Congress is on the verge of granting the District of Columbia statehood on the cheap: This week, lawmakers in both chambers are debating a scheme to give the District a permanent seat in the House of Representatives. The bill in question violates the plain meaning of the Constitution and should go no further.
For years, Democrats have dreamed of conferring statehood on the District of Columbia, if only because they know it will increase their partisan clout in the Capitol. As with so many large cities, Washington, D.C., is a one-party jurisdiction. Neither its mayor nor a single person on its 13-member city council is currently a Republican. If “New Columbia” were to become the 51st state, it would surely send a delegation of Democrats to the Hill. They would probably live on the left-wing fringes of their party, too. When the District created the position of “shadow senator” in 1990, voters responded by electing Jesse Jackson to this honorary office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Because efforts to make D.C. a full-fledged state have failed, the city’s political backers have resorted to incremental steps. Much like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam, the District currently sends a delegate to Congress. The rules governing these posts have changed over the years, but in general delegates have been allowed to vote in committee but not on the floor of the House.
That’s because the Constitution forbids non-states from enjoying this privilege. The senators and congressmen who think otherwise should take a refresher course on Article I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Moreover: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States.”
There was a time when D.C.’s political backers appreciated this prohibition. In 1977, Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have granted representation to the District — the most direct way of lifting an obvious constitutional ban — but the states failed to ratify it. Years earlier it took the passage of the 23rd Amendment to give District residents the right to vote for president.
An option to grant Washingtonians a voice in the House, without requiring the high demands of a constitutional amendment, already exists: retrocession. Just as Virginia absorbed a chunk of the District in 1846, Maryland could take in large sections of it now. Let Maryland’s political establishment, including Democratic governor Martin O’Malley and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, explain why this is not acceptable.
The District’s promoters aren’t talking about retrocession. Instead, they’re trying to get around significant constitutional obstacles by ignoring them. Specifically, their proposal would increase the size of the House of Representatives by two members, from 435 to 437. One of the new seats would be awarded to the District on a permanent basis. The other would go to the state that’s next in line to receive one, based upon existing formulas of apportionment. At the moment, this happens to be Utah. Its House delegation would expand by one member — at least until 2012, when the results of the next Census take effect.
Some call this a praiseworthy example of bipartisan compromise. Whereas Washington certainly would elect a Democrat, Utah presumably would elect a Republican because it is one of the most GOP-friendly states in the Union (even though one of its three current representatives is a Democrat). What would happen in 2012 and beyond, however, is an open question, except for the fact that D.C. would retain its seat.
Such political scale-tipping should have nothing to do with it, however. The Constitution is explicit: It forbids the District, a non-state, from enjoying the full benefits of congressional membership. Senators and representatives who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should do their duty and vote down this unconstitutional ruse.
