[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000184","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/23\/essays\/185\/electors-for-the-district-of-columbia\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EElectors for the District of Columbia\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment XXIII\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESection 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EA number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESection 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe inability of the citizens of the District\u0026nbsp;of Columbia to participate in federal elections\u0026nbsp;has been controversial since the federal seat of\u0026nbsp;government of the United States came into existence\u0026nbsp;in 1800. In 1960, Congress rectified the\u0026nbsp;situation concerning the district\u2019s participation\u0026nbsp;in presidential elections by passing the Twenty-third\u0026nbsp;Amendment. It enables the district to\u0026nbsp;participate in presidential and vice-presidential\u0026nbsp;elections in the same manner in which the states\u0026nbsp;participate in those elections. The states swiftly\u0026nbsp;ratified the proposed amendment in time for\u0026nbsp;the district to cast electoral votes in the presidential\u0026nbsp;election of 1964. The amendment did\u0026nbsp;not address the district\u2019s lack of representation\u0026nbsp;in Congress.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe legislative history of the amendment\u0026nbsp;makes clear that the drafters sought to provide\u0026nbsp;the seat of government of the United States, the\u0026nbsp;District of Columbia, with the same method of\u0026nbsp;selecting presidential electors in the Electoral\u0026nbsp;College as the states employed to select their\u0026nbsp;presidential electors. The legislative history\u0026nbsp;also reveals that some of the key drafters were\u0026nbsp;ignorant of the relevant constitutional history\u0026nbsp;concerning the manner in which the states had\u0026nbsp;selected their presidential electors. Early in U.S.\u0026nbsp;history, some states chose electors by district,\u0026nbsp;others by the state legislature, and others by a\u0026nbsp;\u201cwinner-take-all\u201d system. Despite this confusion,\u0026nbsp;the Twenty-third Amendment clearly\u0026nbsp;provides Congress the same leeway as the state\u0026nbsp;legislatures in enacting the electoral vote selection\u0026nbsp;procedures for the district.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe amendment contains some sui generis\u0026nbsp;provisions. The amendment expressly caps the\u0026nbsp;district\u2019s electoral votes at the number equal to\u0026nbsp;the least populous state. This, in effect, providesthe district with three electoral votes regardless\u0026nbsp;of the population of the district. In addition,\u0026nbsp;because the parallel constitutional provisions\u0026nbsp;grant the respective state legislatures with plenary\u0026nbsp;power over the method of selection of the\u0026nbsp;presidential electors, a like power was necessarily\u0026nbsp;given to Congress. The House report accompanying\u0026nbsp;the amendment notes that \u201c[t]he language\u0026nbsp;follows closely the language of article II of the\u0026nbsp;Constitution.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough not constitutionally required,\u0026nbsp;Congress, by statute, has adopted a winner-takeall\u0026nbsp;system, in which the winner of the plurality\u0026nbsp;of votes receives all of the district\u2019s presidential\u0026nbsp;electors. Such winner-take-all systems have\u0026nbsp;been enacted in all the states except for Maine\u0026nbsp;and Nebraska. Recently, controversies over the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-third Amendment have arisen as part\u0026nbsp;of efforts for district statehood or to provide\u0026nbsp;the district with representation in the federal\u0026nbsp;legislature. For example, if Congress, by statute,\u0026nbsp;accepted the District of Columbia as the\u0026nbsp;State of New Columbia, and the present \u201cseat\u0026nbsp;of government of the United States\u201d was not\u0026nbsp;eliminated but reduced to a small federal enclave\u0026nbsp;containing the White House and the federal\u0026nbsp;Mall, what would become of the Twenty-third\u0026nbsp;Amendment?\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMany district-statehood and district\u2013voting-rights proponents generally seek to avoid\u0026nbsp;amending the Constitution because of the difficulties\u0026nbsp;of obtaining congressional approval\u0026nbsp;and state ratification. They contend that the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-third Amendment would become a\u0026nbsp;\u201cdead letter\u201d without the necessity of formal\u0026nbsp;repeal by constitutional amendment, because\u0026nbsp;there would be virtually no residents left in the\u0026nbsp;federal enclave. On the other hand, \u201cthe Seat of\u0026nbsp;Government of the United States,\u201d the entity\u0026nbsp;designated in the amendment to receive electoral\u0026nbsp;votes, would still exist in its geographically\u0026nbsp;reduced form. That constitutional entity, absent\u0026nbsp;constitutional repeal, would still be constitutionally\u0026nbsp;entitled to the electoral votes under the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-third Amendment. Any congressional\u0026nbsp;effort to repeal the enabling legislation without\u0026nbsp;repealing the Twenty-third Amendment would\u0026nbsp;likely face constitutional difficulty. For example,\u0026nbsp;the concept that any constitutional provision\u0026nbsp;can be deemed a \u201cdead letter\u201d by legislation runs\u0026nbsp;contrary to basic principles of the American\u0026nbsp;constitutional structure. Additionally, such a\u0026nbsp;scenario could imply that a state legislature\u0026nbsp;could exercise like authority and act to disenfranchise\u0026nbsp;its citizens from participation in the\u0026nbsp;Electoral College.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFor decades, these concerns seemed academic\u0026nbsp;and hypothetical. However, the 2000\u0026nbsp;presidential election and the controversy over\u0026nbsp;Florida\u2019s electoral votes renewed focus on a state\u2019s\u0026nbsp;constitutional prerogatives concerning the manner\u0026nbsp;and selection of presidential electors. Those\u0026nbsp;constitutional developments necessarily inform\u0026nbsp;Congress\u2019s parallel obligations under the Twenty-third\u0026nbsp;Amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn addition, in an effort to assure that the\u0026nbsp;popular vote winner is elected president, but\u0026nbsp;without amending the Constitution, a National\u0026nbsp;Popular Vote bill has been proposed. This bill,\u0026nbsp;in the form of an interstate compact, would take\u0026nbsp;effect only when enacted, in identical form, by\u0026nbsp;states possessing at least 270 electoral votes\u2014enough to elect the president. The bill would\u0026nbsp;award each enacting state\u2019s electoral votes to\u0026nbsp;the presidential candidate who has received the\u0026nbsp;most popular votes. The bill has been enacted\u0026nbsp;by nine jurisdictions, including the District\u0026nbsp;of Columbia, that possess 132 electoral votes.\u0026nbsp;The District\u2019s enactment may be problematic.\u0026nbsp;Ultimately, based on the express terms of the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-third Amendment, Congress, not the\u0026nbsp;D.C. City Council, has the final word on the\u0026nbsp;electoral vote selection procedure for the District\u0026nbsp;of Columbia.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Adam_Kurland.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.law.howard.edu\/423\u0022\u003EAdam Kurland\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000184-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000184-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000184-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000184-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAfter the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College (Walter Berns ed., rev. 1992)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAdam Harris Kurland, \u003Ci\u003EPartisan Rhetoric, Constitutional Reality, and Political Responsibility: The Troubling Constitutional Consequences of Achieving D.C. Statehood by Simple Legislation\u003C\/i\u003E, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 475 (1992)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOffice of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, Report to the Attorney General on the Question of Statehood for the District of Columbia (April 3, 1987)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E1 Ronald D. Rotunda \u0026amp; John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure\u0026nbsp;\u00a7 3.6(c) (5th ed. 2012)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cem\u003EExplanation of National Popular Vote Bill\u003C\/em\u003E, at http:\/\/nationalpopularvote.com\/pages\/explanation.php\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000184-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMcPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWilliams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAdams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000), \u003Ci\u003Eaff\u0027d\u003C\/i\u003E, 531 U.S. 941 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000184-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000056\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EEnclave Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000078\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Electors\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000079\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EElectoral College\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]