DCSGP Publications
The case for real democracy for the District of Columbia
Created on Thursday, February 15, 2007 by Scott McLarty
The case for real democracy in the District of Columbia
How D.C. residents are seeking to achieve one of the last unfulfilled legal goals of the Civil Rights movement
By Scott McLarty
On February 15, 2007, Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and nonvoting Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.-D) hosted a 'Congress Day' rally, featuring visits to the offices of Congress members on Capital Hill to lobby in favor of D.C. voting rights. Mayor Fenty and Del. Norton hoped to show a groundswell of local support for a bill introduced by Virginia Congressman Tom Davis (R) and Del. Norton to grant a D.C. a vote in the U.S. House.
But many District residents have mixed feelings about the proposed legislation, and worry that the Davis Bill does little to guarantee full rights and equality for citizens of the District of Columbia. Some advocates of voting rights for D.C. are already disappointed that Democrats in Congress haven't yet moved on the Davis bill.
Perhaps Democratic leaders in Congress realized that the 'DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act' (H.R. 328) might be a trap. Since it also gives Republican Utah a new seat, and the number of electors is tied to the number of U.S. Representatives, Republicans would win a new Electoral College vote.
Furthermore, if it faces a lawsuit, the bill may be found unconstitutional. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides voting representation in Congress solely to states. A decision by the U.S. District Court for D.C. in 2000 (Adams v. Clinton) held that "the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives." The Supreme Court reviewed the ruling and offered no challenge.
A report published on February 12 by the Congressional Research Service affirmed the bill's suspect constitutionality: "Although not beyond question, it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District."
The Davis bill contains a nonseverability clause, but a temporary injunction in the event of a law suit may allow Utah its new voting seat while Ms. Norton's vote would be blocked until a ruling is issued. It's likely that, should the bill fail, Congress will be discouraged from considering legislation expanding democratic rights for D.C. citizens for decades to come.
For these reasons and others, many local democracy advocates in D.C. have declined to endorse the Davis bill. Some have noted that, while other Americans enjoy three voting seats (two U.S. Senators and one Representative), D.C. residents get a single voting seat, making them '1/3 citizens.' It thus recalls the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise that labeled slaves 3/5 citizens for purposes of voting apportionment in Congress -- a stinging insult for a city with an African American majority.
Nor would the Davis bill give D.C. residents democratic self-governance. The bill doesn't affect the power of Congress and the White House to force unwanted laws and policies on D.C. and to veto locally passed legislation.
In 1998, Congress overturned a ballot measure for medical marijuana ('Initiative 59') that had passed with a 69% majority. Congress has forced D.C. to adopt 'zero tolerance' laws; ordered former Mayor Anthony Williams (through the appointed Financial Control Board) to dismantle D.C. General Hospital, the District's lone full-service public health facility; imposed a charter school system; and outlawed needle exchange to prevent HIV transmission.
Representatives of surrounding districts in Virginia and Maryland have used their power to prohibit D.C. from taxing commuters and to demand a new convention center to be paid for with a D.C. surtax, for the profit of suburban businesses. Congress members have sought to overturn gun control laws, enact the death penalty, impose a school voucher program, and deny benefits for same-sex couples. In 1997, Newt Gingrich called D.C. a 'laboratory' for Republican policies.
African Americans who moved to D.C. for federal jobs in the 1950s and discovered their new status called it America's 'last plantation' and 'last colony.'
Without political autonomy, representation in a legislature does not guarantee democracy. Throughout history, colonies have enjoyed voting seats in the legislatures of nations that conquered them, even while they suffered exploitation and oppression. Nations like Ireland in the 19th century and Algeria in the 20th fought for political self-rule, even while they held seats, respectively, in the British Parliament and French National Assembly.
Our own Founding Fathers and Mothers fought for independence, not 'voting rights.' Patrick Henry never said, "Give me a vote in Parliament or give me death."
Local journalist Sam Smith has noted that the District's placement of the Revolutionary War slogan 'Taxation Without Representation' on license plates "has both the history and the politics wrong.... Over the years, each time that D.C. citizens have begun agitating for equal status with other Americans, the local establishment has come up with another drive for congressional representation. Unfortunately, a good many decent hearted citizens of D.C. are fooled by the representation diversion, and go around with a slogan on their car that few realize actually was a concern of the pre-revolutionary mercantile class, but was soon replaced by the more far reaching and vigorous sentiments of people like Patrick Henry...."
"The only mention of taxes in the Declaration of Independence attacks the crown for 'imposing taxes on us without our consent,' something Congress can still do even if it grants D.C. representation within its hallowed halls," says Sam Smith. "Meanwhile, residents of the capital colony drive around paying unintentional honor to the somewhat self-serving desires of Boston's pre-revolutionary elite instead of the demands for true liberty offered by the likes of Patrick Henry and [Revolutionary War General] John Stark." ("What Taxation Without Representation Really Means", City Desk, The Progressive Review, February 10, 2007)
At best, the Davis bill is a temporary measure. In 1997, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the 'D.C. Revitalization Act,' temporarily stripping D.C. government of many of its powers and functions. Similarly, even if the Davis bill passes, Congress would retain power to revoke the D.C. vote and repeal the District's limited home rule, and may do so if Republicans regain control.
If D.C. were a state, Congress would not revoke its autonomy. Except for Southern states after they rebelled, Congress has never rescinded any state's power to govern itself.
Groups like the Stand Up! for Democracy in D.C. Coalition and the DC Statehood Green Party have argued that only self-determination and autonomy for D.C., in the form of statehood, will end the second-class citizenship of D.C. residents.
"Don't be fooled -- the Norton-Davis bill is a symbolic piece of legislation dressed up to look like democracy," said Gail Dixon, a Statehood Green Party member, former elected member of the D.C School Board, and long-time statehood advocate. "We call on Congress to grant us real democracy -- self-governance in the form of statehood. Democracy for D.C., with its African American majority population, is one of the last major legal civil rights hurdles."
Arguments have also been made for retrocession to Maryland, but both Maryland and D.C. residents have mostly rejected the idea. Marylanders see Washington as a potential economic drain on the state, and D.C. residents have traditionally favored statehood.
If a court rules that a voting seat for D.C. requires a constitutional amendment, then, procedurally, statehood will be easier to achieve, since it would not require ratification by 2/3 of states necessary for an amendment.
In 1846, an Act of Congress removed Arlington from the District and ceded it to Virginia, proving that, by simple majority, Congress may alter the District's borders, Congress could therefore reduce the constitutionally mandated federal enclave to encompass only the federal properties (White House, Capitol, Mall, etc.), freeing the rest of D.C. to choose statehood by a plebescite vote.
D.C. could then be admitted to the union as a state, as were all other states after the initial thirteen colonies. D.C. residents would get their two Senators and one Representative. We'd see the first state with an African American majority; Americans all over the U.S. who live in cities, and who are now underrepresented, would have permanent voices in Congress speaking for their interests.
The Statehood Green Party and Stand Up! coalition recently drafted a petition for D.C. statehood to be sent to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which monitor compliance with treaties that the U.S. has signed and ratified. In 2006, the Human Rights Committee found that D.C.'s lack of voting representation in Congress violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ruling was the result of a decade of work by democracy advocate Tim Cooper.
Poll after poll has shown that an overwhelming majority of D.C. residents desire statehood. On January 3, they applauded Mayor Adrian Fenty's inaugural speech when he endorsed statehood for the nation's capital.
Unfortunately, Mayor Fenty undermined his endorsement a few days later when he announced he'd go over the heads of voters and ask Congress to amend the D.C. Charter to strip the D.C. Board of Education of its powers. According to the Charter, such amendments can only be enacted upon passage of a voters' referendum, but Congress can override and nullify such votes and may exercise its own power to amend the Charter.
Local democracy advocates have expressed similar frustration with the Democratic Party's inconsistency and reluctance to afford D.C. political rights, and some have accused both Democrats and Republicans of fearing a strong African American, liberal-leaning voting presence in the House and Senate. In November, 1993, a Democratic Congress defeated a D.C. statehood bill by a vote of 277 to 153.
In 2004, language supporting statehood for D.C. was deleted from the Democratic national platform, at the request of Del. Norton herself. Del. Norton maintains that she supports statehood as an ultimate but not immediate goal.
Since the start of the Iraq War, President Bush has sent young men and women from D.C. to face death fighting, allegedly, for the democratic rights of Iraqis -- rights they don't enjoy at home in the capital of the Free World. Statehood advocates assert that America owes these soldiers and their families -- and all residents of Washington, D.C. -- the same rights, citizenship, and democracy that all other Americans enjoy. Until the District of Columbia achieves these goals, one of the last legal agenda of the Civil Rights movement will remain unfulfilled.
For more information about the movement for D.C. statehood, visit the following web sites:
Twenty D.C. Citizens Lawsuit: The case for full democracy and equality
The D.C. Statehood Papers: Writings on D.C. Statehood & self-government by Sam Smith
Stand Up! for Democracy in D.C. Coalition
Scott McLarty serves as media coordinator for the DC Statehood Green Party and national media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States. A shorter version of this essay, "Democracy for D.C.: Allow Statehood, Not 'Voting Rights'", was published in Roll Call on January 25, 2007.
