House Committee Weighs Proposals for D.C. Voting Rights
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 7/9/2004
At a Capitol Hill hearing in June, panelists and members of Congress offered support for the expansion of District of Columbia voting rights, but disagreed on which one of four proposals ought to be adopted.Panelists testifying at the Committee on Government Reform hearing lamented the ongoing lack of congressional representation for D.C. residents, but commended the determination of legislators seeking to rectify the problem.
Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, pointed out the "hypocrisy" in which Iraqis, who elect their own leaders, "will enjoy a right denied to hundreds of thousands of United States citizens."
Proposals to Grant Voting Rights
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington D.C.'s non-voting delegate to Congress and a longtime proponent of D.C. enfranchisement, spoke about her proposal, the "No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003." Although Norton did not address her perennial call for district statehood, her bill seeks the same national voting rights that statehood would entail: a voting representative and two voting senators.
Representatives Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., testified on behalf of their proposals, which would involve commingling Washington D.C. with the State of Maryland. Rep. Regula's plan, the "District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act," would retrocede the District of Columbia to Maryland for voting and other purposes, while maintaining Congressional control over the National Capital Service Area. Rep. Rohrabacher's bill, the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004," would allow D.C. residents to participate as Maryland residents only in Congressional elections.
The fourth bill, a compromise by Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., aims to diminish much of the partisan acrimony that threatens the passage of a District of Columbia voting rights act. The "D.C. FAIR Act" would establish the city as a Congressional District with a voting representative, while granting a temporary increase of one seat in House apportionment. The additional Congressional seat would likely go to the state of Utah, which barely failed to gain a fourth seat in the 2000 reapportionment based on suspect counting circumstances in that year's national census. The Utah provision also appears in Rep. Rohrabacher's bill.
The principle of D.C. voting rights went unchallenged among panel members, who made repeated reference to the hypocrisy revealed when a nation that wishes to spread democracy globally disenfranchises some 570,000 voters in its own capital.
Challenges to Proposals
The Washington D.C. voting rights question remains unresolved, if not original. The District was created in 1800 to serve as the national capital on territory ceded from Maryland and Virginia, and has never been represented by voting members of Congress. During this time, a "unique political and social unit" has developed in the city, said Mayor Anthony A. Williams, which complicates two of the four enfranchisement bills—those that would commingle Washington D.C. and Maryland residents.
Linda W. Cropp, chair of the Council of the District of Columbia, spoke to the difficulty with which Maryland voters might embrace D.C. residents. Henderson noted, "the political and economic consequences of retrocession would be dramatic and far-reaching for the city of Washington, the state of Maryland and all of the residents of both." He urged an "in-depth study of the economic and political consequences of retrocession" and a subsequent survey of resident preferences in both territories, even as he expressed his ultimate support for Congresswoman Norton's act.
Her bill, though simple in composition, tells a story not just of long-term commitment but also of unabated frustration. Three District of Columbia votes in Congress would likely mean three votes for Democrats, at least in the near future, which serves as an anathema to conservatives. Senator Joseph Lieberman's, D-Conn., Senate Governmental Affairs Committee cleared a similar version for floor action in 2002, only to see it fail to reach a vote in either chamber of Congress.
Republicans have responded by writing-in the joint Utah-Washington D.C. element, which itself presents new complications: adding a Congressional district to Utah, as Henderson pointed out, might tempt legislators to concoct more chaotic mid-decade redistricting schemes like those witnessed in recent years in Colorado and Texas.
Possibility in the Future
Several speakers' preference for Congresswoman Norton's bill shows their desire to grant full Congressional representation to Washington D.C. residents in one step, rather than settle for an incremental approach. Although full-representation proponents see no need to increase Congressional apportionment elsewhere, or to change citizenship or voting status simply to grant a fundamental civil right, some seem willing to accept a temporary compromise as long as movement toward full representation would not be abandoned.
Offering a metaphor, Cropp said that "starving" D.C. residents urgently need at least vegetables and bread, after which they can push for meat.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., urged speakers to "seize the moment"—a first step now, perhaps the final step later. The speakers agreed, at least, on that.
