District Moves One Step Closer to Voting Rights Victory
Feature Story by Stephanie Somerman - 10/9/2006
Over the last few months, civil rights leaders, public officials, and DC residents have rallied in support of a bill that would grant DC residents voting representation in the House of Representatives.The D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 5388), a bi-partisan bill drafted by Rep. Thomas M. Davis, R. Va., and Delegate Eleanor Norton, D. D.C., would raise House membership to 437 members by giving the District of Columbia one seat and an at-large seat to Utah.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution held its first hearing on September 14 about the bill since it was passed by a wide margin in the House Committee on Government Reform in May.
Witnesses included Utah Governor John M. Huntsman, Jr., attorney Adam H. Charnes, American Enterprise Institute Fellow Dr. John Fortier, and Professor Jonathan Turley of The George Washington University Law School, who discussed the constitutionality of the bill before the committee.
Referencing an opinion letter he submitted prior to the hearing, Charnes maintained the constitutionality of the bill citing what is referred to as the "District Clause". It states that Congress may "legislate within the District for every proper purpose of government," which, Mr. Charnes argued, gives Congress the authority to treat the District as a state for representative purposes.
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), and Nancy Zirkin, LCCR deputy director, were on hand to support the bill. Civil rights groups have long considered it a grave injustice for residents of the District to be under the jurisdiction of Congress, yet unable to vote for any of its members.
"The District of Columbia stands for liberty and for over two centuries now, its citizens have suffered a major injustice," said Henderson. "It's the time to right these wrongs and bring democracy back to the nation's capital."
Although both Dr. Fortier and Professor Turley voiced their opposition to the District's current non-voting status, both say the bill is unconstitutional. Professor Turley called it "the equivalent of allowing Rosa Parks to move halfway to the front of the bus in the name of progress."
Each dissenter offered alternative solutions to one of the nation's oldest civil rights infractions, all of which required difficult and lengthy legislative processes. Dr. Fortier presented three options including admitting the District as a state, amending the constitution or "retroceding" the District to Maryland, a plan Professor Turley championed as well.
Governor Huntsman addressed the committee on behalf of the state of Utah, which narrowly missed gaining an extra seat in the House during the 2000 Census. "H.R. 5388 rights the wrongs that were committed in the 2000 census," Governor Huntsman told the Committee, "[it] benefits those who suffered most as a result of those wrongs and does so in a way that makes sense."
The bill is currently being held up in the Judiciary Committee while supporters debate how to create a fourth district in Utah. The original bill appointed an "at-large" representative for the state, but Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R. Wis., views that move as unconstitutional. Congress is now in recess, but supporters hope the bill will be taken up after the November 7th elections.
