More

Senate Votes To Give DC Citizens Vote in Congress

JIM ABRAMS   02/26/09 07:39 PM ET   AP

Washington Dc Vote

WASHINGTON(AP _ The right to a vote in Congress denied the District of Columbia when it became the nation's capital two centuries ago would be granted under legislation the Senate passed Thursday.

Congress is "moving to right a centuries-old wrong," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shortly before the 61-37 vote.

The House is expected to pass the measure with a strong majority next week and President Barack Obama, a co-sponsor when the bill failed to clear the Senate two years ago, has promised to sign it.

The measure is likely to face a court challenge immediately after becoming law; opponents argue that it is unconstitutional because D.C. is not a state and does not qualify for representation.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, who sponsored the bill with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, expressed confidence that they could win the legal argument and noted that the bill contained an expedited appeals process to ensure a quick court decision.

The real issue, he said, is that the disenfranchisement of 600,000 residents of the nation's capital "is patently unjust and un-American in a sense of the best principles of this country."

"This is a historic moment," said Ilir Zherka, head of the advocacy group DC Vote. "In 2007 we were gaining tremendous momentum," he said. "The huge difference this year is that we have an advocate in the White House."

Two years ago, with Democrats holding a smaller majority in the Senate and then-President George W. Bush threatening a veto on constitutional grounds, the Senate fell three votes short of overcoming a GOP-led filibuster.

Under the rules of debate Thursday, supporters needed 60 votes to win passage. Six Republicans voted for the measure while two Democrats opposed it.

Utah's Hatch was a co-sponsor in part because the legislation, to offset the certain Democratic gain from D.C., adds a fourth district to Republican-leaning Utah. That would increase House voting membership by two, to 437.

The two representatives would be seated at the start of the next session in January 2011. Utah's maintaining that fourth seat would depend on the outcome of the 2010 census. Utah barely missed out on picking up an extra seat after the 2000 census.

The final Senate vote came after supporters turned back a constitutional challenge and another amendment that would have effectively returned the nonfederal areas of the district to Maryland.

Senators did approve, 62-36, a controversial amendment pushed by pro-gun advocates that overturns most of the district's tough gun control laws. That provision would still have to be approved when the House and Senate meet to reconcile differences in their bills.

Opponents of the legislation pointed to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says members of the House should be chosen "by the people of the several states."

The Constitution is clear, said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that "only states elect members of Congress. And according to the same article, the seat of the federal government is not to be considered a state."

Congress in 1978 did approve a constitutional amendment giving the district a full voice in Congress, but it was unable to win ratification of three-fourths of state legislatures.

Those on the other side cited Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the district chosen to be the national capital. Constitutional scholars, they say, agree that gives Congress the right to give the district a vote. They add that D.C. residents pay federal taxes and serve in the military and that the courts have long considered the district equivalent to a state in matters such as interstate commerce, taxation and criminal matters.

D.C. residents have had the right to vote in presidential elections since the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961.

___

The bill is S. 160.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON(AP _ The right to a vote in Congress denied the District of Columbia when it became the nation's capital two centuries ago would be granted under legislation the Senate passed Thursday. Co...
WASHINGTON(AP _ The right to a vote in Congress denied the District of Columbia when it became the nation's capital two centuries ago would be granted under legislation the Senate passed Thursday. Co...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 383
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
02:39 PM on 02/27/2009
All the constitution says is:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

Seems they could legislates control of dc to one of the adjacent states without altering the constitution.
10:47 AM on 02/27/2009
If the majority weren't black, this would have happened long ago. Constitutional bullcrap that what I call it.
10:48 AM on 02/27/2009
Everyone in D.C. can still vote. They just can't have a representative in congress. What does skin color have to do with it? You realize that back when the District was new, it had very few "blacks", right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:14 AM on 02/27/2009
So they have had taxation without representation?
09:38 AM on 02/27/2009
Now if the Feds would only pay their rent to the city!!
08:52 AM on 02/27/2009
Fill the street of DC with guns and in time there will will be less people to Represent.
08:50 AM on 02/27/2009
What is going on? We will give DC "ONE VOTE" in exchange for more guns on the street of DC to put innocent people life at a higher risk. Cities and guns do not mix. If I lived in DC I would tell them to keep that ONE VOTE.
10:35 AM on 02/27/2009
That's your opinion. I'd tell 'them' (the Senate) to keep that one vote because the Senate's action is blatantly unconstitutional.

Did you know that in some states that actually recognize and defend their citizens' right to keep and bear arms, there are individuals who do so in cities, and that legal ownership and carrying of firearms make those cities no more dangerous than cities with effective or literal bans on keeping and bearing firearms? Or are you one of those terrified of an inanimate object with nothing more than an opinion to weigh in an argument?
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
08:37 AM on 02/27/2009
The response to people like "Sneaky" who claim this is unconstitutional is that it's ALSO unconstitutional for the citizens of DC to not have representation. Therefore, this is a case of a collision of interests between two facets of the constitution itself.

The easy victory should go towards constitutionally for the residents of DC, simply because the reality the framer's had in mind, they document, was that people would only go to DC for brief periods to serve the Federal government and would return, thus never losing their rights of representation from their "home" districts / states. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that had they realized that a permanent city would develop of substantial size, they would have provided for representation of its citizens because this was the very cause - "taxation without representation" - which galvanized the revolution itself, as exemplified in the Boston Tea Party, for example.
.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
10:26 AM on 02/27/2009
Please cite the article or admendment of the Constitution which supports the right of DC residents to have a voting representative in Congress.
11:52 AM on 02/28/2009
Doesn't matter "Remirez" the Deal is done, did I say it was done, yes it is done! I love America and the Rights we ALLhave including DC.
10:29 AM on 02/27/2009
Unfortunately, there is no constitutional basis, whatsoever, for your argument. Nowhere at all in the US Constitution does the document mandate that residents of the District of Columbia have representation in the national legislature.

Let me repeat that: the District's lack of representation is not unconstitutional.

Try again.
11:57 AM on 02/27/2009
But it should be unconstitutional. And it will be soon. They pay taxes. They should have a say in what those taxes are spent on just like the rest of us. DC is not another country. The residents are US citizens and they should be treated just like the rest of us.
Bottom line...the constitution is outdated. Period. This is called progress.
11:53 AM on 02/28/2009
"Sneaky" - It doesn't matter, the deal is done, done, done! I love it DC will have the full Vote.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:40 AM on 02/27/2009
"No taxation without representation". Ring a bell, anybody?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
10:27 AM on 02/27/2009
"Article I, Section 2." Ever heard of that one?
11:50 AM on 02/28/2009
Face it the deal is done! DC will have the vote. Thank god for a fair and just President and the vote in the House and Senate.
06:30 AM on 02/27/2009
It's about time DC got a voice in government.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
popart
retired school teacher
03:09 AM on 02/27/2009
the last black citizens in america to get the right to vote....how very progressive....but why has it taken so long? shame on congress and shame on america.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
10:28 AM on 02/27/2009
Citizens of DC have always had the right to vote.
12:50 PM on 02/27/2009
Not for a congressperson to represent them. Try READING the article
10:32 AM on 02/27/2009
They can vote for the president. They cannot be represented in the national legislature because they are not states. They are to be, by design, represented by the whole of the United States, and not a state themselves so as to prevent favoritism.
02:10 AM on 02/27/2009
It is a good thing that this has passed the Senate and will be approved by the House and signed by the President. This will permit the case to finally be brought before the Supreme Court, who will be the ones who determine the constitutionality. The question of the constitutionality needs to be settled once and for all, so that if representation of the people of D.C. is not constitutional, some alternate solution can be sought.

If it is found to be unconstitutional, the best solution is to return all of the District, other than the Federal land on which the capital buildings are located, to the origianal owner of the land, the State of Maryland. Therefore the people living in this area. can be represented as residents of Maryland.
02:33 AM on 02/27/2009
Why is there any question about the constitutionality of this action? It's illegal. Unconstitutional. Unlawful. How else does it need to be said?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wesinohio
Can't never did anything.
03:03 AM on 02/27/2009
Representation is of primary importance. That's why we have a supreme court. The constitution can indeed be interpreted to permit representation, at least in this country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
10:31 AM on 02/27/2009
That creates an even bigger problem due to the XXIII Amendment, which grants electoral votes to DC.

If you reduce the district to only the federal lands containing the capitol buildings it would mean the WH and Congress have three electoral votes to play with.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim303
01:13 AM on 02/27/2009
Hooray!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
chitown8
Live each day like your last
12:50 AM on 02/27/2009
American Samoa

* Faleomavaega, Eni F. H., American Samoa (Delegate)
Guam

* Bordallo, Madeleine, Guam (Delegate)

Northern Mariana Islands

* Sablan, Gregorio, Northern Mariana Islands, At-Large
Puerto Rico

* Pierluisi, Pedro, Puerto Rico (Resident Commissioner)

Virgin Islands

* Christian-Christensen, Donna M., U.S. Virgin Islands (Delegate)

District of Columbia

* Norton, Eleanor Holmes, District of Columbia
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
01:09 AM on 02/27/2009
And in accordance with the US Constitution, none of these delegates have a vote in the House of Representatives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:22 AM on 02/27/2009
That raises the question of whether under a strict interpretation nonvoting delegates should be permitted at all. Of course, the problem with strict constructionism regarding DC is that the constitution is rather vague about the relationship between the District and the states. Congress had power to form the District from ceded portions of MD and VA, so if Congress at some point decides to grant statehood, would MD and VA have to agree, or have the state legislatures of the two states completely given up any further say about the status of the District?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
chitown8
Live each day like your last
01:27 AM on 02/27/2009
Let the all vote!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SPacific
Get a clue, then get a life
12:50 AM on 02/27/2009
Who were the two blue dog Senate Democrats voting against this bill?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donbrown
A television producer in Hawaii
12:54 AM on 02/27/2009
One was Robert Byrd...former Ku Klux Klan member...and hopefully on his way out.

Sad human being.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SPacific
Get a clue, then get a life
12:56 AM on 02/27/2009
Thanks don....
02:03 AM on 02/27/2009
We have to forgive Senator Byrd, he is almost a 100 years old (seriously). There should be age limit because when you are close to 100 you cannot be held accountable for your actions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donbrown
A television producer in Hawaii
12:58 AM on 02/27/2009
...my pleasure.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cinnamonape
12:42 AM on 02/27/2009
I find that 4 & 5 above demonstrates that Madison clearly intended that the Districts citizens not only have a "voice" (representation) in the "government which is to exercise authority over them" (i.e. Congress) ; but also a municipal legislature. He felt nothing in the rest of the Constitution obviated the right of suffrage for the residents of DC.
The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated, by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
01:13 AM on 02/27/2009
You omitted the quotation marks but your second graf is from the Federalist Papers, #43.
02:13 AM on 02/27/2009
"The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it."

This is also an argument against making the D.C. a state.
photo
DXM
A sane moderate living during insane extreme times
12:36 AM on 02/27/2009
Why not just avoid all the legal and constitutional challenges (which probably have some merit) and just admit the District of Columbia into the Union as the 51st state? Problem solved!!!
12:39 AM on 02/27/2009
The constituionalist will fight it. At least in the blogs. No adaptability in them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:42 AM on 02/27/2009
It seems pretty clear that Congress has power under Article IV to admit DC as a state, but there is not enough political support to make that happen.
01:11 AM on 02/27/2009
Yup. Crying shame about those poor fools who believe in the rule of law above the whims of man.
01:08 AM on 02/27/2009
The constitution would have to be amended, since D.C. is a federal city under the control of Congress. Amending the constitution is difficult.