Americans Without A Vote

Katie Couric Looks At The Effort To Get The District Of Columbia A Vote In The House Of Representatives

(CBS)  In the last month alone, Congress voted to increase the minimum wage, passed ethics and lobbying reform and approved a multibillion-dollar spending bill for the war in Iraq.

But, as CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric reports, one congressional district — the District of Columbia — could offer neither a yea or a nay on these, or any other House measures … because it has no voting rights in Congress.

"It is really almost on the verge of hypocritical for us to call ourselves the world’s greatest democracy but not give the District residents an opportunity to have representation," D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said.

Instead, D.C. has a delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton. She may not have a vote, but she certainly has a voice.

"I will not yield, sir!" she said on the floor of the House of Representatives during a debate. "The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding!"

She's used that voice to get a bill passed in the House that would give the District its first full vote on the House floor.

"You would think that the one vote everybody was entitled to is a vote in the people's House," she said.

But in Washington, principle is peppered with politics. Norton's would be a Democratic seat. So a compromise in her bill offers an additional seat to the Republican-leaning state of Utah, the next state in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation based on its population. But that hasn't stopped some conservatives from calling the measure unconstitutional.

"Clearly, the constitution states that any individual who serves in the Unites States House of Representatives must represent a state," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "And the District of Columbia is not a state."

That's what has historians pondering. Did the Founding Fathers intend to deny a vote to the residents of their own capitol? Or did they assume they'd be counted among Maryland and Virginia? — that's how it was before the federal government assumed jurisdiction over the city in 1801.

"I just think they saw it as business as usual," said historian Chuck DiGiacomantonio of the First Federal Congress Project. "If you were on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, in the federal district, you were considered part of Maryland."

Arguably, the country's balance of power won't change. Norton's bill doesn't provide for a district seat in the Senate, and it's the Senate that must still approve the bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto. But that hasn't dampened D.C.'s hopes that it will one day have both taxation and representation.

[boogieman716]

KING GEORGE said he whould veto this bill that whould give americans liveing in DC the right to vote & reprsention . but KING GEORGE is pushing a bill that whould give those same rights to illegals . KING GEORGE would denie americans the rights and rather whould give them to people that knowing break our laws . SHAME ON YOU KING GEORGE .

[boogieman716]

anyone that thinks its unconstitional to not give these people the right to represtion & the right 2 vote had better read it again .the constitution give all anericans the right to vote & have represtion . we fought a war over it beacuse we were being denied it

[cdfoxtrot]

What about Resident Aliens (Greencard holders)? They get to pay the same taxes as "Americans", to the IRS, but have no rights and no means of making their views known at the polls. As a Resident Alien, you get treated like dirt by the immigration people and have no way of responding, since no elected official is going to bother with your case as you can't vote.

[cdfoxtrot]

What about Resident Aliens (Greencard holders)? They get to pay the same taxes as "Americans", to the IRS, but have no rights and no means of making their views known at the polls. As a Resident Alien, you get treated like dirt by the immigration people and have no way of responding, since no elected official is going to bother with your case as you can't vote.

[omega39-2009]

Who cares, I have representation and it's so busy kowtowing to business and the Mexican government that it would be better without it.

[tbweb]

Everyone living there should just move away (sucks as a place to live anyway). If mass exit occured, you would likely see change take place in how the district is legally structured.
godseyesore wrote:

If original intention was a governmental neutral area, no one should be allowed to live there except prez and congress members. It should be strictly a governmental area with workers (who live outside the limits) and visitors. That would solve the problem, and would have likely been set up that way originally if founders had been able to see into the future.

Posted by godseyesore at 12:06 PM : Jun 02, 2007

godseyesore,,,

Excellent observation and good point!

[godseyesore-2009]

Everyone living there should just move away (sucks as a place to live anyway). If mass exit occured, you would likely see change take place in how the district is legally structured.
If original intention was a governmental neutral area, no one should be allowed to live there except prez and congress members. It should be strictly a governmental area with workers (who live outside the limits) and visitors. That would solve the problem, and would have likely been set up that way originally if founders had been able to see into the future.

[tbweb]

Prelgovisk wrote:

Puerto Ricans have died in Iraq, but they can't vote for the person who makes the decisions.

It isn't right

Posted by Prelgovisk at 11:54 AM : Jun 02, 2007

Prelgovisk,,,

I don't know what the current deal is with Puerto Rico. I do know that everytime the U.S. talks about making Puerto Rico a U.S. State Puerto Ricans freak out because Puerto Ricans want to keep their identity and remain a nation. Puerto Rico seems to want to have it both ways, stay a nation and still receive U.S. benefits. I have Puerto Rican friends and I have nothing against Puerto Rico, but lets get real, either you become a U.S. State or stay a nation in which case the benefits stop and Puerto Rico goes it alone! Puerto Rico has one foot in and one foot out and that's not fair to the U.S. taxpayers!

[prelgovisk]

I moved to Puerto Rico and tried to vote by absentee ballot, but was not allowed too. If I was in China or Iraq, I could do it, they said, but because I am in a place where all are American citizens, they would not send me an absentee ballot.

Puerto Ricans have died in Iraq, but they can't vote for the person who makes the decisions.

It isn't right

[tbweb]

jdweymouth,,, Sevenveils,,,

Sometimes the U.S. finds itself in the uncomfortable situation where rules or laws conflict with each other. In this case the rule of interest to DC residents is taxation without representation. It seems to me that if DC residents didn't have to pay taxes they could live without representation, some could anyway. The U.S. can't have it both ways and letting them vote in Maryland or Virginia may be easy but addressing DC "only" issues get lost in the crowd. The U.S. may just have to bite the bullet and not tax DC residents if it wants to play fair! Delaware doesn't have a sales tax, maybe DC can at least do that!

[sevenveils]

These citizens have limited their representation and voting privileges by their decesion to live in DC.

A city should never have the same representation as a state, regardless of its situation. A easy solution is to give them the choice of voting as a Virginian or Marylander. Political parties are in arms over this solution because since DC has a Democratic party majority, this would upset the Republican parties domination of the counties that surround the city.

[jdweymouth]

tbweb;

A district has nothing to do with size; it has to do with administrative division and specific governing division. The reason we have a federal district is because we are not just a republic; we are a federal republic. That is we are made up of sovereign states that have identity: they're not just mere administrative divisions. In acknowledging our status as a Union, the federal capital can't be in any one state because it would cause resentment, and because we need a symbol of union. Brassila, Brazil; and Ottawa, Canada operate on the same principle. My point is that we can't partition DC. If you mean that we give represenative duty to those states, but not actually partition DC to those states, then I say again: it is unconstitutional.

[tbweb]

jdweymouth wrote:

The constitution gives congress the right to "exercise exclusive legislation is all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, become the Seat of Government of the United States" -the District of Columbia. It is not a state so it doesn't deserve senators, and appointing or electing any would be unconstitutional. I have no problem with giving ONE delegate a vote in the House, but the senate was formed to represent state governments; and the District of Columbia isn't a state-and it can't become a state.

Posted by jdweymouth at 03:36 AM : Jun 02, 2007

jdweymouth,,,

I agree with you! But many times people obey rules blindly and don't try to understand the intent of the rule or law. Understanding the original intent of a rule or law makes modifying it easier. For example I think the status of DC was the way it was because District not only implies a small area but small population as well. Its clear that with the size of DC's current population, DC has outgrown the definition of a true District and this population size merits representation in every context. Attaching DC to Virginia and Maryland helps get around the "State" restrictions while acknowledging its population size.

[jdweymouth]

The constitution gives congress the right to "exercise exclusive legislation is all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, become the Seat of Government of the United States" -the District of Columbia. It is not a state so it doesn't deserve senators, and appointing or electing any would be unconstitutional. I have no problem with giving ONE delegate a vote in the House, but the senate was formed to represent state governments; and the District of Columbia isn't a state-and it can't become a state.

[tbweb]

brianbwb wrote:

To tbweb
Your solution would make sense, except for the one fact that keeps DC from being represented, most of the population there is non-white. Had the situation been otherwise, DC would have had a vote decades ago. To give half of the "Black" vote to Virginia, for example, would effectively be throwing them away, as we all know the social reality of Virginia, the other half would simply add to the opportunities for corruption in Maryland, we all know the realities of that situation also. The matter of representation is simply a matter of the cowardly hiding behind semantics to dent a voice to voters who would most likely oppose the agendas of those who use it as excuse.
DC needs its' own voice, it is simply stupid and transparently corrupt that the nation's capitol rates "special district" status, but doesn't rate the right to have a voice.

Posted by brianbwb at 12:22 AM : Jun 02, 2007

brianbwb,,,

My idea of attaching half of DC to Virginia and the other half to Maryland is to get around the State restriction of representation in the U.S. Constitution. In actual practice, DC Representatives and Senator would have no influence, power or effect on either States politics, only influence, power and effect in the DC area only, that's the beauty of it. My idea is to get DC around the "State" restriction "only". Neither Virginia or Maryland could count on the DC voter positively or negatively!!

[brianbwb-2009]

To tbweb
Your solution would make sense, except for the one fact that keeps DC from being represented, most of the population there is non-white. Had the situation been otherwise, DC would have had a vote decades ago. To give half of the "Black" vote to Virginia, for example, would effectively be throwing them away, as we all know the social reality of Virginia, the other half would simply add to the opportunities for corruption in Maryland, we all know the realities of that situation also. The matter of representation is simply a matter of the cowardly hiding behind semantics to dent a voice to voters who would most likely oppose the agendas of those who use it as excuse.
DC needs its' own voice, it is simply stupid and transparently corrupt that the nation's capitol rates "special district" status, but doesn't rate the right to have a voice.

[crewchief444]

Our immigrantion problem is not only with the illegals themself.Most of our trouble is with our Senators that been selling us Americans out.
send this email letter to all the state. you can
and tell the people to make up a people bill that
will allow each state to fire their senators for failure to vote the way the peoplwe want. Our Senators are suppose to vote what the people want
Not what they want. Our Senators have been out of control way to long.84% of the people do not want any illegal to work or live here in the U.S.
Crewboy

[tbweb]

"Clearly, the constitution states that any individual who serves in the Unites States House of Representatives must represent a state," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "And the District of Columbia is not a state."

This is a unique situation requiring a unique solution! I'm a nobody in the bigger scheme of things but if I were asked to come up with a solution I would offer this; Divide DC in half and for the purposes of voting attach one half to Virginia and the other half to Maryland, then let each half have its representation in the peoples House representing DC interest of course. If you really want to get fancy also have a Senator that respresents both halfs which alternates between which state they belong to based on the Presidential election cycle, Virginia one cycle and Maryland the next. The DC representation and voting issue should be resolved because in the original intent of exclusion the population of DC wasn't that large so it wasn't an issue at the time. Just an idea that gets around the not being a state issue!