCLUSION

Full voting representation in Congress for the District would further the principles of democracy which the Founding Fathers framed for all citizens.

District representation in Congress would swing the suffrage pendulum back to where it was before December, 1800, when Congress moved to its Potomac site and inadvertently disenfranchised District residents. House Joint Resolution 554 is in no way incompatible with Congress' continued exclusive jurisdiction over the District. It does not present difficult Constitutional problems concerning its implementation. Most importantly, it would further the principles of democracy that the Founding Fathers intended to have flourish among all citizens.

The 1803 proponents of a retrocession of voting rights measure stated that the disenfranchisement was "an experiment in how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights." It is simply time to end this unfruitful experiment.

APPENDIX A

EXCERPTS FROM RECENT EDITORIALS AND COLUMNS ON D.C. FULL VOTING REPRESENTATION

The Charlotte (N.C.) News:

Friday, March 3, 1978

"The District of Columbia is not just a plot of land full of impersonal federal buildings. It is home to 700,000 people. These people—and their problems-deserve the same voice in Congress as any other 700,000 people." - Robert Colver

The Washington Post:

Friday, March 3, 1978

many Americans throughout the nation have reacted when apprised of the District's disenfranchisement; they recognize the wrongness of taxation without representation, and of excluding the people of the District from participation in important national decisions. The incredibly long effort for full representation-having come this far-should not wind up crushed by an insensitive Senate. The job needs to be finished this year."

The Chicago Times: Sunday, August 28, 1977 "There is no legitimate reason the 750,000 persons who reside in this nation's capital shouldn't be represented in Congress."—Aldo Beckman

The Baltimore Sun:

Friday, September 30, 1977

"Let the country decide if the Constitution is flexible enough to accomodate the change—or if federal taxation without federal representation is destined to be Washington's lot." -J. F. terHorst

The Los Angeles Times:

Tuesday, May 10, 1977

"It is intolerable that residents of the District must pay taxes, serve in the military in time of war and be subject to all the enactments of Congress, yet have no voice in the decisions affecting their lives and welfare.'

The Milwaukee Journal: Tuesday, May 10, 1977 "Human rights ought to start at home. And the District of Columbia where Carter and the Congress work would be a good place to start."

The Washington Star: Monday, March 6, 1978 "Conventional wisdom is that a good many-perhaps too manySenators will be reluctant to open their select circle to two newcomers. But so parochial an opposition, we trust, will be beneath the dignity of the Senate and its sense of equity."

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Thursday April 27, 1978

"Through the years the principle has remained the same. It is one of basic justice; that residents of the nation's capital should have the same voice in Congress as everyone else does.

... now it is the Senate's turn to act. It should not let the opportunity to right a longstanding wrong slip away.”