Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the obvious fact that other American cities are political subdivisions of States, which are already represented in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Moreover, for years, the District of Columbia has traditionally been treated as a State in virtually every major Federal grant legislation. In program after program, in statute after statute, all of us in Congress are familiar with the well-known clause: "For the purposes of this legislation, the term 'State' shall include the District of Columbia."

This arugment against District of Columbia representation is heard most frequently in relation to the Senate. The objection is raised that only States should be represented in the Senate. I share the strong concern of the Members of this body for the traditions and prerogatives of the Senate, but I feel a stronger concern against the injustice of denying a substantial group in our population the right to participate in making the laws by which they are governed. Vital legislation affecting the lives of all the citizens in the Nation is debated in every session of the Senate. Until the people of the District are represented in the Senate as well as in the House, they will not have the right to true self-government that is the birthright of every American citizen.

In addition, by accepting two Senators for the District of Columbia as part of the amendment, the Senate itself will be demonstrating its good faith to the House. Too often, the Senate has been generous in proposing representation in the House for the District of Columbia, but reluctant to invite the District into the well of the Senate itself.

Can we really maintain that the citizens of the District are doomed to a perpetual colonial status, to denial of the most basic right in civilized society-the right that is preservative of all other rights, the right of self-government? Surely this is too high a price to pay for preserving the tradition and prerogatives of the Senate.

Nothing in our Constitution or its history supports the interpretation that the District of Columbia was intended to be denied representaion in both the Senate and the House. Indeed, in the Federalist, No. 43, James Madison, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, wrote that the prospective inhabitants of the Federal city "will have had their voice in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them." Clearly Madison was assuming that the citizens of the Nation's Capital would be represented in Congress.

Fifth, another, even less persuasive, objection to District of Columbia representation in Congress rests on the provision in Article V of the Constitution, which declares that

"No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

It is far too late in our history to argue that the admission of the District of Columbia to representation in Congress would deprive any State of its "equal suffrage in the Senate." In light of the history of the Constitution and the precedents under it, the meaning of Article V is clear-no single State may be given a larger number of Senators than any other State.

This was the essence of the Federal compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It has guided us for 200 years, and it is intended to endure throughout our history. This is all that Article means, and all that it requires.

In addition, Article V has never been read as prohibiting the representation of new States in the Senate, even though-obviously-the admission of a new State dilutes the voice and power of the existing States in the Senate. Indeed, since the ratification of the Constitution by the original 13 States, 37 new States have been admitted to the Union. As a result, the power of the original 13 States in the Senate has been diluted nearly fourfold, from 2 to 26 to 2 to 100. Yet, no one has ever argued that any of the original 13 States has been deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The principle is clear. So long as the District of Columbia is represented in the Senate no more advantageously than any State, it cannot be said that representation for the District deprives any States of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Each State will still have two votes in the Senate, and each State will still have the same proportionate vote as any other State.

As I have attempted to show, the arguments against full voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia have no merit, especially in light of the grave injustice that is being perpetuated against the citizens of the District. Today, the United States stands virtually along among the democratic nations

of the world in denying representative government to the people of its Capital City. The citizens of Washington deserve to share in the right of self-government the birthright of every American citizen. I urge the Senate to establish this symbol of our commitment to our heritage and to the cause of freedom, equality, and justice for all our citizens.

In 1977, this country guided by a new President asserted moral leadership in the world-wide community. Governments from Russia to Rhodesia were challenged to begin seriously thinking about the denial of basic human rights to citizens that exist within their borders.

In South America, Eastern Europe, Asia and South Africa, the Administration backed by Congress not only made a pledge to human rights, but also took affirmative steps to help secure the same.

It is encumbent on us to make certain that this country's resumption as a world leader for human rights begins at home. Nowhere in America should the principles of democracy be more firmly established than in the nation's capitol. In Washington today, however, democracy is weakest where it should be strongest. The sad truth is that the District of Columbia is still the last bastion of taxation without representation in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, it is my firm hope that this new Congress will bring an end to the shameful denial of the fundamental right to vote for the residents of Wash. ington, D.C. and provide a positive example to other nations where basic human rights are still being denied.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT

My name is Charles Alan Wright. I am Charles T. McCormick, Professor of Law at The University of Texas. For more than 25 years I have been a law teacher, at the University of Minnesota from 1950 to 1955 and at The University of Texas since that time. I was a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1959-60, at the Harvard Law Schol in 1964-65, and at the Yale Law School in 1968-69. I regularly teach courses in Federal Courts and in Constitutional Law and offer a seminar on the Supreme Court. I have written extensively on constitutional law and on other legal matters.

At the request of the staff of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, I have examined House Joint Resolutions 139, 392, and 554. I have also read the committee report and the floor debate in the 94th Congress on what was then H.J. Res. 280.

I have no doubt that if the citizens of the District of Columbia are to be given representation in Congress, a constitutional amendment will be required. Representation could, of course, be achieved by ceding the District back to Maryland, but this would completely destroy the unique character of the District, a character that was contemplated by the Framers and that the country has come to accept. Both the precedent that was set when a portion of the Dis trict was ceded back to Virginia and the implications of Article IV, § 3, persuade me that the consent of the Maryland legislature would be required, and I would be troubled also on how to read the Twenty-Third Amendment if legislation were to wipe out the District.

Nor can I take seriously the possibility that the citizens of the District could be authorized by statute to vote in Maryland while remaining citizens of the District for all other purposes. It would be difficult-indeed, I think impossible— to reconcile this with the language of Article 1, § 8, giving Congress power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District" or with the provision of § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment that "[r]epresentatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State ***." The fact that citizens of the District apparently voted in Maryland in the 1800 election is not enough to overcome the constitutional provisions I have cited, the long practice to the contrary since 1800, and the acceptance of the present practice in the Constitution by the adoption of the Twenty-Third Amendment.

House Joint Resolution 554 differs in two significant respects from H.J. Res. 139 and H.J. Res. 392. First, it would repeal the Twenty-Third Amendment and give the District of Columbia the representation in the Electoral College to which its population would entitle it if it were a state, and apparently would give the. District a voice in the ratification of consitutional amendments, though it is unclear how this would be exercised. The other two resolutions preserve in terms the limited representation in the Electoral College that the 1961 amendment pro

vides. Second, H.J. Res. 554 provides only that for certain stated purposes the District "shall be treated as though it were a State," while the other two resolutions spell out what the District is being given.

Whether the Twenty-Third Amendment should be retained or repealed seems to be wholly a question of policy, rather than of constitutional law. If the country should agree to amend the Constitution it may specify, one way or the other, the extent to which the District is to be represented in the Electoral College and no constitutional problem is presented.

On the other point, however, it seems to me that as a matter of drafting Resolutions 139 and 392 are decidedly preferable to 554. Although the legislative history will be clear, and the risk of any complication arising is minimal, it seems to me clearly desirable that a constitutional amendment spell out what it is doing rather than accomplishing this by indirection and introducing the anomaly that the District is to be "treated as though it were a State" for some purposes but not for others.

As between Resolutions 139 and 392 the only difference is that the latter makes provision for filling vacancies by appointment if at some future time Congress should allow the District to have its own elected legislature and executive. The former does not, and if it were adopted there would always be vacancies in the District's representation in Congress until an election could be held if a Representative or Senator from the District should die or resign. I see no constitutional issue in the choice between these two resolutions. As a matter of policy, it would seem desirable, and consistent with the general purposes of all of these resolutions, to provide a mechanism for continuous representation, such as is authorized for the states in terms of Senate seats by the Seventeenth Amendment, but even that provision is permissive only, there is no corresponding provision for Representatives in Article 1, § 2, and unless there is a significant possibility that Congress will at some point allow self-government to the District the final six lines of § 2 of H.J. Res. 392 will be surplusage.

An unsigned memorandum of August 3, 1977, entitled "Hearing Issues in D.C. Representation," with which I have been provided by the Subcommittee's staff asserts that H.J. Res. 554 would give the people of the District the power to set the qualifications for voters. This seems doubtful to me. The language "and as shall be provided by the Congress," in § 2 of that resolution seems to me to preserve the veto power Congress would have under the other two resolutions by the "exclusive Legislation" provision of Article 1, § S. In any event, there may be an advantage in reserving to Congress the power to set voter qualifications. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all speak of "the United States or by any State." It is inconceivable that the District would disenfranchise voters on the basis of race, sex, or being only 18, but so long as Congress is setting the qualifications it is clear that these amendments would be applicable. This would be far from clear if the District, which is not a state, were empowered to act on its own.

I do not think that the obsolete provision of Article 1, §4, would prevent Congress from prescribing the place where Senators from the District are to be chosen. That provision speaks to the relation between Congress and the States. Once again the District is not a state, and Article 1, § 8, gives Congress ample power to make regulations for the District that it could not make for states.

The only significant constitutional issue posed by any of these resolutions is whether ratification by all 50 states would be required in view of the final clause of Article V. On this issue there is literally no law. Although the Nineteenth Amendment was attacked on the ground that a state that had not ratified that amendment would be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate because its Senators would be persons not of its own choosing, since women would participate in the choice, the Supreme Court thought this argument not worth even mentioning in its opinion sustaining that amendment. Leser v. Garnet, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). So far as I know that is the only case in which any contention has been made based on the "equal Suffrage" clause of Article V.

In the absence of any relevant case law, all one can do is attempt an informed prediction. My prediction is that any challenge to these proposed amendments based on the "equal Suffrage" clause would fail. It seems to me that 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 anymore than it is when a new state is admitted. I understand that a

reasonable argument for a contrary position can be made, but I cannot believe it would prevail.

I have endeavored to limit myself in this statement to questions of constitutional law that have been posed about these proposed amendments. Whether it is desirable as a matter of policy to give the District of Columbia representation in Congress or to preserve its present status is a matter on which I express no opinion.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., September 16, 1977. Hon. DON EDWARDS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. EDWARDS: May we request that the enclosed statement from the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia supporting House Joint Resolutions to provide the District of Columbia with full voting representation in the U.S. Congress be made part of the record of the Hearings now in progress before your Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights?

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

ELLYN W. SWANSON, President.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, D.C., September 16, 1977.

Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. EDWARDS: Enclosed is a copy of the statement in support of full voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia which has been submitted for the record by the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia.

We are very pleased that Mrs. Ruth Clusen, President of the League of Women Voters of the United States will be testifying at the Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings on September 21 in behalf of League members throughout the country. Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

ELLYN W. SWANSON, President.

STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON D.C. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

As President Carter has said, "I have no new dream to set forth today but rather urge a fresh faith in their old dreams."

"We hold these truths of be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness-that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed. . . ."

The Declaration of Independence continues to assert that the Right of Representation in the Legislature is an "inestimable" right. But Americans residing in the District of Columbia are governed without their consent, are denied their inestimable right.

Our country is a land "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied voting representation in Congress.

"Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" rang true in the 1770s. But in 1977, Americans living in the District of Columbia pay their full share of federal taxes and are denied voting representation in Congress.

Three-quarters of a million Americans are disenfranchised because our home city is the capital of our democratic nation.

The League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement supporting House Joint Resolutions providing for a constitutional amendment whereby D.C. citizens may gain full voting representation in both Houses of Congress.

In our view, full voting representation for the District of Columbia means certain things which are catalogued briefly below:

First, full voting representation for the District of Columbia is in accordance with the democratic principles of our system of government and our evolving political tradition.

It means that Americans living in the Nation's Capital would regain a franchise they once held in the early days of this nation.

It means that the American taxpayers resident in the District would have voting voices in the federal body which makes the laws governing all Americans. (By the 1970 census, D.C. has a population larger than that of each of 10 states).

With representation in both the Senate and the House, D.C. citizens would have an equitable voting voice in areas of vital national interest such as treaties, appointment of high officials, and revenue matters, and in areas of local concern such as appointment of our local judges, appropriation of our budget, and Congress's power to veto our legislation.

The tradition of the Federal District to serve as the seat of the Federal Government would continue.

Americans moving into the nation's capital would no longer lose their full franchise as Americans.

On the other hand, full voting representation does not mean a number of things, which also should be discussed:

It does not mean that there is a Constitutional contradiction; the Constitution does not forbid such representation for the District of Columbia.

It does not conflict with Article V of the Constitution, which says that "... no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of equal representation in the Senate". Each state would still maintain its same standing vis-a-vis other states, as has happened with the admission of each new state through the years.

Voting representation for D.C. in the House does not necessarily reduce the power of the states in the House. Such power has always been shared by addition of new states to the Union. Also, representation in the House is adjusted after each census, and the House can increase its size if it so chooses.

Full voting representation would not make D.C. a state.

Representation in Congress for D.C. is unrelated to "home rule", a portion of which was granted to the District by the 93rd Congress. Representation is a right granted to American ciitzens to have a voice in the legislative which taxes them, drafts their citizens into the military forces, and approves treaties that affect American citizens regardless of where they live.

Representation for D.C. does not prejudge the question of representation for U.S. territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. These are separate and separable matters. The District of Columbia is not a territory; it is a unique entity mandated by the Constitution, its area was part of the original thirteen colonies, and its residents have always been taxpaying American citizens.

In sum, full voting representation for the District of Columbia is in accordance with the democratic principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, written into the Constitution, and enlarged in several amendments enfranchising black men, all women and eighteen year-olds. While these latter inclusions were not in the scope of thinking of the founders of our nation, they are part of an evolving political tradition. Conversely, we here are asking for a franchise which apparently was envisioned by the writers of the Constitution but omitted in the press of concerns of constituencies already in existence.

We are asking for an amendment in the spirit of the Constitution, not overturning the original concept of a capital city. Generations of native Washingtonians have a long tradition of pride in serving their nation's needs in its bureaucracy, and as hosts to other citizens who come as tourists or to petition their government.

We also ask for this amendment for the sake of those citizens who come to serve their government, or who are brought here by business interests and are shocked to find they have lost the rights of Congressional representation they believed to be their right as Americans. We ask for this amendment for the sake of our image in the world, that our country might not be called cynical and hypocritical, denying its capital district the rights for which we press in other

countries.

Thus, the D.C. League of Women Voters emphatically supports full voting representation for D.C., as we have for over 50 years. Nothing has changed our conviction that such representation is just and right. We are pleased that both

22-873-78- -8

« AnteriorContinuar »