This is one of the world’s comparatively minor injustices, but nevertheless one that it’s useful to be reminded of from time to time, since there’s no excuse for it: Residents of Washington, DC have no representation in Congress. All they have is a non-voting delegate in the House (though since 1961 they have had three electoral votes for President).
At a bare minimum, DC needs a Representative with status equal to that of the other Reps. The Senate is a bit tougher of a question, since I think the two-Senators-per-state system is wrong (I’d rather change the Senate to nationwide Proportional Representation, in which DC would of course vote). So I’m undecided between giving DC two Senators of its own, or the alternative (and more politically feasible) suggestion of letting it vote in the Maryland Senate elections. Indeed, I would be happy to retrocede DC back into Maryland, just like Arlington long ago returned to Virginia.
There are two basic arguments advanced against giving DC representation: the “vested interest” argument and the “non-favoritism” argument. I don’t think either holds water, particularly when matched up against the competing claims of political equality for all citizens.
The “vested interest” argument says that DC residents are all federal employees, so if they were able to vote they’d vote for higher taxes and bigger government to benefit themselves at the expense of people working in the private sector. This argument is wrong at three levels — principle, sociological, and efficiency. At the level of principle, it fails because the right to have a say in how a community (such as the nation) is run flows from membership in that community, as defined by someone’s actual entanglement with the lives and fortunes of others*. It’s not contingent upon whether you will vote the right way.
On the sociological level, the vested interest argument fails because it assumes that federal employees are uniquely inclined and able to vote in their self-interest at the expense of others.
But even if we accept the vested interest argument at the level of principle and sociology, it fails at the level of efficiency because it makes an unjustified equation between “federal employee” and “DC resident.” If you want to disenfranchise federal employees, then disenfranchise federal employees. While the federal government is the biggest employer in DC, it only provides 27% of the jobs, so there are plenty of people in DC — from Georgetown professors to taxi drivers — who do not work for the feds. They shouldn’t lose the vote based on their neighbors’ jobs. What’s more, there are loads of federal employees who don’t live in DC. The Washington metro area has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the District. Why should a Commerce Department number-cruncher get representation in Congress just because she happens to live across the border in Montgomery County or Alexandria? And of course there are all the federal employees in regional offices scattered across the country. A Park Ranger at Yellowstone gets two Senators and a Representative, while his colleague at the Smithsonian gets nothing. I won’t even go into the millions of Americans who are effectively federal employees because they work for defense contractors, or agribusinesses that benefit from the federal push for ethanol, or are otherwise beneficiaries of pork.
The “non-favoritism” argument refers back to the original purpose of creating the District of Columbia, rather than putting our capital in Philadelphia or New York. Some people simply assert that DC wasn’t supposed to be in a state, period. But since there’s no reason to accept that as a fundamental axiom, we have to look at the reasons why DC shouldn’t be in a state.
I think the real reson DC was created from scratch is to avoid showing favoritism to already-existing states and cities. That’s a very worthy goal, especially since the union was so fragile at the time of DC’s founding. But giving the current residents of DC the vote wouldn’t undermine that goal. The White House isn’t going to up and move to Philly if we give Elanor Holmes Norton some real power.
A more updated version of the non-favoritism argument is that if the people of DC had any power, they would meddle in the federal government’s business, either accidentally or maliciously impairing its ability to do its job and be fair to all Americans.
But as it stands today, the big problem is just the opposite — DC has no power to defend itself against the meddling of the federal government. The city can’t even cast a single “nay” vote when the legislators from the remainder of the country gang up to overrule DC citizens’ democratically-chosen laws. One prominent example is the feds’ resistance to a commuter tax. So instead of being able to recoup some money from the rich suburbanites who work in the city and use its services, DC has to jack up the taxes and fees on its own disproportionately poor and minority population. Some reasonable limits on the city’s jurisdiction over federal property (with a high burden of proof on the federal government to show it had been harmed) is a much better solution than the disenfranchisement of an entire city.
Empirical evidence is helpful here too. The governments of the UK and France seem to be doing just fine without taking the vote away from the citizens of London and Paris. State governments likewise haven’t needed to kick the people of Harrisburg or Albany out of their legislatures. And the federal government has plenty of offices outside of the bounds of DC (including the Pentagon) which haven’t been crippled by meddling voters.
*I’m happy to follow this principle to the logical conclusion that immigrants should be able to vote.
Pingback: circumlocutor
DC Statehood is well deserved. Practically, Maryland would have none of taking the District of Columbia. DC does not need to be run as if it were a colony, and I think it is fair to say that were DC part of the Louisiana Purchase the city would rightly be called an American colony. DC Statehood has not happened for 5 major reasons: 1) fear of one-party control, 2) fear of violent mobmarches, 3) fear of the interests of the urban poor receiving relatively larger representation, 4) fear of a dysfunctional city government having equal responsibilities to a state government (it already does, only with more restrictions, fewer resources and more visibly needy people), and 5) fear of the nonparticipatory electorate; 3) is insulting, 4) is thoughtless, 5) is prejudiced, 1) is overpartisan and 2) can be controlled at DHS and would whether or not CityState officials encourage them.
DC Statehood is well deserved. Practically, Maryland would have none of taking the District of Columbia. DC does not need to be run as if it were a colony, and I think it is fair to say that were DC part of the Louisiana Purchase the city would rightly be called an American colony. DC Statehood has not happened for 5 major reasons: 1) fear of one-party control, 2) fear of violent mobmarches, 3) fear of the interests of the urban poor receiving relatively larger representation, 4) fear of a dysfunctional city government having equal responsibilities to a state government (it already does, only with more restrictions, fewer resources and more visibly needy people), and 5) fear of the nonparticipatory electorate; 3) is insulting, 4) is thoughtless, 5) is prejudiced, 1) is overpartisan and 2) can be controlled at DHS and would whether or not CityState officials encourage them.
Stentor, good post on a topic that doesn’t get nearly enough air time! I agree that DC deserves the vote. I do not think handing it back to Maryland would be a good solution (for Maryland), but one of the issues preventing DC statehood is the large amount of federal property in DC. I can’t remember the exact argument as to why this is problematic, but I do remember that it is considered a problem.
DC shouldn’t be folded into Maryland. The purpose of having a separate enclave for the Federal Government is so that a State cannot exercise sovereignty over the Federal government. This would give that State an unfair advantage in influencing the acts of the Federal government. Since the United States is made up of a group of states that exercise a great deal of sovereignty within their borders and have different needs and desires regarding the operation of the Federal Government, this situation needs to be avoided.
I admit that the present situation does disenfranchise the residents of the District to a certain extent at the Federal level. I am open to persuasion that they should get a seat in the House of Representatives. How many people are resident in the District?
The Senate is a different matter. Senators are not intended to represent a proportionate group of people; they are intended to represent the interests of a State as a sovereign entity. Senators give a State a voice in government, and the House of Representatives gives people a voice. That’s why until about 1912 (IIRC) Senators were elected by the State legislatures and not directly by the people.
The Constitution is an agreement among States, not among the people as individuals, on what limited powers will be granted to a Federal government, and what powers are reserved to the States and to their residents. There are many examples in the structure of the Federal government where States as a whole are intended to have a commanding say in how the Federal government operates. A good example is that Constitutional amendments are adopted by a State-by-State vote, not a majority in a national plebicite.
To make the Senate a proportionally-representative body would essentially destroy it’s character. If you’re going to do that, it would seem that you might as well eliminate it and go to a unicameral legislature. The presence of the Senate makes sure that the laws and policies of the government are not dominated by heavily populated areas of a particular character, by a small number of highly populated states. It gives the smaller less populated states an equal voice. If you change that, we no longer have a Federal Republic.
What principle do you think leads to the logical conclusion that immigrants should be allowed to vote?
With regards as to why a separate District of Columbia was established, we need not speculate. The reason is explictly given in Federalist Paper #43:
“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. 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, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; 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; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.
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.
As a DC resident, I welcome your comments on this. I would point out that DC’s 500,000 population makes it larger per capita than Wyoming and North Dakota, so population is no excuse for denying it senators.
But I’d be perfectly happy to have the land around the Capitol and the White House, let’s say everything from 100 yards south of Independence and north of Constitution, plus land between Constitution and Pennsylvania Ave, one block east of the Capitol belong to the feds and the rest of the city become incorporated into Maryland.
I used to walk down 16th St NW to work and amused myself by counting how many Maryland plates I saw on that road — probably outnumbered DC plates 20 to 1. Yet they don’t pay taxes toward repaving the roads — and then complain about the potholes. DC has one of the largest commuting populations in the country. It loses something like 60 percent of its daytime population at night. Also, DC can’t tax something like 40 percent of the land in its boundaries because it belongs to the feds — or to embassies, which are tax exempt. The feds have also exempted some nonprofit entities as well. To say nothing of how much DC residents have to shell out to protect politicians. The White House made DC pay for security during the inauguration.
I never understood Marion Berry’s popularity here until I lived here and experienced Congress’ interference firsthand. For instance, citizens collected petitions to get medical marijuana on the ballot. Congress forbid the city from even *counting* and reporting the results.
We are run like a plantation — or a colony during the bad old days of King George.
Fielder’s Choice: I agree, except that I have no idea what you mean about “fear of violent mobmarches.”
RonF: I simply don’t believe that States should have representation in the national government. It doesn’t make any sense that the 2 million people in Nevada should have power equal to the 34 million people in California just because there’s an imaginary line in the desert between them. That’s why I’d like to switch the Senate to proportional representation (I wouldn’t go unicameral because PR and geographical districts each have their pros and cons, and it’s a useful check on bad legislation to make it be debated twice and accepted by two separate bodies).
As for the state where the capital is located using its power to mess with the government, I think that 1) evidence from all the capitals elsewhere in the world and at other levels of government shows that that worry is overblown, and 2) much more modest restrictions on DC’s power (such as lou’s suggestion) would do the job just fine.
I simply don’t believe that States should have representation in the national government. It doesn’t make any sense that the 2 million people in Nevada should have power equal to the 34 million people in California just because there’s an imaginary line in the desert between them.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But you need to understand that you are opposing the very basis on which our Constitutional government was established; a compact between a group of sovereign states to grant only those limited powers to a central government that were deemed necessary for the advancement of their common interests in the face of the rest of the world. Those boundary lines mark separate sovereignties where the laws regulating everything from speeding to murder are different. The idea is that a Federal government has little business regulating the details of such things, and that they are best left to more local governments that are more under the control of the people of those states. And since a large part of the Federal government’s job is to regulate the relationships among the States, the States should each have an equal voice in that process.
It’s instructive to recognize that the original Constitution concentrated on governmental structure, regulating the relationships among the states, and ensuring that States maintained republican forms of government, and said almost nothing about individual rights. The founders didn’t think that this was necessary, as they figured that the Federal government wouldn’t have either the inclination or the power to interfere with individuals. But, as always, the citizens of the U.S. didn’t trust the government, and so the Bill of Rights was proposed and adopted.
The very concept you state did occur to many of the Constitutional Convention delegates, which is why we have the compromise we have today; pure population proportional representation in the House, where the population gets a direct say, and State representation in the Senate, where the States get a say. State soverignty cannot overwhelm the people directly, nor can the people directly overwhelm State soverignty. I would dare say that the States in the United States of America have more sovereignty than equivalent provinces in any other country; that the existence of the Senate helps preserve this; and that this strong local sovereignty and it’s balance against nation-wide proportional representation is one of the main strengths of the U.S. and an advantage in the world.
lou, I think that the D.C.’s population would make an excellent argument for setting it up with a vote in the House, but since allocation of Senators is not based on population the argument fails for me there.
I agree that it appears that the Congress has not properly governed it’s demense. But then, no one is forcing people to live in D.C. D.C. is not that big. If people are really unhappy about how the thing is governed, why don’t they move out and commute in? Or get a job outside of D.C.?
As for the state where the capital is located using its power to mess with the government, I think that 1) evidence from all the capitals elsewhere in the world and at other levels of government shows that that worry is overblown,
What evidence is that?
RonF: But then, no one is forcing people to live in D.C. D.C. is not that big. If people are really unhappy about how the thing is governed, why don’t they move out and commute in? Or get a job outside of D.C.?
Ron, that’s pretty disingenuous. If there were adequate, affordable housing outside of D.C. for everybody currently living within D.C., maybe it would be that simple. But there are many many people who like to live within a reasonable distance of their workplaces, and those workplaces are not going anywhere else in the foreseeable future. Maybe if you have an easily transportable job, such as computer programmer or nurse or something, it would be easy to get a job somewhere else, but the Tourmobile people, the Park Police, the Congressional staffers, the Secret Service personnel, and so on and so on cannot _move_ their jobsites, and _somebody_ has to do that work. So given that there are a significant number of people who need to live in D.C., and given that the D.C. government is hardly allowed to lift a finger without a Congressional okey-dokey, what would you propose as a solution? IMO, at a minimum, D.C. residents should either get voting representation in the House of Representatives or a exemption from paying federal taxes. That’s part of what the Revolution was all about, wasn’t it – taxation without representation?
But you need to understand that you are opposing the very basis on which our Constitutional government was established
Yup. Sorry Founders, but I think one of your principles is mistaken. Also, I think there’s a difference between Federalism (in which higher levels of government are composites of the level immediately below, rather than of the citizens) and Decentralization (in which many decisions are made at the state or local level instead of at the top). I’m in favor of roughly the degree of Decentralization that the US currently has, but I would happily get rid of the two remaining vestiges of true Federalism (the two-Senators-per-state rule and the Electoral College).
As to your question at #11, the fact that so few countries do disenfranchise their capital cities — even Canberra gets two Senators and two Reps — is prima facie evidence to me that this isn’t a big problem. But if you have some counter-evidence, I’m quite open to it.
Pingback: The Debate Link
“The Constitution is an agreement among States, not among the people as individuals, on what limited powers will be granted to a Federal government, and what powers are reserved to the States and to their residents.”
For the record, the Constitution starts “We the People” and was voted on by special conventions seperate from the vested interests of state governments. States have no power or rights to disagree with the legality of this government formed of the people, by the people and for the people. That was the basis of the Civil War and if I remember correctly, the Federal outlook prevailed.
As for the right of D.C. citizens to vote, I say give it to them. I’ll let the politicians figure out the best method to make it work.
Yes, the Constitution does state “We the People”. But again, since this is a Federal Republic and not a pure democracy, the will of “We the People” is expressed in many cases through our State governments. And those special conventions that ratified the Constitution were, again, held on a State by State basis, and there was no provision for part of a State to ratify or deny the Constitution (West Virginia being a special case).
The intent that States as a separate corporate entity should have a voice in Federal Government is not negated by the concept that the compact between the Federal Government and the States could not be unilaterally dissolved; many contracts are written that way. And the intent can be clearly seen in the original structure of the Senate and the discussion in the Federalist Papers as to why it was so constituted.
I feel your argument is well stated. I’m currently researching the topic for a project and am concerned with the governments inability to deal with the issue. Wouldn’t the most favorable compromise be to allow the citizens a vote in Congress and be done with it? Why must we worry about making the District of Colombia a state? The government has shown already that they have no problem with bending the rules to fit the public’s needs, so why not this one? Just my own thoughts….