February 24, 2009
By Hans A. von Spakovsky
When the D.C. voting-rights bill comes up for a cloture vote in
the Senate this Tuesday, senators will face one overriding
question: Will they uphold their oaths to support and defend the
Constitution? If they give the District of Columbia a voting
representative in Congress, they will break those oaths.
Article I specifies that "Representatives . . . shall be
apportioned among the several States," and this is confirmed in
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. One of the qualifications to be a
congressman is to "be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall
Congress itself has recognized that the only way the District of
Columbia could get representation was through a constitutional
amendment -- Congress passed one in 1977 (the amendment failed to
gain the approval of 38 states, and thus didn't take effect).
It also took an amendment -- the 23rd Amendment, ratified in
1961 -- to provide District residents the right to vote for
president. If that right could have been granted through
legislation, there would have been no need to get so many states to
The courts have recognized this, too. In 2000, a federal court
ruled that D.C. residents were not entitled to representation in
Congress: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District
may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of
congressional representatives." The Supreme Court affirmed that
About the only argument that the bill's proponents can muster is
that because the Constitution gives Congress the right to exercise
"exclusive Legislation" over the District, it has the ability to
provide the District with a House seat.
That's a losing argument. The Constitution's provision giving
Congress the power to run the affairs of the District of Columbia
-- the seat of the nation's capitol -- doesn't wipe out other parts
of the document. Congress could not, for example, restrict the
First Amendment rights of District residents.
Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also
applies to "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards" and other
federal properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the
basis of that text, that Congress has the power to award House
seats to an army base, federal office building, or Navy pier.
The concept of the District, as outlined by the Founders, was
that it should be autonomous and not subject to the whims and
outside pressures of a state government. Those reasons, as
articulated by James Madison, Elbridge Gerry, and George Mason at
the Constitutional Convention, are just as relevant today as they
were over 200 years ago.
And while statehood supporters cite the famous American rallying
cry "no taxation without representation," that is a false analogy.
The entire Congress represents the interests of the District,
because every single member of Congress works in the District.
The numbers bear this out. Every year, Congress appropriates
millions of dollars for the District. D.C. did so well under the
stimulus bill that Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.'s nonvoting
representative, crowed on her website that "Norton's stimulus
package puts D.C. ahead of seven states." The District has a
smaller population than 49 of the states (Wyoming being the
This is not an attempt to secure representation for District
residents' interests, then, but a raw grab at political power. It
will establish a new, permanently Democratic seat in the House of
Representatives. The bill attempts to balance that by adding a
second seat as well (bringing the total number of representatives
to 437), and giving that seat to Utah. But unlike D.C.'s seat,
Utah's extra seat is guaranteed only until next year's Census --
after which each state will be assigned seats in proportion to its
population. The extra seat will almost surely be transferred to a
Democratic state like California or New York.
The fact that the bill is unconstitutional and politically
motivated, however, does not mean the courts will strike it down.
The reason is that in order for a court to strike down a law,
someone needs to challenge the law before the court -- and in order
to challenge the law, a plaintiff needs to demonstrate standing, or
that the law has harmed him in some way. Even if the bill contains
a section that purports to provide lawmakers standing, there is
grave doubt that the courts would respect it. Members of the Senate
sued in 1997 regarding a statute that contained such a section, but
the Supreme Court ruled that the senators lacked the direct and
personal injury required for standing. The type of political
injuries that the D.C. bill would inflict might not be sufficient
to meet this standard, either.
Statehood proponents know that there is insufficient support
nationwide to amend the Constitution to give D.C. a voting member
of Congress. They're willing to violate the Constitution instead.
It will be a sad day in American political life if they
A. von Spakovsky is a visiting legal scholar at the
Heritage Foundation. He is also a former commissioner on the
Federal Election Commission and counsel to the assistant attorney
general for civil rights at the Department of Justice.
First Appeared in the National Review Online
When the D.C. voting-rights bill comes up for a cloture vote in the Senate this Tuesday, senators will face one overriding question: Will they uphold their oaths to support and defend the Constitution? If they give the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, they will break those oaths.
Rule of Law Initiative of the Leadership for America Campaign
Hans A. von Spakovsky
Senior Legal Fellow / Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973