By Rep. Tom Davis
Published May 23rd 2007 in The Politico
For the last several years, I have been a vocal and committed advocate for the D.C. Voting Rights Act, legislation to give residents of Washington, D.C., a voting member in the House of Representatives. I decided to pour a great amount of personal capital and effort into this issue for two reasons.
First, every day that passes with Americans who live in the District unrepresented is a travesty and an indictment of our government. Second, I believe this bill is moderate and politically achievable and will give Americans who live in the District representation without doing violence to the Constitution or the Framers' original intent. Congress can solve this problem -- and it should.
I believe the Founding Fathers understood that the everyday application of the Constitution would raise unforeseen problems. In the District Clause, they gave Congress the flexibility to use its power to solve one of them. Opponents of this legislation continually point to the fact that the Constitution states that members of Congress can be elected only by the "people of the several States" in Article I, Section 2. At the time the Constitution was being drafted, there were only "States."
The Constitution left the creation, status and governance of the federal district to Congress. The federal district came into existence only after Congress created it in the Residence Act of 1790 and determined where it would be sited. Since that time, Congress has determined how the District should be governed.
The bill's opponents ignore 187 years of case law and clear instruction from courts stating that Congress may treat the District as a state for certain purposes. Under their reading of the Constitution:
-- District residents would have no right to a jury trial -- you have to be from a state to have that right.
-- D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in the federal courts -- only people from states have that right.
-- The Full Faith and Credit Clause would not apply to D.C. -- that applies only between states.
-- The federal government would not be allowed to impose federal taxes on District residents -- the Constitution says that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states."
-- The District would be able to pass laws that interfere with interstate commerce -- the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce only among the several states.
The basic facts of Article I, Section 2 are indisputable: The House of Representatives was meant to represent all the people of the several states, and any people eligible to vote for their state's largest legislative body would be allowed to vote for -- and be represented by -- a member of Congress. It's worth noting that, at the time the document was ratified, Article I, Section 2 included the people located on the land that eventually became Washington, D.C.
During the constitutional convention, Gouverneur Morris thought extending representation in the House to anyone who could vote in a state election was too broad a franchise. He argued forcefully for limiting eligibility of electors in House elections to those who owned property. But Benjamin Franklin rose to the defense of the language that eventually became Article I, Section 2: "It is of great consequence that we should not depress the virtue and the public spirit of our common people."
Franklin went on to remind the delegates of the suffering and sacrifice of the common man during the Revolutionary War. Franklin won the day, and the Framers established the most representative body ever created in the world at that time. Thus, the heritage and duty of the U.S. House of Representatives is to represent all the people. It is inconceivable that Franklin and the other Founding Fathers who fought the Revolutionary War for representation intended to deny Congress the authority to provide representation to the citizens of the federal district.
For 217 years, Congress has failed to apply Franklin's principles to American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. If we in Congress continue to do so, we bear the shame for the current condition and state of representation in the District.
Both the Constitution and the courts make clear that Congress need not continue to deny representation in the House to the people of the District of Columbia. Now we shall see whether the men and women of the 110th Congress are ready to act to end this disgrace. I think they are.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) is ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
First, every day that passes with Americans who live in the District unrepresented is a travesty and an indictment of our government. Second, I believe this bill is moderate and politically achievable and will give Americans who live in the District representation without doing violence to the Constitution or the Framers' original intent. Congress can solve this problem -- and it should.
I believe the Founding Fathers understood that the everyday application of the Constitution would raise unforeseen problems. In the District Clause, they gave Congress the flexibility to use its power to solve one of them. Opponents of this legislation continually point to the fact that the Constitution states that members of Congress can be elected only by the "people of the several States" in Article I, Section 2. At the time the Constitution was being drafted, there were only "States."
The Constitution left the creation, status and governance of the federal district to Congress. The federal district came into existence only after Congress created it in the Residence Act of 1790 and determined where it would be sited. Since that time, Congress has determined how the District should be governed.
The bill's opponents ignore 187 years of case law and clear instruction from courts stating that Congress may treat the District as a state for certain purposes. Under their reading of the Constitution:
-- District residents would have no right to a jury trial -- you have to be from a state to have that right.
-- D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in the federal courts -- only people from states have that right.
-- The Full Faith and Credit Clause would not apply to D.C. -- that applies only between states.
-- The federal government would not be allowed to impose federal taxes on District residents -- the Constitution says that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states."
-- The District would be able to pass laws that interfere with interstate commerce -- the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce only among the several states.
The basic facts of Article I, Section 2 are indisputable: The House of Representatives was meant to represent all the people of the several states, and any people eligible to vote for their state's largest legislative body would be allowed to vote for -- and be represented by -- a member of Congress. It's worth noting that, at the time the document was ratified, Article I, Section 2 included the people located on the land that eventually became Washington, D.C.
During the constitutional convention, Gouverneur Morris thought extending representation in the House to anyone who could vote in a state election was too broad a franchise. He argued forcefully for limiting eligibility of electors in House elections to those who owned property. But Benjamin Franklin rose to the defense of the language that eventually became Article I, Section 2: "It is of great consequence that we should not depress the virtue and the public spirit of our common people."
Franklin went on to remind the delegates of the suffering and sacrifice of the common man during the Revolutionary War. Franklin won the day, and the Framers established the most representative body ever created in the world at that time. Thus, the heritage and duty of the U.S. House of Representatives is to represent all the people. It is inconceivable that Franklin and the other Founding Fathers who fought the Revolutionary War for representation intended to deny Congress the authority to provide representation to the citizens of the federal district.
For 217 years, Congress has failed to apply Franklin's principles to American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. If we in Congress continue to do so, we bear the shame for the current condition and state of representation in the District.
Both the Constitution and the courts make clear that Congress need not continue to deny representation in the House to the people of the District of Columbia. Now we shall see whether the men and women of the 110th Congress are ready to act to end this disgrace. I think they are.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) is ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.