"This longstanding injustice"
The second-class citizens of Washington, D.C.
"This longstanding injustice"
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
At the risk of lulling you to sleep, I wish to point out that Congress finally seems poised to correct a grave injustice long inflicted on the aggrieved 588,292 citizens of Washington, D.C.
Washingtonians are required to pay federal taxes, just like all other Americans on the continent. They are permitted to sue in the federal courts, like all other Americans. They can, if they choose to do so, serve in the military, like all other Americans. They can vote in presidential elections, and they are represented in the Electoral College, like all other Americans. In legal spheres, their economic activities are regulated by the same interstate commerce rules that apply nationwide. Yet for the last 208 years - ever since the District of Columbia was created - Washingtonians have been denied full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
If you really think about, it's pretty weird. Washington has roughly the same population as Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska, yet its citizens have fewer democratic rights. Actually, at this point the people of Baghdad have more voting representation in their national legislature than the people of Washington have on Capitol Hill.
This may soon change; an historic milestone may be at hand.
Late this week, the Senate may follow the House's lead and pass a bill awarding a congressional seat to the District. President Obama has already indicated that he would sign it (reversing the No stance of his predecessor). No doubt, there would be constitutional challenges - more on that in a moment - and the Supreme Court could ultimately be required to weigh in. But Washingtonians are currently making more progress on this issue than at any time since 1978.
Yeah, I know. This issue is an eye-roller. For 170 years, Washingtonians weren't even allowed to elect their own mayor; the "Home Rule" movement waxed and waned for so long that the press deemed it a non-story. In the film All The President's Men, which takes place in 1972, a roomful of Washington Post editors are kicking around story ideas, and one guy says, "I think we could mention that this might be the time to go to the front page with District Home Rule," and everybody laughs and scoffs. The persistent editor, addressing his boss Ben Bradlee, says, "Ben, this time it could go all the way," and Bradlee, bored and jaded, barely musters the energy to say, "OK, well, when they pass it, we'll run with it."
But Home Rule finally did pass, in 1973. And this time, in 2009, the movement to give Washington a real congressman could indeed go all the way. Republicans have been politically resistant to the idea for a long time, since it's a slam dunk that the minority-majority city will elect a Democrat in perpetuity. But the deal on the Hill would be to create a new seat for the Republicans in Utah (which seems poised to get a new seat anyway, in the wake of the next census), in exchange for some GOP support on awarding full voting rights in Washington. It also should be mentioned that some Republicans sincerely want to take the high road and support the full democratic aspirations of the city's African-American electorate (in a sense, this is a civil rights issue), if only to signal that the party still aspires to embrace inclusion.
Opponents, however, still insist that the DC voting rights bill is unconstitutional, based on a literal reading of the Founding Fathers. The U.S. Constitution says that full congressional representation shall be awarded only to "the people of the several states." True enough. The document was ratified in 1789, when every U.S. citizen lived in a state; as yet, there was no such entity as the District of Columbia. That didn't happen until 1801, when the District was carved out of land ceded by Maryland and Virginia.
But how would it be legal to enact a law giving Washingtonians a congressman, when there is no such wording in the Constitution? Well, consider this: The Constitution, thanks to the 16th Amendment, gives Congress the power to levy federal taxes "among the several states." There's nothing in that wording about the District - yet citizens of the District have to pay federal taxes like everybody else.
Similarly, the Constitution says only that the citizens of "different states" can sue each other in federal court. Congress later extended that right to Washingtonians, and the Supreme Court upheld that right in a ruling 60 years ago.
As one legal scholar contended not long ago, "There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy they founded." It was high time, this ex-federal judge argued, that Congress and the president stand up for the half a million Washingtonians and correct "this longstanding injustice."
That's Kenneth Starr - the same guy who pursued Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal. If someone with Starr's conservative credentials is making that kind of argument, it's fair to suggest that full voting rights for the District might actually have a fighting chance...But wait!
Now it turns out that GOP Senator John Ensign has introduced a "poison pill" amendment to the bill, mandating the erasure of the Washington city council's gun control laws. Clearly, that amendment is strategically intended to gum up the works, and make ultimate passage more difficult. But its implicit message - that some Republican from Nevada can presume to dictate social policy inside the city - is precisely the kind of paternalism that the District voting-rights movement has been battling for generations.
-------
UPDATE: The Senate voted late today to award a House seat to the District. The vote was 61-37, with 36 of 41 Republicans saying No. Ensign's free-the-guns amendment is in there; it may indeed gum up the works when the House and Senate meet to reconcile their bills.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz...— IggleFan68- From earlier this morning: NEPhilly, "Porkulus 2" is a good solution!:). tom, you like bobby jindal! you also liked sarah palin! you like any republican. that's what partisanhip is. party before country!— Djoko Pritza
What would be the issue in making DC a state? Then they get the representation and it also solves the problem with the 16th amendement. Your running the argument that Republicans are generally against this because DC would absolutely elect Democrats, but isn't that why Democrats support it, or are their motivations here entirely pure?— jmc
Comment removed.- The proper way to deal with this issue is for DC to be ceded back (with the exception of Federal buildings and installations) to Maryland, as the Virginia portion of the district was ceded back long ago. This would entitle DC residents to vote not only for House and Senate, but for State positions as well. I can't exactly blame Republicans for opposing a solid Democratic voting block as a new state and the District clearly is not and should not be a state, but it is entitled to full voting rights. Cede the District back to Maryland and let the residents vote in all Maryland elections.— Palestra Jon
- I like Comrade Polman's shifting views on following the Constitution. Bush must follow it, but it is OK for Obamachev to not. Just pass a cons admendment and end this silly leftist whine.— CD75
- jmc, making them a state would give DC 2 senators as well, not just the house seats. Palestra, that is a great solution, I love it (al though the current compromise is not terrible). The 'Porkulus II' is being written without Pres. Obama's word not to include earmarks, oh boy. This should be interesting and Repubs are responsible for 40% of the current 9000 earmarks, disgraceful:( If the congress would work as hard at cutting govt. programs that don't work as they apparently do at earmarks, we could balance the budget:) The Pres. should veto it if any of his rhetoric about cutting spending is anything more than just rhetoric:) 'PaySame' (my name for giving the states only what they pay in to the feds) and term limits look better and better:)— NEPhilly
- I see, providing representation for US citizens is unconstitutional. Dolt. I'd actually like to see a strict interpretation of "several states". No more income tax in DC. It would become a haven for the rich to avoid taxes.— etotheb
they'd have to do away with those taxation without representation license plates— potus- repost: lib, the repubs in the campaign, led by Sarah Palin, suggested an all of the above approach to energy and I agree. Wind, solar, nat.gas, nuclear, coal and drilling should all be encouraged by govt. tax breaks and policies as a matter of national defense! As for Health care, there has to be a better, market based solution, to our uninsured. Maybe we could let every uninsured American buy into the federal workers insurance program. with low deductables and by sheer volume health inurance costs would go down. For the economy, I would cut the payroll tax for employees and employers to give both more $$$$ right now! Our education system is the most expensive in the world, so $$$ is not the problem. Vouchers are a 'now' solution and very workable. I think with a little competition the public schools would have to get better or close for lack of students! We should invest in infrastructure, but over many years, not all at once as a 'jobs program'! We should only let states get back from the feds, what they put in, that way no need for pork barrell spending. Term limits on those in Congress would also be on my list.— NEPhilly
- and one more; And here is the President, who denigrated in his speech the off budget war spending by W (what else is new), doing the same exact thing, this year and next President Obama plans to seek an additional $75.5 billion in war funding for rest of the fiscal year, and another $130 billion for fiscal 2010, a senior official told FOX News. The fiscal 2010 request would be in addition to what is expected to be a $534 billion defense budget for that year -- despite Obama's suggestion during his speech to Congress Tuesday that he will scale back the practice of supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.— NEPhilly
- The DC issue is why politics and Congress members have such a bad name and low ratings. Represenatation was a rallying cry upon which this nation was founded, yet we're worried that to grant it might favor one party over the other. Just like always: Party before country.— Djoko Pritza
- NEPhilly haven't you been listening? Coal and drilling is evil. Tax breaks only help the rich. Market based solutions have been dispelled as ineffective. And if you want to debate any of this, you are obviously a stupid clueless Conse Pub.— jwad56
- NEPhilly, those expenditures are in the budget. Try getting your news from another source, really. Those figures are asked for in addition to the Pentagon's budget. The $75 billion is to cover this year's budget, something he could not put in the budget since he didnt make this year's budget. He is not asking for supplemental appropriations in his budget. In fact, you really need to read it over yourself. For a man accused of lacking details, this budget not only lays out next year, but what the plans are for the next 4 years. And, I will be the first to speak out if he goes before Congress asking for money for something that should have been in the budget (Bush way of doing business). Sounds like Fox's "senior" official is a senile official -- maybe Cheney? lol— Master Dreamz
- jwad, you're catching on ...— Djoko Pritza
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
