D.C. set to get taxation with representation.
By on Jan 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
D.C. set to get taxation with representation.
“After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington, D.C., residents are close to getting their first full-fledged representative in the House of Representatives.” The 110th Congress is expected to take up legislation to “increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah” and D.C. “The 600,000 citizens of the district are still the only residents of a national capital in any democracy in the world without full voting rights.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought DC has no representation simply because it’s not in any state.
Any Legal Scholars? I think this might actually create a slight Constitutional problem as they don’t get a Senator for the same reason.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmRepresentation is supposed to be based on population. DC has a population. Of course DC is not a state. That does not mean that constituents should be legally deprived of the vote.
The underlying issue is that Repugs have viewed DC representation as a consistent Democratic vote, and since they only win when they suppress voter turnout, how could they possibly vote to extend to others the rights that our founding fathers fought for?
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pmGood question, S.D. If this does go through and survives constitutional challenges, it will mean one more guaranteed Democratic seat in the House. Nice.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 pmIsn’t DC full of African Americans? No wonder they put this off for so long.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pmI have nothing against the fine people who leave in DC, but there’s a reason why they don’t have representation in either body: The District is the seat of the federal government. It is not a state, and should not be given “equal footing” with any state in either House of Congress. At least, that’s my understanding of the reason. Of course, I could be wrong, and if I am, then I would like to know the real reason the framers designed our government this way.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pmWe’ve all suffered w/o representation with the current President.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pmHis narrow agenda & BS have tainted our Country.
DC residents deserve representation.
Americans deserve a better administration.
Chimpeach Now!
Hurray!!! Even though I am no longer a DC resident, I am thrilled. It is not only good for the Democrats, more importantly it is good for the city itself. I imagine the Republicans will hesitate to make comments of sneering condescension about DC, thinly disguising their racism, with a liberal and probably African-American congressional rep staring them down from across the aisle.
Not long ago, the Republicans tried to rename 16th Street, a main DC thoroughfare cutting through the heart of the city, after their personal hero Reagan, a slap in the face to its residents, whose interests he always worked against. With a voting DC rep in Congress, that is one proposal that probably won’t be coming back.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmIf I’m not mistaken, the DC area has a representative, but they don’t vote…?
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmNorton, Eleanor Holmes, District of Columbia
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pmis the non voting DC rep.
She was on Colbert not too long ago, what a hoot!
good explanation of the issue at
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights
RealityCheck, we’re under the rule of law specifically:
Washington D.C. isn’t a state any more than Puerto Rico is.
I’m all for representational Gov’t but establishing Congressional Representation to Non-State populations may be unconstitutional. Giving D.C. representation may require a Constitutional Amendment.
As we’ve learned under GW Bush: You can’t selectively select portions of the Constitution to enforce.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmIt’s about damn time!
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pmRed herring.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm#5 Wayne
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pmI always read your posts for the information you provide :) and I am grateful. I have questions, though.
Even as the residents of DC are not in a “state” but in the seat of the federal government, they are still citizens of the country and shouldn’t they have representation in the House if not the Senate?
They have to pay taxes and serve in the military and are subject to all the same rules as the rest of us.
Also, was Washington DC the seat of the federal government in the 18th century?
Thats fine. But wasn’t it the citizens of DC who voted for a convicted felon and admitted crack addict to be their mayor?
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmSD, there’s actually a problem with your quoting from the Constitution: There’s NO definition of “state”. (At one point, there was a general consensus that a certain population level was necessary for a State to be admitted, but I don’t recall any conditions laid out in the Constitution specifying this.) The Constitution states in Article IV:
Section 3 – New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Absolutely, none of this precludes the Federal District from *becoming* a State. (It should also be noted that the State of West Virginia–UNDER THIS ARTICLE–was admitted ILLEGALLY, but the “technicality” that the State of Virginia had seceded allowed this, despite the fact that the Flag of the United States during the Civil War continued to include all the states “in rebellion”. I don’t recall if the State of Virginia had to accept an additional condition of loss of its western counties in order to be readmitted, but there’s never been any successful action taken since 1865 that has LEGALLY acknowledged this blatant violation of Constitutional principles.) There’s nothing in the Constitution which would require an amendment to elevate DC to the level of a “State”. I would note that Puerto Rico has a special status under which they’re not taxed as are the citizens of DC and Puerto Ricans are able to vote on that status. The primary reason that Puerto Ricans have largely shunned the “statehood” option has been a somewhat unstated principle that they would have to abandon Spanish as an official language (Spanish and English are co-official languages and considering most Puerto Ricans use Spanish as their primary language at all levels, it’s a reasonable fear); a secondary reason for rejecting “statehood” is the taxation aspect. Puerto Ricans already are able to serve in the US military and they’re not required to carry passports or green cards to travel and work in the mainland US and they’re able to send delegates to Presidential conventions which allows them some say in who becomes President (even if they can’t vote directly in the Presidential election), so becoming a state doesn’t really give the island any real benefit. DCers, on the other hand, are taxed and any laws passed by the local leaders are subject to Congressional veto.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmhe euro appreciation is phenomenal, the figures speak for themselves: it increased 11.4 percent with respect to the dollar and 12.6 percent in terms of the yen in 2006. This is a remarkable performance indeed.
Furthermore, there are murmurs in the Gulf states about oil-rich sheikdoms diversifying their billions in petrodollars assets into the more stable and attractive euro. These whisperings are disconcerting to the ears of both Washington’s policy makers and Wall Street’s financiers.
China and Russia are also flirting with the idea of trading in their dollars for euros if the dollar continues its downward slide. One of the two nations is likely to make a substantial shift in their foreign reserves away from U.S. denominated holdings into the euro in 2007.
The backdrop to the euro’s buoyancy and bright outlook for the future is of course a lackluster U.S. economy, which is starting to feel the effects a slowdown in housing prices. In fact towards the late end of 2006 housing prices have gone into reverse in “middle America.”
This has negatively impacted the dollar as consumers who rely on the value of their property to obtain “cheap” credit have less to spend. The other factor which might be contributing to the only other major world reserve currency’s decline is the soaring (and almost insurmountable) trade deficit with its major trading partner, China. The protracted involvement in Iraq with the mounting costs heading to astronomical figures does nothing to bolster confidence in the U.S. currency among currency traders and speculators.
This dire domestic and foreign situation for the “world’s lone superpower” in turn makes the euro all the more attractive to investors. The fact is simple and clear: Europe, despite its growing pains, remains a harbor of stability in an increasingly uncertain world. It is despite its recent reticence publicly for new members to join, enlarging peacefully. This is a powerful attractive force for the financial markets. Its member states’ economies, especially Germany’s, is on a solid footing.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pmMarie,
I appreciate the kind words. I do not claim to be an expert on constitutional law, but I know of a few posters here who can certainly claim to be more knowledgeable than I. Perhaps they can correct me.
The federal seat of our government moved from (I believe) New York City to Philadelphia then to Washington, DC. They moved there in the last month of 1800, so I guess it’s technically still the 18th century, but barely.
As for what the residents of DC should be entitled to, it’s a good question, and one that has not just political and moral ramifications, but constotutional ones, as well. To be quite honest, I do not know very much about the history of DC. (At least I’m not trying to severely fake it.) I am not sure if it was ever intended that citizens reside within the District itself. But I could be horribly mistaken on that point. (Remember, we have to think about what they thought 200+ years ago.) In those days, Senators were chosen by governors and legislatures, so I’m not sure how they might have envisioned Senators being chosen to represent them should the District become a state. It is controlled by the Congress, so you would have had Congress, essentially, picking its own Senators to represent themselves in their own body! The conflicts of interest are just too mind-numbing.
And, I think, it ultimately came down to that question: conflict of interest and proper accountabililty. To give the seat of the federal government equal footing with the states it oversees might have made the founders nervous, given that they were trying to create a government that couldn’t be run by a king or dictator. They probably didn’t want the possibility of the Executive Branch having a way to totally mess up the Legislative Branch.
This may (or may not) sound remotely plausible and, if it does, then chalk one up for luck because I have nothing but pure speculation and a MENSA-level IQ to go on here. But I do appreciate your kindness. And I enjoy reading your posts, too. Your comments often bring a refreshing perspective to the conversations going on.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 pmNot sure about the Constitutional language aspect, but neither Virginia or Kentucky qualify as a state (they are Commonwealths) and they get voting representation. We just served up 3,000 American (and who knows how man innpcent Iraqi) lives to give Baghdad voting representation. Times have changed and the earlier thinking behind keeping the District without voting representation is ridiculous. Yes, we get to vote for the President, but we still have all of our laws subject to Congressional approval not to mention riders that make us guinea pigs for either party.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmI have lived, voted, and paid taxes in DC. The “no representation” issue never bothered me because I had full knowledge that DC is not a state. It’s also rather academic. Will our one voice in a chorus of 437 bring about change? Doubtful. DC is not anymore neglected than any state. Arguably, any problems DC has is because of their on, sometimes ridiculous, local government. I paid DC taxes for local services (which were reasonable — my trash got collected, and the streets were plowed). Schools are bad, but they are bad everywhere. Security was good (in the Fed areas) because of the Federal Park Police, Capitol Police and the Secret Service.
When Mayor Williams took over, things started on the upswing. I’d rather push for state-hood than a single vote in Congress. I can’t think of many reasons to not allow state-hood. The main reason I can think of is the ring of “50 states”. Such a nice clean number. It would be tough to cram in 2 more senate desks. No more room at the lunch table. Etc. Etc.
Anyway, will a DC vote have an impact on the Nation? No.
Will it have a positive impact on DC? Doubtful. All the money the Norton can bring to DC is still managed by the local gov’t, which has been historically inept.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm#18 Wayne,
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pmThanks again.
You have provided some points of clarification. I will pull out my old college history book and see if I can educate myself further. :)
“Puerto Ricans already are able to serve in the US military”
Yep, we have quite a tradition of military Service…
;)
JosephW, DC could also be made part of Maryland again too. Also, while there isn’t and concise definition of “state†in the constitution, isn’t there an implied definition by virtue that the Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the original 13 states?
Once thing is certain: DC deserves representation.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pmI have lived in DC for 15 years. During that time, I have had no representation in the legislative branch of our government. I have also been subject to bizarre dictates from congressmen who rant about the evils of Big Government, then pass arbitrary laws regarding the district. A few years back, for instance, we were not allowed to count the votes on a ballot issue because Republican congressmen did not like the issue.
If you are truly concerned about constitutionality, you can do a bit of searching and find some of the many proposed solutions to the problem. DC can be made a state. The non-Federal portions of DC could be ceded to Maryland (as the Virginia portions were to Virginia). We can be granted representation by other means (the legislation that prompted this posting, for example). And there are other solutions. Hell, I’m from Tennessee and I’d accept voting rights there or in neighboring Virginia or Maryland.
As it stands, I have no representation while being subject to the nation’s laws & taxes. Hence the legend on our license plates: Taxation Without Representation. Wasn’t that one of the grievances that caused us to end our colonial status & found a nation?
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 pmGod bless the Democrats for spreading freedom and Democracy throughout America.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 pmYeah… finally, one person, one vote.
#24 AkaDad – I agree and more… “here comes the Sun”.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pmI am for the district getting a vote but not for this BS about adding an extra distict to Utah so that both sides get a vote. This not dillutes the vote that would be granted to DC but to all Americans everywhere since Utah would get extra representation.
The House of Representatives is exactly that… representative of the people… and making sure that we kept both political parties (neither of which are officially part of the constitution last I checked) happy was never and should never be part of the deal
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pmThey deserve a rep. Arguments suggesting that only states should are fundamentally idiotic.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 pmThen the Puerto Rican non-voting reps will get to vote too? Well its about time.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 pmThe object of making the District the exclusive province of the federal Congress was to remove it from local and state politics in every sense of the word, including police power and taxation. On one hand, there were plenty of concerns that Congress would create a fortress-like territory whereby they could hold the rest of the country hostage and ignore local concerns. Conversely, Federalists believed the new country could not establish itself without having clear authority over its own capital, and could avoid local partisanship and regional competition by not being part of any state. Congress would make all laws pertaining to the District and therefore it was considered that the people who resided there — presumably associated with the government– would live there with that understanding and that they would be represented by Congress as a whole. So the District is not nor was it intended to be a state. Any attempt to give its citizens a vote had to be addressed in the Constitution itself since its governance is part of the powers of Congress and those are explicitly assigned by the Constitution. Interpreting it otherwise is not exactly strict construction! DC voting in Congress also impinges on the prerogatives of the states since it indirectly affects their representation. Apart from a Constitutional amendment, another way would be to cede the non-governmental parts of the district back to Maryland. The Constitution says the District cannot be larger than 10 miles square; it could be much less.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 pmOn the DC vs. Puerto Rico question:
Puerto Rico does not pay Federal Taxes, but DC residents do (hence the license plate motto, “taxation without representation”)
Maybe DC residents shouldn’t have to pay Federal Taxes if it is to remain as-is!
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pmI disagree. The District of Columbia is not a state, and therefore in and of itself should be accorded no special status when it comes to representation in Congress. However, I do think that the residents of the district should, for the purposes of representation in both the House and Senate, be considered to be part of the state from which the district is derived. In this case, that would be Maryland.
So, as the federal district is currently configured, D.C. residents should be able to vote for Maryland Senators, and would probably constitute their own seperate representative district as well. But D.C would not be considered a state.
You probably wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment for this, either.
Later,
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pmPosted by SD:
JosephW, DC could also be made part of Maryland again too. Also, while there isn’t and concise definition of “state†in the constitution, isn’t there an implied definition by virtue that the Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the original 13 states?
Um, to answer your question, yes. But that doesn’t really have any connection to DC’s having representation nor does it imply a definition of “state”. The ratification by 9 states only validated the Constitution’s establishment among those 9 (which, incidentally, was a lesser requirement than is now needed to add an amendment to the Constitution; to ratify an amendment, 3/4 of the States must approve, and 9/13 is less than 3/4–9/13 = .6923 while 3/4 = .75). It should be noted, however, that when the Constitution was declared ratified (6/21/1788), the 2 most important states (Virginia and New York) had not yet ratified and BOTH of those states were deemed necessary for the United States to be a truly viable nation (Virginia’s ratification came four days later while New York’s only came a month after that; furthermore, the Constitution didn’t actually go into effect until March 1789 and 2 of the original 13 states had still not agreed to the Constitution’s terms).
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 pmUsing a word in a passage does not by any reasonable accounting *define* the word (that’s why most legal contracts go out of their way to define terms, even the most reasonably simple of terms, as they apply in and/or to the contract).
Does Utah get extra representation because they are White or because they have a history of having extra wives?
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 amNot sure about the Constitutional language aspect, but neither Virginia or Kentucky qualify as a state (they are Commonwealths) and they get voting representation.
Well, so is Massachusetts, but from what I understand it is a distinction without a difference. All of them went through the approved (at the time) process to achieve statehood, something that DC has not been permitted to do.
That said, the idea that DC residents are being denied representation in Congress based on a technicality or a trick of language is offensive and anti-American in the extreme.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amI’ve never quite understood the motto “taxation without representation” as it implies that the government simply takes money and spends it in a way it deems fit. While it does do this, it doesn’t do this alone – it also makes the laws of the land, conducts foreign policy, etc. etc. and this motto doesn’t reflect that fact.
Even if DC residents were no longer required to pay federal taxes in return for shutting up about congressional representation, they would still be in a less than democratic situation. They would not have the power to influence the federal law-making process and hence would still be at the mercy of political processes over which they have no power.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amIm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the gentrification of the district of columbia. People have been fighting for this for decades, but because the color of those faces that have been making the arguments have now significantly changed, the debate seems to be taken more seriously….. :(
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm#35. Um… let’s see. Review your basic civics. We get to vote for exactly one-third of the branches of our government: the executive. We get no say in the legislative branch (the one that makes the laws of the land) and therefore no way to weigh in on the ratification of members of the third branch, the judiciary (they interpret those laws).
So tell me again how the laws of the land render the phrase “taxation without representation” in appropriate.
Tea. Harbor. History.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:40 pmI see a number of respones from the anti Bush side, but this is not something The President put into place, and existed for much longer under Dem. control than under the Rep. So why ?! bash the President for it. And it is also my understanding that it is
January 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pmthis way by design. That is what should be debated.
NickFFF, the same could be said of the king, even though he was a self proclaim rep.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pm