|
District of Columbia Home Rule Charter Review
in collaboration with
the Federal City Council
* * * * * *
"The District of Columbia
as a National Capital
and the District of Columbia
as a Place to Live:
A History of Local Governance
to Present Day"
* * * * * *
BACKGROUND BRIEFING REPORT
Prepared by
Georgetown University's Graduate Public Policy Program
This policy briefing report is the first of a series of
policy seminars supported by Georgetown
University's Graduate Public Policy
Program (GPPP).
The GPPP's "D.C. Project" provides faculty
and student research resources as a community
service to support collaborative efforts
addressing the needs of the District of Columbia.
I. The History of the
Governance of the District of
Columbia
and the Movement Toward
Partial Home Rule
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL
CITY
When the founders of this
country reviewed the Articles of
Confederation in 1787, they decided to
establish a capital district under the
control of the federal government.
This decision resulted in part because
of an incident that occurred earlier in
Philadelphia while the Continental
Congress was in session. A group of
Pennsylvania veterans lodged a
peaceful protest outside Independence
Hall to demand payment for service in
the Revolutionary War. The Congress
asked the Pennsylvania state council
to address the situation, provide
protection, and break up the protest,
but the council did nothing. The
legislators adjourned and reconvened
in Princeton, only after coming to the
conclusion that this affront to their
power would not have happened had
there been a permanent seat of
government under the exclusive
control of Congress (Green,
Washington: Village and Capital,
1800-1878, p. 10). The founders
believed that this seat of government
should not be contained in a state, but
rather should be a separate entity
under the federal government's
control. Because of the intense
interstate competition, they feared that
if the capital was under the
jurisdiction of any one state that the
state could exercise power and
authority over federal matters and,
consequently, the other states.
As a result, the framers of the
Constitution provided for
Congressional control of the federal
city in article I, section 8, paragraph 17:
The Congress shall have
power . . . to exercise
exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over
such district (not
exceeding ten miles
square) as may by the
cession of particular
States, and the acceptance
of Congress, become the
seat of government of the
United States. . .
Now that the federal city had
been mandated, the most pressing
question put before Congress was
where to locate it. Most Congressmen
believed in the importance of a central
location for the nation's capital, but
differed on what "central" meant. To
some it meant geographically, which
would establish the city halfway
between Georgia and New Hampshire.
To others it meant the center of the
population, which would have been
much further north of Virginia, even
if slaves had been included in the
number (Green, Village and Capital, p.
7). Ultimately, neither geography nor
demography played as big a role as did
politics in determining the location of
the new city. Thomas Jefferson,
Secretary of State in Washington's first
administration, Alexander Hamilton,
Secretary of the Treasury, and Richard
Bland Lee and Alexander White,
Virginia congressmen, arranged a
compromise. The Northern
congressmen agreed to the placing of
the capital in the South in exchange
for the Southern Congressmen's
support of federal assumption of state
Revolutionary war debts.
Congress accepted the plan,
officially named The Residence Act of
1790, which gave the president the
authority to choose the location of the
capital along the Potomac River on
land to be ceded by Maryland and
Virginia. Washington was also given
the authority to hire three
commissioners to manage the
planning and building of the new
capital city. These commissioners,
who would become known as the
Board of Capital Commissioners, were
also charged with the task of
purchasing the land chosen by
President Washington. The Act also
stated that the seat of government
would remain in Philadelphia for the
next ten years while the city was being
constructed. In the meanwhile
Maryland and Virginia law would
continue to govern the ceded land
until Congress officially arrived.
During the ten-year period in
which the building of the capital was
undertaken, financing the
construction of the federal city was an
issue. In 1793, the Board of Capital
Commissioners sold 3,000 lots in the
city to three businessmen in order to
raise funds to build the capitol and
other federal buildings (Furer,
Washington: A Chronological and
Documentary History, p. 2).
B. AN EARLY EXPERIENCE WITH
LIMITED HOME RULE 1800-1871
Congress arrived in the capital
in 1800 and realized that decisions had
to be made concerning the governance
of the people of Washington. With a
law passed in 1801, the federal
government officially assumed control
over the land ceded to the federal
district, which included Washington
and Alexandria Counties and the cities
of Washington, Georgetown and
Alexandria.
Form of Government
In addition, through this
legislation, Congress:
* appointed three commissioners to
govern the city (the same
commissioners who had been hired
by George Washington to build the
capital);
* established a circuit court that called
for a chief justice and two associates
who held four sessions per year and
followed the procedures of the state
(V.A. or M.D.) in which the county
was located;
* established levy courts, made up of
presidentially appointed officials,
outside the city limits to assess taxes
and manage local affairs;
* called for presidential appointment
of marshals and justices of the peace;
* stated that District residents did not
have the right to vote in national
elections or have representation in
Congress.
Within the District of
Columbia, the cities of Georgetown
and Alexandria continued governing
themselves under their own
established charters. In 1802, Congress
approved a charter to establish a
government for the city of
Washington within the District.
The charter included provisions for:
* a mayor appointed by the president;
* the mayor to appoint all other
offices;
* a twelve-member council elected by
the voters with the authority to pass
laws and impose taxes;
* all legislation passed by the Council
to be sent to the Mayor for approval;
* the Council could override the
Mayor's veto by a three-fourths vote,
Congress made changes to the
original charter throughout the next
20 years that affected the city's
government structure. These changes
were as follows:
* In 1804, the charter was amended to
give additional powers to the City
Council. These included ". . . the
power to prohibit gambling, to
superintend the health of the city, . . .
to provide for the establishment and
superintendence of public schools"
(Furer, p. 66).
* In 1812, in the second charter of
Washington, the City Council was
expanded to twenty members and
given the power to elect the mayor.
* In 1820, voters were given the right
to elect the mayor.
Financing the City
The city of Washington needed
funds to pave roads, improve public
health, and encourage economic
development. The Council levied
taxes and license fees in order to raise
money to support the city. In 1805, the
Council instituted a luxury tax on
whiskey, wine, slaves and carriages to
pay for two schools. The city also
raised funds for two additional schools
and the construction of the
Washington Monument by holding
lotteries (Furer, p. 4).
From the outset, Congress
acknowledged the financial constraints
the city faced due to the large amount
of tax-exempt land owned by the
federal government in the District.
Throughout this form of government,
Congress made no formal
arrangements for financial support for
the District. Congress gave funds
periodically in emergencies, but did
not utilize a mechanism for a
consistent funding stream. For
example, in 1807, Congress
appropriated $3,000 for street repairs
and tree planting along streets from
the Treasury to the Capitol (Furer, p. 4)
and in 1819, Congress appropriated
$4,500 for two fire engines and the
construction of two fire houses, one
near the Capitol and one near the
White House (Furer, p.9). Congress
also appropriated in 1858 $20,000 a year
for five years for Washington's public
schools (Furer, p. 21).
Pros and Cons
Throughout the early and
mid-1800's business leaders and
landowners remained hopeful that the
location of the national government
in the new city would generate
business, commerce, and tourism.
They believed the economy depended
upon the federal government's
presence. Therefore, the frequent
debates in Congress over the
possibility of moving the capital to a
Northern city greatly concerned them
(Diner, Democracy, Federalism and the
Governance of the Nation's Capital,
1790-1974, p.7) The slow economic
development of the city of
Washington in the early years,
coupled by the political disincentives
of having no vote for representation
in the Congress or the presidential
election, spurred discussion of
retrocession among the residents
almost immediately. In 1846, the
residents of Alexandria City
successfully won their fight for
retrocession into Virginia, thus
leaving the District its current size.
Residents in the Virginia portion also
feared the impending abolition of the
slave trade in the federal city as
Alexandria was a slave port (Harris,
Congress and the Governance of the
Nation's Capital: The Conflict of
Federal and Local Interests, p. 4).
Advantages to this form of
government:
* voters could elect the City Council
and the Mayor;
* the City Council had broad
legislative powers without
interference from Congress.
Disadvantages included:
* Congress did not support the city
financially on a regular basis;
* District residents could not elect a
representative to Congress nor could
they vote in national elections.
Race Relations/Demographics
In the early 1800's, the
Washington council passed a series of
restrictive measures controlling the
activities of slaves and free blacks. In
1850, Congress abolished the slave
trade in the District of Columbia.
However, the municipal "black code"
became more restrictive in the same
year. Congress eliminated slavery in
the District in 1862 and provided
compensation for slave owners nine
months before the Emancipation
Proclamation. That same year, the
Washington council abolished the
municipal "black code" in the District.
In 1867, two years before Congress
passed the 15th Amendment, it
provided black men the right to vote
in the District of Columbia. This
legislation was fought by the City
Council and was vetoed by President
Andrew Johnson, but still went into
effect through a Congressional
override of President Johnson's veto
(Diner, Statehood and the Governance
of the District of Columbia: An
Historical Analysis of Policy Issues, p.
395).
In 1850, the population of
Washington was 40,001; the total
population of the District was 51,687.
Blacks made up 26% of the total
population. After the Civil War, the
concentration of free blacks in the city
greatly increased. By 1870, total District
population was 131,700, including a
black population of 43,422 (Green,
Village and Capital, p. 21).
Movement Toward Change
During the Civil War it became
increasingly important to Congress
that the federal city be the center of
power in the country. In order for the
District to become a strong seat of
government, members of Congress felt
they needed to increase their
involvement in the city's governance.
Continued fear on the part of business
leaders that Congress would move the
capital further north or west increased
the business community's desire to
have a strong federal presence.
Business leaders in Washington also
wanted the federal government to
support the city financially. In
addition, the established business
community began to fear the voting
power of the increasing numbers of
the enfranchised black electorate, now
33% of the population. Congressional
involvement in D.C. affairs would
essentially remove this issue by
eliminating local elections (Diner,
Statehood, p. 395).
C. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
1871-1874
Following the Civil War, a
group of influential local business
leaders, who called themselves the
Citizens Reform Association, wanted
Congress to increase its involvement
in local affairs in Washington. They
believed this would provide increased
financial support from the federal
government and would also address
their fear of increasing influence of the
black electorate in local elections. As a
result, they proposed a territorial form
of government for the federal city.
After it was approved by the Senate
and went through some major
changes in the House, the District
Territorial Act became law in 1871.
Form of Government
The new territorial government
provided for:
* the abolishment of existing city and
county governments (Georgetown,
Washington city and Washington
County);
* a governor, an eleven-member
council (the upper house of the
legislature), and a Board of Public
Works all appointed by the President;
* the governor to approve all
legislation; his veto could be
overridden by a 2/3 vote in both
houses of the legislature;
* Congressional authority to repeal or
modify all legislative acts;
* a 22-member House of Delegates (the
lower house of the legislature)
elected by the voters;
* a non-voting delegate to the House of
Representatives elected by the voters;
* the legislative assembly to reach a
two-thirds vote to borrow money;
* the legislative assembly to tax
residents and non-residents at the
same rate;
* the legislative assembly to provide
public schools;
* the legislative assembly to appoint
justices of the peace and legislate
concerning the acts of the courts
(Congress. House. Committee on the
District of Columbia. Governance of
the Nation's Capital: A Summary of
the Forms and Powers of Local
Government for the District of
Columbia, 1790-1973. 101st Cong., 2d
Sess., 1990 p. 42).
Financing the City
In the territorial form of
government, Congress did not provide
any financial support for the city and
local taxes did not generate enough
money to complete the massive public
improvements needed in the city. The
Board of Public Works was forced to
borrow money from the federal
government in order to continue
their plan to pave streets and improve
drainage and sewer facilities. In 1872,
Congress investigated the Board for
mismanagement of funds, but
eventually cleared the members of all
charges. After the investigation,
Congress put a limit of $10 million on
the District's debt (Diner, Democracy,
p. 19).
Pros and Cons
Advantages to this form of
government included:
* the District had its first non-voting
delegate to the House of Representatives;
* proponents believed that by
abolishing other municipal
governments, the District of
Columbia would be able to
consolidate its efforts and manage the
metropolitan area more efficiently.
Disadvantages included:
* citizens only had partial participation
in choosing their officials;
* the federal government again
provided no funds to the city to assist
in the upkeep of the capital.
Movement Toward Change
The Board of Public Works,
headed by Alexander Shepherd, a man
instrumental in lobbying for the
creation of the territorial government
for the District, spent over $20 million
dollars on municipal improvements.
These expenditures far exceeded the
District's financing capabilities and
consequently bankrupted the city. As a
result of this fiscal mismanagement by
the Board, in 1874 Congress created a
Joint Select Committee to Inquire into
the Affairs of the District of Columbia,
comprised of two Senators and five
members of the House. They
recommended abolishing the
territorial government and replacing it
with a temporary commission
government.
D. COMMISSION GOVERNMENT
1874-1967
Congress passed legislation that
created a temporary commission form
of government for the federal city in
1874. That same year, Congress created
a committee to develop a plan to
properly divide District expenses
between the federal and District
governments (Diner, Democracy, p.
20). A group of the city's wealthy
business and civic leaders, named the
Committee of One Hundred, hoped to
make this government a permanent
one. They approached Congress and
suggested that in exchange for
Congressional contribution of half the
cost of local government they were
willing to give up home rule.
Although most residents objected to
this new form of government, the
politically savvy business leaders,
motivated largely by their own self
interests, pushed for a stronger federal
presence in Washington. They hoped
to gain federal funding for oversight to
keep property values high; and they
wanted to be free from having to
respond to the local electorate (Diner,
Democracy p. 22). The Organic Act,
legislation establishing a permanent
commission government in the
District, was passed in 1878.
Form of Government
The Organic Act of 1878
established:
* a three-person commission,
comprised of two civilians and an
officer of the Army Corps of
Engineers, to govern the city;
* each commissioner to be responsible
for managing certain city
departments;
* fifty percent Congressional
contribution of the District's budget;
* zero increase in the District's debt;
* Congressional approval of every item
in the annual budget;
* no elected City Council or
non-voting delegate to the House;
* Congressional approval of all
contracts over $1,000 for public works
(Diner, Democracy, p. 22 );
* Congressional approval for
legislation on more important
matters (Diner, Democracy, p. 24).
The legislation specifically states
that the commissioners ". . . shall
make no contract, nor incur any
obligation other than such contracts
and obligations as are hereinafter
provided for and shall be approved by
Congress" (Furer, p. 101).
Financing the City
As stated in The Organic Act,
Congress would contribute fifty
percent of the District's budget.
Property taxes levied on the residents
and licensing fees would finance the
rest of the budget for the federal city.
Congress followed the fifty percent
formula until early in this century
when new members in Congress who
were not aware of the legislative
history successfully avoided
appropriating enough funds to meet
the 50% obligation (Diner, Democracy,
p. 25). In 1921, Congress decreased its
contribution amount to the District
budget to 40 %. It continued to
decrease each year so that by 1954
Congress only contributed 8.5% to the
District budget (Diner, Education, p.41).
In addition, The Organic Act required
the Commissioners to submit a yearly
plan that specified the work that
would take place in the next fiscal year
and the necessary budget to the
Secretary of the Treasury for his
approval (Furer, p. 99).
Pros and Cons
Advantages to this form of
government included:
* Initial Congressional commitment
to help finance half of the city's
budget.
Disadvantages to this form of
government included:
* citizens had no representation in
Congress;
* citizens had no elected officials - could
not govern themselves;
* citizens could not vote in national
elections;
* Congress had exclusive control over
the budget and legislative matters;
* Congress did not live up to its
original financial commitment.
Race Relations/Demographics
Great changes occurred
politically through these years due to
the increase of the black population in
the city. By 1960, 55% of the total
population of 763,956 in Washington
was black. A black student majority
existed in the D.C. public schools by
1950 (Diner, The Governance of
Education in the District of Columbia:
An Historical Analysis of Current
Issues, p.33). In 1935 there were about
33,500 black children in the D.C. Public
Schools out of a total student
population of 93,000 students. These
children were subjected to a segregated
school system with separate school
facilities for black and white residents.
By 1953, black enrollment in the public
schools increased to 58,900 out of
104,000 (Diner, Education, p.35). As
the civil rights movement gained
momentum in the 1950's, citizen
groups protested not only segregation,
but also the obvious inadequacies of
the black schools (Diner, Education,
p.36). To manage the overcrowding
that now existed in the black schools,
the Board of Education transferred 30
buildings from the white to the black
system between the start of World
War II and 1954 (Diner, Education, p.
36). After the 1954 Supreme Court
decision which required the
desegregation of the schools, white
student enrollment decreased sharply
each year. By 1960, black children
comprised 70 percent of the student
enrollment in the District public
schools (Diner, Education, p. 38).
Movement Toward Change
While the Commission form of
government existed, an important
addition to the Constitution was made
with regard to the District. The 23rd
Amendment was passed in 1961
allowing the residents of Washington
to vote in presidential elections.
President Johnson, like other
Presidents before him including
Eisenhower and Kennedy, took a stand
on the issue of home rule and urged
the Congress to pass legislation that
would allow District residents to
govern themselves.
Some members of Congress, in
nearly every session throughout the
1950's and 1960's, introduced some
form of a home rule bill. The Senate
passed four home rule bills, the latest
version in 1960, but Congressman
John McMillan (D - S.C.) prevented
the bills from leaving the House
Committee on the District of
Columbia and reaching the House
floor for a final vote.
By 1960, Washington, D.C. was a
majority black city. This demographic
shift occurred during the same time as
the growing civil rights movement.
The movement provided a natural
vehicle through which proponents of
home rule voiced their demand for
representation and self governance.
Consequently for many of
Washington's residents, the issue of
voting rights and home rule became
entwined with the national civil rights
agenda.
E. A STEP TOWARD HOME RULE
1967-1975
In 1967, in an effort to slowly
transform the District government
into one resembling home rule,
President Johnson pushed through
Congress Reorganization Plan
Number Three. By reorganizing the
local government in this way, Johnson
could appoint a majority of black
officials who could be elected at a later
date when home rule was successfully
established.
Form of Government
The newly configured
commissioner form of government
put forward by President Johnson
called for:
* abolition of the three-member board
of commissioners;
* one commissioner, a deputy
commissioner, and a nine-member
council to be appointed by the
president;
* the commissioner and council
together to assume all legislative and
executive powers that formerly rested
with the three commissioners.
Another governmental change
during this reorganization period was
in the court system. From 1800-1869,
the court system in the District of
Columbia was a federal court system,
combining local and federal functions.
By the late 1960's, the system consisted
of the Court of General Sessions,
which heard minor offenses, and the
U.S. District Court for Washington,
D.C., which heard major felonies.
Appeals originating from the Court of
General sessions would be heard by
the D.C. Court of Appeals and appeals
originating from the U.S. District
Court were taken up by the U.S. Court
of Appeals. Because of this system's
inefficient nature, Congress passed the
District of Columbia Court Reform
and Procedure Act of 1970, which
separated federal from local courts.
Along with giving local courts the
powers of state courts, the legislation
required that all original jurisdiction
cases go to the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia and appellate
cases would go to the D.C. Court of
Appeals (Diner, Democracy, pp. 56-57).
In 1968, Congress passed Public
Law 90-292 which allowed the District
voters to elect members of the
District's Board of Education. Since
1906, the Board had been appointed by
the justices of the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia.
Pros and Cons
Advantages included:
* the Council was now more
representative of the city;
* considered by many as a stepping
stone to home rule;
* a commissioner/mayor managing the
city, although still appointed by the
President.
Disadvantages included:
* citizens still had no voting
representative in Congress;
* citizens did not vote for local
officials.
Race Relations/Demographics
President Johnson appointed
Walter E. Washington as the first
commissioner/mayor under the new
plan, a significant step towards home
rule and an important gesture to the
black community with the
appointment of the first black as
presiding executive in the District's
history. In 1968, one year after his
appointment, Washington helped
restore peace after rioting broke out in
the District in response to the
assassination of Martin Luther King,
Jr. President Johnson sent out federal
troops to help control the situation.
Much of the city's commerical shoping
corridors in downtown were severely
damaged. Hardest hit were the small
businesses in traditionally black
neighborhoods such as 14th and U
Streets in Shaw and H Street in
Northeast, among others. By 1970, the
District's total population was 756,510,
of which 537,712 were black (Gillette,
Between Justice and Beauty: Race,
Planning , and the Failure of Urban
Policy in Washington, D.C., p.153).
Also in 1970, Hugh J. Scott was
appointed as the first black official to
serve as Superintendent of Schools.
Movement Toward Change
President Johnson's
Reorganization Plan provided a bridge
to home rule. By appointing blacks to
executive positions and by appointing
a majority black council, Johnson
created a local government more
representative of the city. The newly
elected Board of Education and the
re-establishment the office of the
non-voting delegate for the District of
Columbia by President Nixon in 1970
provided further momentum for
home rule proponents.
II. Background on the District of
Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act
The District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act of 1973, more
commonly known as the Home Rule
Act, has served as the governmental
structure of the nation's capital since
January 2, 1975. The final legislation
reflected the input of the
Congressional Commission on the
Organization of the Government of
the District of Columbia (the Nelsen
Commission), thirty-eight days of
public hearings, and months of
Congressional debates and conference
committee meetings. Though not the
first experiment with home rule in the
District of Columbia, the Home Rule
Act provides the most far-reaching
grant of self-government since the
nation's founding.
The Home Rule Act was by no
means the first proposal for
self-government in the District since
the end of the territorial government
in 1874. Past initiatives ranged from
statehood to retrocession to variations
on commission and city-manager
forms of government. Between
1949-1972, the Senate passed eight
home rule bills alone which
ultimately died or were defeated in
large part by the efforts of
then-Chairman of the House
Committee on the District of
Columbia, John McMillan (D-S.C.),
who lead the committee from
1945-1972. McMillan was an avowed
conservative and segregationist, and
staunch opponent of home rule.
Attempts to mobilize local and
nationwide support for home rule
were undertaken by a variety of groups
such as Free D.C., the national
Coalition for Self-Determination for
the District of Columbia, the NAACP,
Common Cause, and the League of
Women Voters, and individuals like
civil rights' activist Marion Barry, D.C.
Delegate Walter Fauntroy and
Mayor/Commissioner Walter
Washington.
President Lyndon Johnson had
long been a supporter of home rule,
and had "always considered the
passage of a home rule charter... part of
his civil rights agenda" (Jaffe and
Sherwood, Dream City: Race, Power,
and the Decline of Washington, D.C.,
p. 44). After failed passage of a 1965
home rule bill, activists Marion Barry
and L.D. Pratt from the Free D.C.
movement organized a city-wide
boycott of all businesses in the District
that refused to display pro-home rule
stickers in opposition to the
Washington Board of Trade's efforts to
defeat home rule (Gillette, p. 191-2).
Meanwhile, President Johnson's
Reorganization Plan No. 3, the
"half-step toward an independent city
government" and the appointments of
Walter Washington, the first black
mayor/commissioner, and several
prominent members of D.C.'s black
community to the new city council
and marked important steps toward
the return to self-government in the
District (Jaffe and Sherwood, p. 60-63).
In addition, the Coalition for the Self
-Determination for the District of
Columbia mobilized thousands of
concerned citizens throughout the
country to lobby their congressmen in
support of home rule (Harris, p. 7).
Even with the past support of
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Johnson and Nixon (see Appendix 2),
and the Senate and numerous
citizens' groups, however, passage of
home rule legislation was impossible
without supportive leadership in the
House.
The turning point in the home
rule movement came with the defeat
of chairman McMillan's bid for
reelection to the Congress in 1972.
After twenty-four years as chairman,
the efforts of Delegate Fauntroy, the
Urban League's Sterling Tucker and
others to mobilize black voters in
South Carolina led to McMillan's
downfall, "thereby removing the
single most entrenched opponent to
home rule for Washington" (Gillette,
p. 190). In his place, the first black
member of the committee, Charles
Diggs (D-M.I.), assumed leadership in
1973. Chairman Diggs wasted no time
in making self-government for the
District a top priority.
The Civil Rights movement
provided the backdrop to deliberations
over the proposed Home Rule Act.
Up until home rule, Washington, D.C.
was the only majority-black city in the
country whose citizens could not elect
a black mayor and legislative branch
(Jaffe and Sherwood, p. 100). For many
Americans, including recent
Presidents, the issue of whether
District residents should have
self-government was not solely a
debate over the most efficient way to
run the city, but a debate over equal
rights and citizenship. To deny the
then 750,000 residents of the nation's
capital the right to vote in any local or
national election (with the exception
of the School Board and the
President--only recently granted in the
mid-1960s) seemed the ultimate
hypocrisy. Tax-paying, draft-serving,
and law-abiding citizens of the freest
and most powerful democratic nation
in the world were distinguished from
their fellow Americans merely by their
place of residence.
While many politicians agreed
that the restoration of some form of
self-government was long overdue,
the type and substance of the
government was subject to much
controversy. The majority of the 1973
debates centered around the conflict
between local and federal interests,
though historically underlying the
discussion were elements of racism
and the fact that some members of
Congress believed the residents of the
District were not ready for or were
incapable of governing themselves.
A. GENERAL ARGUMENTS IN
FAVOR OF HOME RULE
* D.C. residents are no different than
other U.S. citizens and they should be
able to elect and be governed by their
own representatives.
Along with several Presidents
and citizen advocacy groups, some
congresspeople, like Charles Rangel
(D-N.Y.), Chairman Diggs, Ted
Kennedy (D-M.A.) and Ronald
Dellums (D-C.A.), argued that
self-government for the residents of
the nation's capital was simply an
issue of equal rights. Often under the
banner, "no taxation without
representation," these groups pointed
out that law-abiding, tax-paying
citizens of the District deserved the
same rights to self-government as
every other American. Residing in
the District should not exempt people
from their civil rights.
* Local issues should be dealt with by
local officials, not federal officials.
Many citizens and
congresspeople alike argued that
residents were best equipped to address
the needs of the city's citizens. The
argument that the nation's capital
belongs to all Americans, they argued,
pertains to the Federal government
buildings, museums, and
monuments, not the local
neighborhoods. In addition, some in
Congress said that turning over local
control to the District would be more
efficient and would free up valuable
time for Congress to devote to truly
national issues. Congress should
release itself from what Chairman
Diggs called the burdensome task of
sitting as City Council for the District.
Just as Congress had delegated control
of the schools to a locally-elected
school board in 1968, so should it
delegate authority over other local
issues to a locally-elected government.
* The Founding Fathers intended to
allow the District to be locally self-governed.
James Madison's Federalist
Paper #43 was utilized by home rule
proponents to justify their insistence
that the framers of the Constitution
had never intended to deny D.C.
residents self-government. As
Madison wrote, "...the inhabitants will
find sufficient inducements of interest
to become willing parties to the
cession [of the land by the States]: as
they will have had their voice in the
election of the government which is to
exercise authority over them; as a
municipal legislature for local
purposes, derived from their own
suffrages, will of course be allowed
them..." (Federalist Paper #43). D.C.
had been granted some
self-government during the early years
of the republic, a period during which
many of the Founding Fathers held
high positions in the federal
government.
* Home Rule would establish a clear
system of accountability.
Under federal control,
proponents argued people who ran the
city were unaccountable to the city's
residents. Local control would set up a
system of direct accountability that
would lead to a more efficient
government. Popularly-elected, as
opposed to presidentially-appointed,
officials would further citizen
involvement and government
responsiveness.
B. GENERAL ARGUMENTS
AGAINST HOME RULE
* Home Rule is inconsistent with the
view of D.C. as a federal city.
Opponents argued that D.C.'s
status as the nation's capital precluded
it from being governed by local
residents. The city belongs to all the
citizens of the U.S., they said, and
simply because an American chooses
to reside in the city does not mean he
or she should have more control over
how it is run than does a citizen living
elsewhere. District residents already
reaped the benefits of both federal
generosity and the prestige of living in
the nation's capital; self-government
wasn't necessary. Maintaining federal
control over the District is the only
way to insure it remains every
American's city.
* It is not in the nation's best interest
to turn the city over to local control.
Opponents claimed that giving
local residents any control over the
city endangered the nation as a whole.
Congressman Rarick of Louisiana
asserted that, "the very concept of
home rule for the District would give
the inhabitants of this area
unprecedented influence and
advantage over the inhabitants of
every other state in the U.S. In fact, it
may even be safe to say that without
home rule, they, by close proximity
and influence through the news
media now enjoy an advantage over
citizens of other States which is
tantamount to a violation of the equal
protection of the law" (Congressional
Record, October 10, 1973). Others
expressed concern that granting local
citizens police power would threaten
the protection of the capital,
particularly in light of the 1968 riots
and recent civil rights and anti-war
demonstrations that had occurred in
the city in the 1960's and 70's.
* Home Rule goes against the intent
of the Founding Fathers.
Because article I, section 8 of
Constitution specifically states that
Congress "shall have power to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever" over the District of
Columbia and makes no mention of
local government or voting rights for
D.C. residents, home rule opponents
claimed self-government contradicted
the framers' intent. If the Founding
Fathers had intended D.C. residents to
have self-government, wouldn't they
have included such a provision in the
Constitution? Evidence used to
support this claim included the clause
in the Constitution and the section of
James Madison's Federalist #43 that
said, "The indispensable necessity of
complete authority at the seat of
government, carries its own evidence
with it... Without it, not only the
public authority might be insulted and
its proceedings interrupted with
impunity; but a dependence of the
members of the general government
on the State comprehending the seat
of the government... might bring on
the national councils an imputation of
awe or influence..." (Federalist #43).
* D.C. residents are not ready for or
capable of self-government.
One Congresswoman in
particular, Edith Green (D-O.R.),
claimed that, as indicated by the
financial disaster (so-called
"Shepherd's Folly") during the last
experiment with self-government--the
territorial government of
1871-1874--D.C. residents were unable
to handle home rule. The recent
forced resignation of an elected school
superintendent added further flame to
this argument.
* Home Rule would benefit wealthy
government workers who lived in the
District.
Though not an argument often
used to deny home rule, some
congresspeople expressed concern that
D.C. residents (alleged to be wealthy
employees of the government) already
benefited from their access to lucrative
government jobs and home rule
would merely give them more power.
* Limited Home Rule would defeat
the Statehood Drive.
Some statehood proponents,
like activist Julius Hobson, were
opposed to home rule legislation in
general and the specific Home Rule
Act being debated because they felt
none of the proposals went far enough
in granting self-government and
representation to D.C. residents. True
civil rights and local control could
only be achieved, they argued, if D.C.
became a sovereign state which
possessed the taxing authority and
representation on par with the other
states.
C. SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE 1973 HOME RULE
ACT
In addition to utilizing the
general arguments listed above, home
rule opponents in Congress wrote a
lengthy report delineating their
opposition to the specific legislation as
introduced in the House (H.R. 9682) by
Chairman Diggs, the other Democrat
members of the Committee on the
District of Columbia, and three
Republican members, including
Gilbert Gude of Maryland. The
dissenters were all Republican
members of the committee.
* The Home Rule Act is "dangerously
long and excessive in its grant of
legislative authority and short on
reserving to Congress 'ultimate
legislative authority.'" (Congress, The
District of Columbia Self-Government
and Reorganization Act: Report
Together with Dissenting View [to
accompany H.R. 9682, p. 116)
The legislation was accused of
being tediously long and confusing in
addition to going far beyond the scope
of self-government granted in the 1871
territorial government.
Representatives feared that H.R. 9682
would "delegate the full range of
legislative authority from the
Congress to the local government.
The District would be able freely to
'experiment' with legislation," they
argued, "in such areas as social
welfare, that the Congress would
refuse to enact, or that could damage
the spirit as well as the substance of
the Federal interests" (Congress,
Dissenting Views, p. 121).
* The President would no longer
have adequate control over the local
government.
Opponents claimed that
denying the President appointive
authority over the executive and
legislative branches of the local
government would "constitute a clear
and present danger that the Federal
interest would be damaged when the
local authority is not used or is
misused" (Congress, Dissenting Views,
p. 122).
* The financial management system
is unnecessarily "complicated,
confusing, and contradictory."
The original bill granted D.C.
autonomy over how to spend its
money, both locally raised revenue
and that received in the Federal
payment. Representatives in
opposition successfully fought for
Congressional line-item control over
the D.C. budget. Despite this change,
however, several Representatives
raised the issue of how the local
government could possibly cover the
costs associated with running the city,
and expressed concern that H.R. 9682
"contains little that should inspire the
District taxpayer to look with
confidence to the long-range financial
stability of the Nation's Capital, or the
Congress to continue its constructive
and fair-share approach toward
meeting the District's rapidly
increasing financial needs and
commitments" (Congress, Dissenting
Views, p. 131).
* Congress is abdicating its role as the
State legislature for the District.
Opponents argued that Congress
was constitutionally mandated to act
as the State legislature for the District
and that turning over any legislative
authority to a locally governing body
was Congressional negligence. They
feared a "legislative dance" in which
the local government would pass a
bill, Congress would reject it, and the
local government would re-enact the
legislation over and over (Congress,
Dissenting Views, p. 142).
* Local residents will have too much
control over the Capital planning
process.
Despite the fact that the Home
Rule Act gave the revised National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
final say over Capital improvements,
opponents feared that the combination
of local representation on the NCPC
and the Zoning Commission gave D.C.
residents too much power over the
planning process. The NCPC is
composed of: ex officio, the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of
Defense, the Administrator of GSA,
the Mayor, the chairman of the
Council, and the chairmen of the
congressional committees on the
District of Columbia; and, as voting
members, three members appointed by
the President, and two District
residents appointed by the mayor. The
Zoning Commission consists of the
Architect of the Capitol, the Director of
the National Park Service, and three
members appointed by the mayor.
* The Home Rule Act gives the Board
of Education too much autonomy.
Opponents argued that the
provision granting the Board of
Education free reign over how to
spend the money allocated to it
through the budgetary process gave
the Board too much autonomy.
III. The Home Rule Act
Once it became clear the
momentum for passage of some form
of home rule was virtually
guaranteed, contentious Congressional
debates over the form and substance of
the self-government took center stage.
Highest on the list of concerns was
how much power would be given to a
locally-elected body. It was clear early
on that any legislation granting D.C.
residents exclusive control over
legislation, appropriations (including
how to spend locally-raised revenues),
or taxation would not pass both
houses of Congress. The final product
reflected numerous compromises
made during debates and in
conference committee meetings. The
Home Rule Act's Statement of
Purposes (Sec.102) clearly states
Congress's maintenance of the
ultimate authority over the District:
Subject to the retention by
Congress of the ultimate
legislative authority over
the Nation's Capitol
granted by article 1,
section 8 of the
Constitution, the intent of
Congress is to delegate
certain legislative powers
to the government of the
District of Columbia;
authorize the election of
certain local officials by
the registered qualified
electors in the District of
Columbia; grant to the
inhabitants of the District
of Columbia powers of
local self-government to
modernize, reorganize,
and otherwise improve
the governmental
structure of the District of
Columbia; and, to the
greatest extent possible,
consistent with the
constitutional mandate,
relieve Congress of the
burden of legislation
upon essentially local
matters.
A. STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
The general structure of the
District of Columbia government
resembles the federal model of three
separate branches--executive,
legislative, and judicial. The Home
Rule Act established a strong mayor
form of government led by a chief
executive elected on a partisan basis
for a four-year term. The mayor's
powers are far-reaching, including,
among many others:
* appointing a city administrator to
serve at the mayor's discretion;
* appointing, promoting, and
supervising all personnel in the
executive department of the District
government;
* supervising and directing all
activities of all offices and divisions
of the executive branch;
* vetoing Council legislation and line
item-vetoing Council budget acts
(both subject to two-thirds override);
and,
* serving as the "central planning
agency" for the District.
The legislative branch is an
elected 13-member Council chosen for
a four-year term in a partisan election.
The chairman and four members are
elected at-large with the remaining
eight elected in eight election wards.
No more than two at-large members
can be from the same party. With the
exception of the full-time Chairman,
council members work part-time. The
Council's powers include, among
others:
* creating, abolishing, or organizing
any office, agency, department, or
instrumentality of the government
of the District;
* legislating for the District, subject to
mayoral and Congressional veto;
* amending the Charter of the District
by act, subject to referendum
approval by the electorate and no
resolution of disapproval by the
Congress;
* adopting a balanced budget;
* taxing;
* enacting 90-day emergency legislation
by two-thirds vote; and,
* adjusting levels of compensation to
its members and setting the level of
compensation for the mayor.
The Home Rule Act left the
court system as it had been established
in the District of Columbia Court
Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of
1970. The Superior Court of the
District of Columbia is assigned all
cases of original jurisdiction, the
District Court is given "essentially the
powers of state courts," and the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals serves
as the local appellate court (Diner,
Democracy, p. 57). The Home Rule
Act authorizes the president to
appoint the judges of the District
courts from a list of three names
submitted to him by a nominating
commission that includes local
representation. The mayor and the
Council may not amend the Court's
budget and must grant it whatever
amount is requested. Furthermore, a
presidentially-appointed U.S. attorney,
not an official elected by citizens of the
District or appointed by the mayor, is
responsible for prosecuting all crimes
other than some minor offenses.
The Home Rule Act revised the
National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) to be the central
Federal planning agency for the
Federal Government in D.C. and
turned over the planning functions
for the District to the mayor. The
NCPC is charged with preserving the
important historical and natural
features in the city, with the exception
of those buildings and grounds under
the jurisdiction of the Architect of the
Capitol. The Home Rule Act also
turned federal government control of
the Manpower Administration (now
called the Department of Employment
Services) and the National Capital
Housing Authority (now called the
Department of Public Assisted
Housing) over to the mayor.
The Home Rule Act provided
for the establishment of advisory
neighborhood commissions (ANCs) if
a majority of the District's residents
voted in favor of them on the
ratification ballot for the Home Rule
Charter. The ANCs are charged with
advising the District government on
issues specific to their allotted
neighborhoods, including, among
others, concerns about safety,
sanitation, recreation, and streets. The
ANCs' expenses are covered by funds
from the general revenues of the
District.
Finally, the Home Rule Act
established and delineated the
National Capital Service Area (often
called the Federal Enclave), the
portion of the District which includes
the principal monuments, Federal
buildings, and the Mall. The National
Capital Service Director, to be
appointed by the President, would
assure that adequate fire and police
protection, street maintenance, and
sanitation services were provided to
the Area. The Director (though one
has never been appointed) would
have the authority to utilize District of
Columbia governmental services "to
the extent practicable" to achieve these
goals.
B. POWERS RETAINED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
* Congressional veto of any local
government legislation
In order both to avoid
delineating the distinction between
federal and local issues and to clearly
state Congressional retention of
ultimate legislative authority over the
District, the Home Rule Act includes
the following clause:
Notwithstanding other provisions of this Act, the Congress retains the right,
at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature of
the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether
within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the Council
by this Act, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in
the District prior to or after enactment of this Act and any act passed
by the Council (Sec.601).
Since passage of the Home Rule
Act, Congress has put forth thirty-eight
challenges to District legislation,
considered ten resolutions of
disapproval, and issued three
resolutions (vetoes). In addition to
addressing specific District legislation,
Congress often legislates through the
appropriations process in a variety of
policy areas (see Appendix 3). For
example, District appropriations bills
have included provisions forbidding
use of funds to: perform abortions
unless the life of the mother is
endangered; close a specific firehouse;
and, change the taxicab pricing system
to metered fares, among others. One
appropriation bill mandated that the
District put a death penalty
referendum on a 1992 ballot.
* Oversight of the District's budget
Congress retained the right to
line-item veto any section of the
District's proposed budget, including
how D.C. spends revenues raised from
taxes on its citizens. The Council must
receive Congressional approval before
it spends any money. In addition, the
Home Rule Act requires the Council
to submit a balanced budget, and with
a few exceptions, prohibits the Council
from issuing general obligation bonds
or borrowing money from the
Treasury that would cause the amount
of principal and interest required to
exceed 14% of that year's budget.
* Congressional control over
appropriation of the annual Federal
payment
The mayor must prepare a
request for the annual Federal
payment based on his or her analysis
of the "cost and benefits to the District
which result from the unusual role of
the District as the Nation's Capital"
(Home Rule Act, Sec.501). The request
is given to the Council, which, if it
approves, submits it to the Office of
Management and Budget and then to
the Congress. The Home Rule Act
specified the level of the federal
payment through fiscal year 1985, but
provided no guidance thereafter.
Many home rule proponents
requested, to no avail, that the federal
payment be based on a statutory
formula that would provide a
predictable figure, in order to make the
budgetary process simpler and more
accurate. In 1991, President Bush
signed legislation establishing a
formula setting the payment at 24% of
the local revenues for fiscal years
1993-1995, but the process has never
been utilized (Harris, p. 213).
* Congressional veto of alterations to
the Charter
The Council can amend the
Charter (Title IV of the Home Rule
Act) with a majority vote and
ratification by a majority of District
voters. If Congress opposes the
amendment, it can submit a joint
resolution disapproving the
amendment to the President. If the
President signs the resolution, the
amendment is repealed.
* Special use of the Metropolitan
Police
When requested by the Director
of the Secret Service, the Chief of the
Metropolitan Police must provide
officers to assist the Secret Service and
the Executive Protective Service on a
non-reimbursable basis. Theoretically,
the District is compensated for these
costs through the federal payment. In
addition, the President may direct the
mayor to provide Metropolitan Police
Force officers whenever the president
determines conditions of emergency
exist. Inclusion of the latter provision
was essential to gaining House support
for the legislation.
C. POWERS DENIED TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
* Prohibition on imposing a
nonresident income tax on income
earned in the District
Virginia and Maryland
representatives were well-supported
in their arguments that their
constituents would be unfairly
burdened if nonresident income
taxation wasn't prohibited. Some also
feared that taxing nonresident income
would discourage people from
working in the District and discourage
organizations and businesses from
locating there. Though the estimates
are largely disputed, numbers in the
range of $300-$400 million during the
1980s were given as estimated lost
revenues due to this prohibition.
Theoretically, the federal payment
takes into account this figure.
* Prohibition on passage of legislation
allowing for construction of any
structure whose height would violate
the restrictions established in the
Height of Buildings Act of 1910
In order to preserve the physical
beauty of the nation's capital, this
provision was included. While many
Americans support this in principle,
the lost revenue due to the inability to
build tall office space, apartment
buildings, etc., cannot be denied. In
1990, the mayor and the Council
passed legislation to amend the
Schedule of Heights to allow for
construction of the proposed Market
Square North complex in downtown
D.C. The legislation was overturned
by Congress.
* Prohibition on the taxation of U.S.
government property or property of
any of the States
The federal payment to the
District is meant to make up for,
among other things, the lost revenue
due to the fact that over 50% of the
District's land is non-taxable as U.S.
government or foreign government
property.
D. HOME RULE IN PRACTICE
Despite assertions from
statehood activist Julius Hobson that
the Home Rule Act was "home fool,"
a watered down series of compromises
that ultimately left all the real power
with the federal government, the
legislation was passed by Congress,
signed by President Nixon, and ratified
by the District's residents by a vote of
83,530-18,037. In 1975, Walter
Washington became the first elected
black mayor of the District, and
Sterling Tucker became the first black
chairman of the city council. Passage
and implementation of home rule did
not end the controversy over the lack
of Congressional representation for
the District's residents and specific
sections of the legislation (such as
prohibition on a nonresident income
tax). Groups like the national
Coalition for the Self-Determination
for the District of Columbia continued
efforts to gain these rights.
Walter Washington served one
term as mayor and was defeated in his
1978 bid for reelection by Marion
Barry, a founder of the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating
Committee, home rule advocate, and
former member of the District School
Board. As mayor, Barry worked to
increase business with minority
contractors, improve housing and
services to the elderly, and reform the
city's "bloated and largely
unresponsive bureaucracy" in the
midst of a reduced payment from the
federal government (Gillette, pp.
195-96). Barry's "most visible
achievement came in promoting
business in Washington" and by 1986,
the District's downtown core had
undergone substantial revitalization
(Gillette, p. 197). In 1990, Sharon Pratt
Dixon replaced Barry as mayor,
promising to weed out alleged
corruption and mismanagement in
the city government, earn back the
trust of the city's residents, and
streamline the government. With a
financial crisis looming, she was
defeated in her 1994 bid for reelection
by former mayor Barry. In Barry's first
year of office, Congress installed the
D.C. Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority
(the control board) with the mandate
to "review all D.C. budgets and other
financial actions, overturn those it felt
necessary, replace D.C. actions with
spending plans of their own, and
eliminate red ink before the
millennium" (Meyers, p. 31).
Throughout the home rule
period, statehood and civil rights
advocates have continued to push for
national representation and more
substantial self-government for the
residents of the District. With backing
from President Carter's
Administration, an amendment
providing D.C. residents
representation in the Senate and the
House was ratified by the required
two-thirds majority in Congress in
1978, but died when the required
three-fourths of the states failed to
ratify it within the required time
period. Later, in 1982, the District of
Columbia Statehood Constitutional
Convention completed a state
constitution for "New Columbia"
which was subsequently approved by
the D.C. voters by a narrow margin.
The constitution was then sent to the
Congress, where it underwent major
revisions over a several year period.
Finally, in 1993, a bill to admit New
Columbia into the Union was voted
on by the full House, which defeated it
by a vote of 277-153.
E. CONCLUSION
The future of governance in the
District of Columbia is a particularly
pressing topic for national legislators,
locally-elected officials, and D.C.
residents given the current financial
crisis. Most argue that the economic
state of the District is due in part to
mismanagement and
over-commitment by the District
government and in part to the
impossibility of a city managing state,
county, and municipal responsibilities
with a restricted tax base and a needy
population. The financial obligations
imposed by the transfer of an
unfunded pension liability which is
now over $3.5 billion, and
responsibility for a public health
system, income maintenance
programs, and a prison system, among
others, have stretched the fiscal and
managerial capabilities of the city
government past its limit.
"Congressional meddling" (Harris, p.
271), local mismanagement, and
continued ambiguities about the
relationship between the District and
the national government have all
played a role in creating the current
crisis.
The final words in Charles
Harris' book, Congress and the
Governance of the Nation's Capital,
written before the establishment of the
financial control board, most clearly
delineate the task before us:
"The challenge of dual
democracy requires the
nation to take a
double-minded approach
to the local governance of
the federal district:
The District of Columbia as a
national capital
and
The District of Columbia as a
place to live.
In the spirit of the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who was confident of the
wisdom of each generation to resolve its own issues, this is our time to
respond to the problem of democracy in the nation's capital" (Harris, p.
276).
Bibliography
Congress. Conference Committee.
The District of Columbia
Self-Government and Reorganization
Act of 1973 Conference Report [to
accompany S.1435]. Report 93-703,
December 6, 1973.
Congress. House. Committee on the
District of Columbia. Governance of
the Nation's Capital: A Summary of
the Forms and Powers of Local
Government for the District of
Columbia, 1790-1973. 101st Cong., 2d
sess., 1990.
Congress. House. Committee on the
District of Columbia. The District of
Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act of
1973, as Amended or Modified. 101st
Cong., 1st sess., 1989.
Congress. House. Committee on the
District of Columbia. The District of
Columbia Self-Government and
Reorganization Act: Report Together
with Dissenting Views [to accompany
H.R. 9682]. Report 93-492, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1973.
(referred to as Dissenting Views in the
briefing report)
Congress. Senate. Providing for the
District of Columbia an Elected Mayor
and City Council, and for Other
Purposes: Report [to accompany
S.1435]. Report No.93-219, 93d Cong.,
1st sess., 1973.
Congressional Record--1973: June 20,
July 10, October 8-10, 16 and 17,
December 6, 17 and 19.
Diner, Steven J. Democracy,
Federalism and the Governance of the
Nation's Capital, 1790-1974. Center for
Applied Research and Urban Policy,
Washington, D.C., 1987. (referred to as
Democracy in the briefing report)
Diner, Steven J. The Governance of
Education in the District of Columbia:
An Historical Analysis of Current
Issues. UDC Fund/History -Policy
Project, 1982.
Diner, Steven, J. "Statehood and the
Governance of the District of
Columbia: An Historical Analysis of
Policy Issues." Journal of Policy
History. Vol. 4, No. 4, 1992, pp. 389-417.
Federalist Paper #43
Furer, Howard B., ed. Washington: A
Chronological and Documentary
History 1790-1970. Oceana
Publications, Inc., 1975.
Gillette, Howard. Between Justice and
Beauty: Race, Planning, and the
Failure of Urban Policy in
Washington, D.C. Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1995.
Green, Constance McLaughlin. The
Secret City: A History of Race
Relations in the Nation's Capital.
Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey, 1967.
Green, Constance McLaughlin.
Washington, Capital City: 1879-1950.
Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey, 1963.
Green, Constance McLaughlin.
Washington, Village and Capital:
1800-1878. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1962. (referred
to as Village and Capital in the briefing
report)
Harris, Charles Wesley. Congress and
the Governance of the Nation's
Capital: The Conflict of Federal and
Local Interests. Georgetown
University Press, Washington, DC,
1995.
Jaffe, Harry and Tom Sherwood.
Dream City: Race, Power, and the
Decline of Washington, D.C. Simon
and Schuster, New York, 1994.
Meyers, Edward M. Public Opinion
and the Political Future of the
Nation's Capital. Georgetown
University Press, Washington, D.C.,
1996.
Upton, Helen. "D.C.'s Financial
Crisis." Cross Sections. Vol. 13, No., 2,
Summer 1996, pp. 1-9.
APPENDIX 2
Quotes from Presidents in Favor of
Home Rule
The following quotes are all taken
from the publication, The District of
Columbia Self-Government and
Reorganization Act of 1973: Report
Together with Dissenting Views [to
accompany H.R. 9682].
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his Jan. 19,
1959 budget message to the Congress:
"I again recommend that the Congress
enact legislation to admit Hawaii into
the Union as a State, and to grant
home rule to the District of Columbia.
It would be unconscionable if either of
these actions were delayed any
longer."
John F. Kennedy on July 15, 1961 to
Congress: "Restoration of suffrage and
the responsibility to the people of the
District for dealing with their
municipal problems is long overdue.
It is time to eliminate the last legal and
constitutional anomaly in the United
States and to reaffirm our belief in the
principle that government should be
responsible to the governed."
Lyndon B. Johnson (date unknown):
"Our Federal, State, and local
governments rest on the principle of
democratic representation--the people
elect those who govern them. We
cherish the creed declared by our
forefathers: No taxation without
representation. We know full well
that men and women give the most of
themselves when they are permitted
to attack problems which directly affect
them. Yet the citizens of the District of
Columbia, at the very seat of the
Government created by our
Constitution, have no vote in the
government of their city. They are
taxed without representation. They
are asked to assume the
responsibilities of citizenship while
denied one of its basic rights. No
major capital in the free world is in a
comparable condition of disenfranchisement."
Richard M. Nixon, in his 1969 and
1970 messages to the Congress on the
Nation's Capital: "The District's
citizens should not be expected to pay
taxes for a government which they
have no part in choosing--or to bear
the full burdens of citizenship without
the full rights of citizenship." (1969)
"I share the chagrin that most
Americans feel at the fact that
Congress continues to deny
self-government to the Nation's
Capital. I would remind the Congress
that the founding fathers did nothing
of the sort. Home rule was taken from
the District only after more than
seventy years of self-government, and
this was done on grounds that were
either factually shaky or morally
doubtful." (1970)
APPENDIX 4
Foreign Models
Listed below are brief synopses of how
foreign countries govern their
districts. These and other alternative
models for city governance will be
discussed at a later session held by D.C.
Agenda. Most important to note is
that the capital of the United States is
the only federal district whose
residents are denied representation in
the national legislative body.
All information in this appendix is
taken from the chapter, "The
Challenge of Dual Democracy: Foreign
Models" in Charles Harris' book,
Congress and the Governance of the
Nation's Capital.
Australia (Canberra)
* Federal district (Australian Capital
Territory) has representation in both
houses of the Commonwealth
Parliament
* Since 1988, federal district given
self-governing powers and
responsibilities similar to the states
* Legislative Assembly of 17 members
* Executive consisting of chief
minister and three other ministers
* Federal government maintains
powers over the courts, the police, and
the local electoral system, and can
disallow actions of the Legislative
Assembly and dissolve the Assembly
* Local government receives a
payment from the national
government
* Australian planning body has no
representatives from the local
government
Brazil (Brasilia)
* Governor and vice governor elected
by popular vote
* Local legislative body elected by
popular vote with powers similar to
the states, but not allowed to divide
itself into municipalities
* Representation in both chambers of
the national legislature
* Federal district has control over the
courts in its territory and can tax and
raise revenue on par with the states
* Full budget authority granted to the
local government
* District's budget and the district
receives a special payment for being
the seat of the government
* Planning is under the control of the
local government
Mexico (Mexico City)
* Chancellor of the federal district
appointed and approved by the
president
* Appointed council under the
chancellor discharges executive
functions
* Representative Assembly of 66
members elected by popular vote
handles municipal matters on an
advisory basis, but cannot legislate
* Federal district governed by the
national government through the
chief of the department of the federal
district, a member of the president's
cabinet (basically, the city is run like a
government department)
* Judicial authority exercised by
district judges and magistrates
(appointed by the president with
approval of the Chamber of Deputies),
as is the case in the rest of the country
* Budget proposal presented to the
national legislature; chief of the
federal district is required to give an
annual report to the national
legislature on the implementation of
the local budget
Venezuela (Caracas)
* Two municipalities comprise the
federal district, each electing its own
council and mayor
* Mayors assume administrative
functions in each of the municipalities
* Governor appointed by the
president of the Republic represents
the federal government and has
jurisdiction over the whole federal
district
* Governance of the federal territory
is divided into district and municipal
functions
Argentina (Buenos Aires)
* City council with limited powers; no
elected mayor
* National congress enacts basic laws
applicable to the federal district,
including establishing the municipal
governance structure and the court
system
* Citizens elect representatives to the
national legislature--25 deputies to the
Chamber of Deputies and two
members to the Senate
|