Task Force on District of Columbia
Governance
in collaboration with
the Federal City Council
"Political Representation"
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
REPORT
Prepared by
Georgetown University's Graduate Public Policy
Institute
This policy briefing
report is one of a
series of policy
seminars supported
by Georgetown
University's
Graduate Public
Policy Institute
(GPPI).
The GPPI'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.
Political Representation
I. INTRODUCTION
The struggle for political representation has been a long and arduous
one for the residents of the District of Columbia. The struggle began with the
creation of the federal district and has persisted until the present day.
Currently, concerns about political representation and democracy have been
overridden by the fiscal crisis in the District and the appointment of the
Financial Control Board in 1995. Perhaps the solution to political
representation and the fiscal crisis may be intertwined. Perhaps with greater
political autonomy and representation, the interests of the District would be
better served and thus its financial problems would be dealt with more
comprehensively.
II. THE STRUGGLE FOR POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
1780s to 1870s
In 1787, the founders of this country decided to establish a capital
district under the control of the federal government. Because of the intense
interstate competition, the founders feared that if the capital were under the
jurisdiction of any one state that the state could exercise power and authority
over federal matters and, consequently, the other states. Article I, section 8,
subsection 17, provided that "Congress shall have the power to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding
ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states and acceptance of the
Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States." This
wording has come to be known as the "exclusive legislation" clause.
After the federal city had been mandated, its location was determined
primarily by political concerns. Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State in George
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.
With the arrival of the federal government in the new city of
Washington, the twin concerns of home rule and representation had to be
faced by Congress and the President. The local population was small and it
was the opinion of many federal officials that Washington residents should
be represented in Congress when the population had increased sufficiently.
In February 1801, Congress decided to allow the elected governments of
Georgetown and Alexandria to remain standing, while providing that the city
of Washington would be governed directly by Congress. Congressional
legislation was passed that called for a mayor appointed by the president and a
twelve-member city council empowered to enact laws and impose taxes.
The question of how to handle "state" functions came up from time to
time throughout the 1800's. In 1818, President James Monroe called for an
elected territorial legislature which Congress declined to act upon. In 1831,
President Andrew Jackson contended that the "exclusive legislation" clause of
the Constitution did not require that "this people should be deprived of all
privileges of self-government." He proposed that the federal District be
allowed to elect a representative to Congress and a territorial government but
the proposal met with the same result as President Monroe's proposal, with
no action by Congress.
In 1862, several months before the Emancipation Proclamation,
Congress ended slavery in the city of Washington while offering
remuneration to the slave owners. Two years before Congress passed the
Fifteenth Amendment, Congress initiated universal manhood suffrage in the
federal District despite strong local opposition from Washington' s City
Council. These were important factors in Washington becoming a magnet
for large numbers of newly freed blacks. The tension between the will of the
Washington city residents and the will of Congress would reoccur many
more times in the federal District's history, with the issue of race frequently
being an influential factor.
In 1871, Congress provided for the election of a non-voting delegate to
Congress and a territorial government composed of a governor, an upper
house, and a Board of Public Works all appointed by the President, and a
lower house elected by the voters. In three short years, the territorial
government ran up a significant debt and Congress terminated the territorial
government and replaced it with a 'temporary' three-member, presidentially
appointed commission.
In 1874, a special committee of Congress proposed that Congress
employ its "exclusive legislation" clause over the federal District and
continue the temporary commissioner form of governance indefinitely.
District residents objected and Senator Oliver Morton from Indiana, on
outspoken opponent of the plan, said that the commissioner from of
governance takes "from the people the right of local self-government." and is
"intended to get clear of the Negro vote." In 1878, Congress passed the
Organic Act of 1878, making permanent the three presidentially appointed
commissioners to govern the District. While many citizens of the District
objected to this form of governance as unsatisfactory, the city's business
leadership, intent on keeping Washington the capital city and to guarantee
an adequate revenue base to fund public improvements, readily traded home
rule for federal money.
1870s to 1930s
From the late 1870s to the 1930s, most federal officials were content
with direct federal control over the District. Although local groups such as
the Board of Trade may have been satisfied, there was agitation for
self-governance in this time period by other citizens and citizen groups. The
Citizens Committee of One Hundred submitted a "memorial to Congress"
expressing their desire that the commissioners be replaced by a locally elected
government and reported prevailing disappointment with the appointed
government. In 1888, Theodore Noyes, the publisher of the Washington
Star, called for a Constitutional Amendment granting District of Columbia
residents congressional representation and electoral college votes.
In 1910, the District Suffrage League conducted a local straw poll asking
if the people of the District of Columbia should be allowed to vote, and better
than a ten to one ratio supported the right to vote. Similarly, in 1938, a
Citizens' Conference representing 271 local groups coordinated a plebiscite to
assess local feelings on home rule and federal representation, with the results
of seven-to-one favoring home rule and thirteen to one favoring federal
representation. Between 1938 and 1946, Congress held hearings on home rule
and congressional representation, but a preoccupation with the war
pre-empted any passage of reform.
!940s to 1960s
In the 1940s, the Democratic party and President Truman adopted
District suffrage as part of their national platform for the first time. By the
late 1940s, civil rights was developing into the dominant focus of domestic
politics and home rule for the District became enmeshed with the national
struggle over civil rights. The connection between civil rights and home rule
for the District enlarged its base of support while at the same time drawing
strong opposition from segregationists, several of whom sat on the House
District Committee.
In 1952, President Truman wrote "Not only is the lack of
self-government an injustice to the people of the District of Columbia, but it
imposes a needless burden on the Congress and it tends to controvert the
principles for which this country stands before the world." The Senate
showed its support for District home-rule by passing home rule bills five
times from 1949 to 1960. However, the House District Committee, under
John McMillan of South Carolina, steadfastly opposed home rule and refused
to report out a home rule bill.
The District of Columbia did take one step forward in the struggle for
political representation during this time period as the Twenty-third
Amendment, proposed in 1960, was ratified in 1961. The Twenty-third
Amendment gave the District three electoral votes in the Electoral College,
equal to that of the least populous state.
In 1967, President Johnson submitted a proposal to Congress,
Reorganization No. 3, replacing the commissioners with a single executive
head of the District government, a deputy, and a nine-member city council to
perform quasi-legislative functions formerly carried out by the Board of
Commissioners which Congress passed.
In 1969, President Richard M. Nixon indicated his support for home
rule and representation for the District when he stated "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." President Nixon called for a commission to be assembled to
draft a reorganization plan for home rule and the Senate agreed. However,
the bill that was approved by the House did not bestow upon the commission
the authority to propose a home rule charter, but did allow for the election of
a non-voting delegate to Congress. In 1970, Walter Fauntroy was elected to
serve as the District's first delegate to Congress in just under a century. The
District of Columbia Election Act of 1970, granted the District the same type of
non-voting representation as held by Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Virgin Islands. These delegates hold the "right of debate, but not of
voting."
1970s to 1990s
In 1973, the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act passed the House with comfortable margins. The
District's voters approved the partial home-rule charter in 1974, and later that
year, they elected their own local government for the first time since 1874.
In 1978, Congress Passed a resolution for a constitutional amendment
granting the District, voting representation in the House commensurate with
its population, two Senators, and the right to ratify constitutional
amendments. The Voting Rights Amendment, as it was called, did not alter
the existing relationship between the federal and local governments.
However, the time limit expired in 1985 with only sixteen of the required
thirty-eight states ratifying the proposed amendment.
Another approach to political representation began to gather
momentum when the District City Council and Congress provided for citizen
initiatives to be placed on the ballot. The D.C. Statehood Party, organized by
civil rights activist, Julius Hobson, placed the D.C. statehood initiative on the
1980 ballot. The majority supported the measure which called for a
convention to write a constitution. The voters elected convention delegates
in 1981 and narrowly approved the proposed constitution, in 1982, despite
several controversial features. Subsequently, the Mayor submitted a petition
to Congress that the state of "New Columbia" be admitted to the Union.
The bill to admit the state of New Columbia to the Union did receive
some consideration, but was not brought up for full debate and a vote until
near the end of the first session of the 103rd Congress in November, 1993.
The statehood bill, advocated by District Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and
Representative Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), was defeated by a vote of 277-153
in the House. Supporters viewed the vote as an important political victory
because neither the House not the Senate had ever debated D.C. statehood in
plenary session before and the votes in favor of the bill were 20 to 30 votes
higher than had been expected. Those opposed to New Columbia becoming a
state felt that the vote was a serious setback for the cause and believed it
would be years before another vote on D.C. statehood came to the House
floor.
In 1990, amidst the D.C. statehood initiative, the District City Council
voted to proceed with the election of unpaid "shadow" representatives to
lobby extensively for statehood (one "shadow" representative and two
"shadow" senators). In 1996, the District of Columbia elected Paul Strauss as
their "shadow" Senator (Florence Pendleton was re-elected as "shadow"
Senator in 1994) and Sabrina Sojourner as their "shadow" Representative.
In early 1993, the District gained a modest step in its political
representation when the District delegate to the House of Representatives was
given the authority to vote in the House Committee of the Whole along with
four territories Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
However, any time that the territorial delegates' votes played a decisive role
in the margin of victory of legislation, the vote would be held a second time
and delegates from D.C. and the territories would not be allowed to vote.
Further, the ability to vote was short-lived, as the Republicans, on their first
day of congressional control in January 1995, terminated the District's and
territories' delegates from the official House roster.
III. STATEHOOD
A. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF STATEHOOD
Charles Harris writes in Congress and the Governance of the Nation's
Capital,
"The primary advantage of statehood over other forms of
representation at the national level is that it would provide District
residents full legal and political rights equal to those of residents of the
existing states. Under statehood, these rights would be automatic and
permanent, rather than subject to reversal when there is a change in
political coalitions and circumstances."
Equity
District residents bear all of the burdens of citizenship and are entitled
to full representation in Congress, the same as all other U.S. citizens. To
accept less is to place D.C. residents as second class citizens.
Equal Taxation
The District is subjected to "taxation without representation." D.C.
residents pay $1.3 billion (1993) annually in federal taxes--higher federal taxes
than eight other states. District residents should have a say in the kind and
level of federal taxes it pays.
Wartime Participation
District residents have fought and died for their country without
having local representation in Congress to help decide if the war should be
fought.
A Sufficient Population
The District population is sufficient for statehood. With an estimated
1996 District population of 554,000, the District's population is within the
range of a handful of states including: Alaska (603,000), Vermont (584,000),
Wyoming (480,000), and North Dakota (641,000).
Self-Government Experience
The District has had partial self-governance for two decades. The
performance of District officials is a separate issue from basic democratic
voting rights. Poor performance and corruption have not resulted in
residents of other jurisdictions losing representation in Congress.
Economic Viability
The District has a viable economy that would be able to meet and
sustain the costs of full self-government. In the 1991 congressional hearings
on the House statehood bill, Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly and Council Chairman
John Wilson testified "We could support ourselves," if the District "had the
autonomy of a state."
Statehood Criteria
Three criteria Congress has used to evaluate a territory's readiness for
statehood are: (1) the people, through a democratic process, express their wish
to become a state; (2) the people reveal their acceptance of the representative
form of government as required by the Constitution; and (3) holds sufficient
people and economic resources to support a state. The District of Columbia
passes all three tests.
D.C. statehood does not require a constitutional amendment. It only
requires passage in the House and Senate and the President's signature--the
way every other state has been admitted.
The District of Columbia is the "federal seat of government" required
by the Constitution. New Columbia would be created out of the current
District of Columbia, but leave the federal enclave, also known as the
National Capital Service Area (NCSA). The Constitution (Article I, Section
8, Clause 17) sets a maximum--"not to exceed 10 miles square"-- but no
minimum size for the capital of the nation.
Maryland Consent Unnecessary
Although New Columbia would be composed of land originally
donated by Maryland, legal scholars in support of statehood have stated that
the Maryland grant of land was unconditional. The legal scholars point to the
language used in the cession that the land was to be "forever ceded and
relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States,"
including "full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction."
Twenty-third Amendment
The 23rd Amendment, which gives D.C. three electoral votes, does not
prohibit statehood. Congress, in implementing the 23rd Amendment, can
ascertain whether the new federal enclave, (NCSA), would have the three
electors authorized in this amendment.
Fixed Form
The size of the federal district has already been changed before in its
history, so it can be changed again. In 1846, the House Committee on the
District of Columbia decided to give Arlington and Alexandria back to
Virginia. Congress passed and the President signed the legislation. Further,
the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to overturn the retrocession
decision thirty years later.
Fixed Function
Opponents to statehood argue that the Framers' intent was to secure
the independence of the operation of the federal government from any state.
Statehood supporters argue that the reduction of the federal district to the
federal enclave, (NCSA), is arguably no more or less dependent, than the
existing District of Columbia, surrounded on three sides by Maryland. The
only difference would be the size.
B. ARGUMENTS AGAINST STATEHOOD
The District Belongs to the Entire Nation
The District of Columbia does not just belong to the people who live
there but is the common property of all U.S. citizens and therefore can not
become a self-interested state.
"They Knew What They Were Doing"
Residents who move to the District of Columbia are aware that they
lose the benefits of statehood. If residents were born in the District of
Columbia, then they could always move elsewhere when they reached
voting age.
The District is a City, Not a State
Granting D.C. statehood would be unfair to other cities of equal or
greater population.
Mismanagement and Corruption
The District of Columbia is not ready for statehood at this time. An
extended period of time free from mismanagement and corruption is
necessary before statehood can be seriously considered.
A Dependent Economy
With an extremely limited land area, a substantial portion of which is
federal property and thus untaxable, it is difficult to see where the funds
would come from to support all the functions of a state. President George
Bush and the Republicans expressed concerns about the economic viability of
New Columbia, saying it would be radically dependent upon the federal
government for support.
Constitutional Issues
A constitutional amendment is required for New Columbia to enter
the Union. Statehood opponents believe that even if a District of Columbia
statehood bill were to be approved by Congress, it would be struck down on
constitutional grounds.
Fixed Form
Opponents of statehood for the District of Columbia believe that the
'exclusive legislation' clause (see page 1) prohibits Congress from altering the
present form of the District of Columbia, without a Constitutional
Amendment.
Fixed Function
Opponents to D.C. statehood hold that the Framers' original intent was
to assure Congress of control over its immediate surroundings, "to forever
secure the independence of the federal government, avoiding the
overweening influence of any one state, as well as to avoid interstate and
sectional rivalries." The fixed function argument asserts that the new
federal district would lie within the state of New Columbia and be completely
reliant on it for critical services which impinges on the independence of the
federal district.
The Twenty-third Amendment
The Twenty-third Amendment, recognized the District of Columbia as
a permanent entity in providing the District of Columbia with three electoral
votes. Reducing the District to a small federal enclave with practically no
population would effectively nullify the Twenty-third Amendment, which
can only be done by another Constitutional Amendment.
Consent From Maryland
Since Maryland originally ceded the land that is now the District of
Columbia for purposes of creating the federal seat of government, instituting
a new state from this land changes the purpose for which the land was ceded.
The Justice Department under President Bush, argued that Maryland's
consent might have to be secured before New Columbia could join the
Union.
IV. RETROCESSION TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Many argue today that the original rationale for the District's location
and system of governance is no longer valid. In 1787 there was a legitimate
fear that any state that housed the federal capital would dominate it, and
therefore, the constitution created a unique federal District. Today, the federal
government's power minimizes the likelihood of a state dominating federal
interests in the District. Many claim that the capital city of Washington and
the federal District need not be one and the same. The current system of
governance deprives the residents of the District of voting privileges, while
allowing members of Congress, who have not been elected by District
residents, significant control over the city's management and destiny.
A. EARLY RETROCESSION PROPOSALS
Various members of Congress have periodically proposed retrocession
for Washington, D.C.--giving the city of Washington back to the state of
Maryland. Some congressmen and residents argued for retrocession as
early as 1803, complaining that the District government deprived residents of
their political rights. Moreover, they argued, Congress did not have the time,
nor was it qualified, to legislate on local affairs.
Congress did cede Alexandria city and what is presently Arlington back
to Virginia in 1846 through a simple legislative act. Alexandria business
leaders encouraged retrocession to secure its slave trade and further expand
commerce. The retrocession petition also stated that the elected District
government was ineffective and undemocratic. After retrocession,
Alexandria's residents gained immediate political rights, and its economic
prospects improved.
A local movement in the 1930's endorsed retrocession as the quickest
way to gain voting rights. This movement led to the introduction of
legislation for retrocession in 1939 and again in 1940. About twenty years
later, local historian Irving Brant petitioned the President and Congress to
cede the bulk of the District to Maryland, but only if Maryland agreed.
These proposals received little serious attention.
The idea of retrocession received some attention in 1965, when the
Senate passed a home-rule bill and the House District Committee, under the
leadership of John McMillan of South Carolina, refused to support it. The
Committee proposed a bill for retrocession instead. This proposal was
perceived as a move to block the Senate home rule bill, rather than a serious
proposal.
Many opponents of the 1979 Voting Rights Amendment supported
retrocession as an alternative. Whether they were supporting a politically
non-viable proposal in order to continue to deny the full rights of citizenship
to the citizens of the District, or sincerely believed retrocession was the best
policy for the District is debatable.
In 1990, Maryland's Governor William Donald Schaefer said he would
agree to retrocession as long as the federal payment was continued, but few
politicians in Maryland or the District were receptive to his offer. As
recently as 1995, House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested retrocession, to help
the District solve its financial difficulties. He also acknowledged the
legitimacy of the taxation without representation argument. Current
Maryland Governor Parris Glendening is not receptive to this proposal; he
responded that the District should be ceded to the 6th Congressional District
of Georgia--the Speaker's District.
Throughout history, none of the retrocession initiatives have
generated much wide-spread support. Perhaps this was because many of its
proponents used it as an argument against statehood and other alternatives
for greater autonomy for the District.
B. RECENT PROPOSALS
The most prominent proposal for retrocession comes from the
Committee for the Capital City, and a bill sponsored by Representative Ralph
Regula (R-Ohio) in 1995. Representative Regula has introduced this
legislation in several Congresses, about five times since 1986.
The Committee for the Capital City proposes that the federal District be
re-defined as the federal enclave, a small and precise territory which was
delineated in the Home Rule Act. The enclave includes "the Capitol
Grounds (including the Supreme court and the Library of Congress), the Mall
down to the Lincoln Memorial, and the White House grounds." The smaller
federal District would be ruled by Congress and would maintain any necessary
local functions such as a police force and maintenance operations. The
remaining portion of the District would be re-incorporated into Maryland.
The residents of Washington would become citizens of Maryland with full
political rights. Congress and the state of Maryland could implement
retrocession through simple legislation. In addition, a referendum would
be held to ensure that a majority of District residents supported the move.
C. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF RETROCESSION
According to Lawrence Mirel, president of the Committee for the
Capital City, retrocession is the only proposal for District governance that
would solve the city's two most urgent problems--improving the District's
economy and providing full rights of citizenship for D.C. residents.
Retrocession proponents claim that other solutions are temporary fixes that
do not address the structural inadequacy of the present D.C. government and
its relationship to the federal government. They claim that a successful
solution would need to redress the District's unique status as a city with the
governing responsibilities of a state and the financial resources of neither.
Political Benefits
Retrocession would give D.C. residents the full rights of
citizenship,including voting representation in Congress. As citizens of
Maryland, Washington residents would participate in electing the two
Maryland Senators and with the addition of its population, would probably
add an additional representative to the Maryland delegation in the House.
This relationship would be beneficial to D.C. residents who would gain
voting rights and to Maryland residents who would gain a greater voice in
Congress through the addition of a representative.
By becoming a city within a state, D.C. would benefit from state and
federal support and protection. About two-thirds of the functions
performed by the District government are state, not local functions. By
joining a state, the District would be relieved of the burden of managing these
state functions. Maryland has the ability to effectively expand its state
functions to serve the residents of Washington. Washington residents
"would enjoy the use of Maryland's state facilities, institutions and resources.
Access to educational programs, as well as those relating to transportation,
crime, prevention and drug enforcement, economic development, health,
and the judicial and correctional system would have direct, tangible effects on
the lives of D.C. residents."
Retrocession would enhance regional cooperation and streamline
redundant services. According to a report by Professor Stephen Fuller of
George Mason University, the economies of the District and its suburbs are
already inextricably linked. A $1 increase in economic growth in the District
causes a $1.50 increase in the suburbs. There is already cooperation between
the two governments in transportation, water services, and sewage treatment.
Cooperation could be furthered by the District and Baltimore uniting to
serve their common urban interests.
Retrocession would relieve Congress of the burdensome responsibility
of supervising the governance of the District. Many politicians and District
officials claim that Congress does not have the time, knowledge, or
experience to maintain a large role in District governance. Congress'
oversight of the District has been neither a mutually beneficial relationship,
nor an effective governing mechanism.
Economic Benefits
Economically, retrocession would benefit both the District and
Maryland. It would "bring business and revenue to the State of Maryland,
revitalize the Port of Baltimore and bring to fruition the much discussed but
never realized "Washington-Baltimore corridor." It would also improve
Maryland's status in competing with other states for jobs, population, and
industry.
As a Federal District under the current home rule limitations, the
District's economic growth and ability to raise revenue is limited. "The
District cannot grow appreciably in population and not at all in area." By
joining a larger tax base, the city would no longer have to deal with
congressionally-imposed restrictions on its ability to raise revenues. In
addition, the District would no longer have to fund "the city, state, and
county governmental services it is called upon to provide."
Other Benefits
Washington's unique character as a city would not be altered by its
inclusion in a state. Although Washington would no longer be the
nation's capital, it would still benefit by being located near the capital.
A constitutional amendment is not needed because retrocession could
be accomplished through legislation. "The Constitution requires only that
there be a District 'not exceeding ten miles square' as the seat of the national
government."
D . ARGUMENTS AGAINST RETROCESSION
Arguments against retrocession come from a variety of sources. The
following is a summary of the opponents and their arguments.
Statehood Advocates
Statehood advocates are vehemently opposed to retrocession because it
would further decrease District resident's political power and would concede
the defeat of the statehood movement. Retrocession also brings back bad
memories of earlier proposals supported by segregationists in order to block
home rule and statehood. Segregationists fought home rule and D.C.
statehood, opposing political autonomy for a majority-black electorate.
The Government and Residents of Maryland
Maryland residents and government officials are concerned that the
retrocession of the District would increase urban influence within the state
and in Congress . They are also concerned about absorbing the District's
financial and social problems. In a 1990 survey, 82% of the Maryland state
delegates and 92% of the state senators who responded were opposed to
retrocession even if the federal payment were continued.
Maryland Republicans do not support the addition of a
Democrat-majority city to the state.
Opponents in Congress
Many Republicans oppose the presumed addition of a new Democratic
Representative. In the District "the ratio of registered Democrats to
Republicans is more than 10 to 1." Others fear the increase in urban
influence. "The great divide in Congress is between rural and agrarian
'conservative' interests on the one hand and urban 'liberal' interests on the
other." The former have held sway in Congress, regardless of which party is
in power, and don't wish to share power with another big city's
minority-driven "liberal Politics."
D.C. Residents and Activists
Many residents resent the idea of retrocession. The citizens of the
District approved a statehood initiative in 1980 and ratified a constitution in
1982, and most are not ready to give up on their desire for "sovereignty and
autonomy." They feel it forfeits home rule, decreases the political power of
the District, and would allow a majority white government to take over a
majority black city. The District's former elected shadow senator Reverend
Jesse Jackson supported these arguments, and denounced the idea of
retrocession when the bill was first introduced in 1990. He claimed
retrocession was a "Bantustan" concept, placing a majority black enclave into
a white state. He argued that, "retrocession to Maryland would undermine
our moral right to self-determination and is, in fact, practically and politically
impossible."
Many residents also fear that the District's unique identity would be
compromised. "The affinity between the District and its suburban Maryland
counties may be strong, but this relationship does not extend to other parts of
the state. Both Maryland and the District are justifiably proud of their own
historic political communities and boundaries and probably would not be
willing to give them up."
V. VOTING REPRESENTATION UNDER HOME RULE
Several possibilities exist for allowing voting representation under
home rule. Many have criticized these suggestions for failing to address the
structural and economic problems created by the present system of
governance under the Home Rule Charter. In addition, these proposals don't
solve the problem of federal interference in the governance of the District.
However, some argue that these proposals are a means to an end. If the
District had voting representation in Congress, it might be easier for the
District to achieve greater political goals.
A. SEMI-RETROCESSION
One proposal for political representation, termed "semi-retrocession,"
would allow District residents, under the present government structure, to
vote in Maryland's elections for congressional representatives. Under this
plan, District residents would elect a full voting delegate to the House of
Representatives and would participate in choosing Maryland's senators.
To implement this proposal, an amendment to the constitution would
be needed to repeal the Twenty-third Amendment. A bill was introduced
proposing semi-retrocession in the 101st congress (1989-90). This proposal
was strongly opposed by most District residents and officials. Many claim it
would perpetuate federal influence in local affairs. Retrocession also
would require Maryland's consent, which is not likely to be forthcoming.
However, at least one statehood supporter advocated this bill as "the best
intermediate tactical step to full statehood."
B. FULL VOTING RIGHTS
The voting rights movement became active in the late 1970s and early
1980s, and the Full Voting Rights Amendment was proposed in 1978. The
amendment proposed that the District would not become a state, but would
have full representation in Congress, two senators and a representative.
The District would participate in the ratification of amendments to the
Constitution and would elect representatives to the electoral college. The
amendment won the support of the requisite two-thirds of Congress, and
was supported by the Carter administration. The amendment failed when
only 16 states ratified it out of the 38 required for passage.
Opponents had a litany of arguments against this amendment. They
claimed the founders never intended District residents to have voting rights.
Furthermore, they argued that counties in select states that are larger than the
District don't have representation, the representatives from the District will
favor urban issues, will be Democrats, and will be black. The amendment
also failed because many American's perceived the District to be a city of
powerful people who already held a disproportionate influence over the
national political process.
Proponents of ratification felt this proposal would allow residents of
the District full representation in Congress, while not shutting the doors to
further political aspirations. Supporters of the amendment said the effort
failed in part because of inadequate funds, and also because ratification
proponents were unable to launch an "effective nationwide educational
campaign."
C. FULL VOTING RIGHTS-VERSIONII
Another option for voting rights, proposed by local historian Charles
Harris, is a compromise version of the Voting Rights Amendment. The
District could elect one senator rather than two and would still have the other
rights outlined in the Voting Rights Amendment. This version might be
more politically viable in Congress where many members fear the political
influence of the addition of two senators from the District.
VI. Conclusion
The proposals discussed in this paper present several approaches to
rectifying the inherent unfairness of the lack of democracy in the nation's
capital. These proposals all seek to provide for greater rights of citizenship for
the residents of the District. Proponents for each of the proposals are unified
on the position that "the rallying cry of the American Revolution, 'taxation
without representation is tyranny' has paradoxically fallen on deaf ears for
too long in the national seat of power."
Bibliography
Baker, Donald P. "Why America Doubts Need for D.C. Vote." The
Washington Post 3 June 1979, sec. D, p. 3.
Birch, Douglas. "Maryland to Gingrich: No thanks." The Baltimore Sun, 2
February 1995, sec. A, p. 1.
Cairns, Hilary M. and Kim Ryan. "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," Washington, DC, Georgetown Public Policy
Institute, 1996.
Committee for the Capital City. The Future of the District of Columbia,
Reunion with Maryland, A Just and Practical Solution. Washington, DC,
1996.
Congress. House. Committee on the District of Columbia.
'Statehood Initiative" 97th Cong. H. Con. Res. 75. March 4, 1981.
Congress, Regula, Ralph. Congressional Press Release. "Dear
Colleague-District of Columbia Retrocession Act," January 31, 1995.
Cooper, Timothy. "Abolish D.C. " The New Republic. 5 December 1996, p. 7.
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.
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.
Editorial. "Let Maryland Take It; The District, That Is." The Washington Post
4 March 1990.
Editorial. "Maryland Says No." The Washington Post 11 March 1979, sec. C, p.
6.
Editorial. "Retrocession: D.C., Md.?" Washington Business Journal. week of
1-7 March, 1996, p. 54.
Editorial. "Will Maryland Help Her Neighbors." The Washington Post 7
March 1979, sec. A, p. 20.
Gillette, Howard Jr. Between Justice and Beauty. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1995.
Harris, Charles W.Congress and the Governance of the Nation's Capital,The
Conflict of Federal and Local Interests. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1995.
Hebert, Richard. "Too Much for Annapolits to Absorb." The Washington Post
. 17 March 1996. sec. C. p. 8.
Jackson, Jesse, Jr. [Ed.] "First Vote Ever on D.C. Statehood" The National
Rainbow Coalition, Vol. 1, Issue 9., 19 August, 1993.
Jackson, Jesse, Jr. [Ed.] "D.C. Statehood Targets - House Vote Near" The
National Rainbow Coalition, Vol. 1, Issue 20., 4 November, 1993.
Janofsky, Michael. "A Group Proposes to Return Most of Washington to
Maryland." The New York Times. 7 February 1996.
Janofsky, Michael. "A Plan to Put Washington in Maryland." The New York
Times. 6 February 1997. sec. A. p. 20.
Meyers, Edward M. Public Opinion and the Political future of the Nation's
Capital,. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996.
Mirel, Lawrence H. "Tyranny in the District!" The Washington Post . 2
February 1997. sec. C. p. 8.
Schwartz, Bradley D. "Maryland and the Last Colony." in a Letter to the
Editor, The Washington Post . 14 March 1990, sec. A, p. 16.
U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Testimony of Kevin P.
Chavous, Jesse Jackson, and Florence H. Pendleton.Full Voting
Representation in Congress for the District of Columbia, August 4, 1994.
|