20
Virginia Policy Review
D.C. Statehood:
Liberty and Justice
for All
U.S. Shadow Senator
Michael Brown (D-D.C.)
Best Laid Plans
Charles
Dickens
nicknamed
Washington, D.C., the “city of
magnificent intentions.”i By this,
he meant that that the nation’s
Capital had not lived up to the
expectations of grandeur its
planners intended. Although his
depiction referred to the city’s
infrastructure, it also serves as a
critique of its political life. In
short, Washington, D.C. is the city
that democracy forgot. After all, it
has no voting member in Congress
and no autonomy over its local
budget or legal process. Today,
165 years after Dickens walked its
streets, not much has changed. In
a very real sense, Washington,
D.C. is America’s last colony.
There is no other democracy in
the world that denies the citizens
of its capital equal rights. The
founding fathers believed that
they needed full control over the
District. To act otherwise, they
claimed,
would
put
the
independence needed to govern at
risk. Thus, when the Capital was
created, the Framers reasoned that
they should “exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever
over the District.”ii This became
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. There is no explicit
reference that supplants the rights
of D.C. citizens. However, the
phrase, to “exercise exclusive
legislation” has translated to the
suspension of basic civil liberties
for all residents.
This idea that Congress needs to
control the nation’s capital has
resulted in more than 200 years of
involuntary servitude for the city’s
residents. There is a total
contradiction
between
the
principles of democracy and the
suspension of basic civil rights.
Thus, Congress has experimented
with various forms of local
government over time. Although it
has granted D.C. some control
over local matters, a voice in
national affairs eludes them. The
people of Washington, D.C. have
never placed a vote in the national
legislature. It is a regrettable
legacy that persists for 630,000
loyal American citizens today.
There have been a few attempts to
increase participation at the
national level. However, these
advances have serious limitations.
For example, we have a delegate in
the House of Representatives, but
that delegate has no vote. We have
an elected Mayor and a thirteenmember City Council. Yet all
legislation passed is subject to
federal
approval.
Further,
Congress retains the right to
approve the city budget. Even the
right to vote for President, granted
under the 23rd amendment, is
limited to “no more electoral votes
than the smallest state.”iii This
Virginia Policy Review
means that our vote for President
could potentially count for less
than the votes of citizens of
smaller states. In the 1980’s, when
D.C.’s population was in excess of
850,000, the District should have
been entitled to four electoral
votes. Instead, it was limited to
three. This resulted in votes cast
for President being worth only
75% as much as votes cast in
Wyoming, whose population was
less than 600,000 at the time. In
addition, there is no provision for
D.C. voters in case of a tie.
Therefore, in effect, voters have
no say in the event of a tiebreaker.
Additionally, Congress approves
our laws. They sign off on the
spending of our local tax dollars.
They can intervene in local affairs
at will, with the authority to alter,
suspend, or eliminate the form of
D.C.’s government. This runs
contrary to the basic principals, or
“magnificent
intentions,”
on
which the country was founded.
Washingtonians face nothing less
than
“taxation
without
representation.”
We Shall Overcome
From the beginning, residents of
the new capital began to petition
the federal government for equal
rights. There have been multiple
court cases.iv Residents have made
several attempts at legislation or a
constitutional amendment.v These
attempts have failed for a variety
of reasons. First, we do not have a
national constituency. The local
21
nature of the statehood struggle
seriously
handicaps
the
undertaking. The District does,
however, have the support of a
majority of Americans. A 2005
nationwide poll showed that 82%
of those surveyed agree on the
subject
of
equality.vi
Unfortunately, the issue does not
affect them directly and therefore
is not a priority. AfricanAmericans and women, for
example, were able to get national
support in their respective civil
struggles in part because these
groups were widely dispersed.
They were not constrained by
locale. Since this issue affects only
D.C. residents, it is hard to engage
others across the country.
The
proposed
constitutional
amendment passed in 1978 by
both houses of Congress is an
example of this. The amendment
would have granted representation
in both the House and Senate.
Even
though
it
passed
overwhelmingly, it failed to receive
the approval from the threefourths of state legislatures needed
for ratification. In the end, only
sixteen of the required thirty-eight
states passed the D.C. statehood
amendment.
Second, the problem of apathy is
exacerbated by misinformation. A
2005 survey shows that 78% of
Americans believe D.C. residents
have the same rights as they do.
After all, it is counter-intuitive to
think that American citizens do
not share in its full benefits.
22
Virginia Policy Review
Therefore,
simply
informing
people of our status is a major
challenge. Until 2008, Congress
had banned the District from
using its own money to lobby for
statehood. This makes a national
outreach
campaign
all
but
impossible.
Finally,
we
are
seriously
encumbered by the fact that the
Constitution so definitively gives
Congress the right to decide all
matters within the District by
granting it “exclusive legislation in
all cases.” This has consistently
undermined legal reform efforts.
Something cannot be declared
unconstitutional that is clearly
stipulated within the Constitution.
This is apparently true even if it
violates the most basic principles
of our democracy. Although the
Constitution does not prohibit
District residents from having
equal representation, it does
explicitly give Congress the right
to
have
absolute
control.
Consequently,
Washingtonians
must
either
amend
the
Constitution or detach themselves
by creating a separate state to
achieve permanent equality. Since
statehood requires a simple
majority vote of Congress and all
states enter the union on equal
footing, this, in my opinion, is the
most practical path to take. Once
granted statehood, the residents of
DC would be fully vested
members of our democracy.
The Constitution does not specify
the size of the capital; only that it
can be no larger than ten-mile
square. Thus, under my proposal,
all federal buildings and the White
House would remain in the capital
(what is commonly referred to as
the National Capital Service Area).
The remaining area would become
the state of New Columbia. The
idea satisfies legal requirements
while granting residents their
equal rights.
Although all these issues have
stymied our efforts over the years,
the biggest obstacle these days
seems to be partisanship. The
District has no Republican elected
officials. It has never voted for a
Republican for President. Further,
Democrats
outnumber
Republicans ten-to-one among
registered voters.vii The thought of
two Democratic senators and a
voting Democratic member in the
House in perpetuity has lead to
fierce opposition on Capitol Hill
from Republicans. As Walter
Fauntroy, our first delegate to
Congress put it, “conservatives see
Washington as too –too urban, too
liberal, too black, and too
Democratic.”
Although
some
Republicans have stood with us,
they have been few and far
between.viii Today, as the country
grows more divided, partisanship
becomes
an
increasingly
formidable impediment in our
struggle. In an attempt to try and
create a bipartisan approach, the
D.C. Voting Rights Act was
introduced in 2009. Similar to the
Missouri Compromise, it would
have given a single House vote to
D.C. as well as an additional vote
to Utah. Although it had
bipartisan support and passed in
the House, it failed after John
Virginia Policy Review
Ensign, a conservative Republican
Senator from Nevada, added a
“poison pill” gun rider, and it was
withdrawn.
We Hold These Truths
Representation and equality are
the prerequisites of democracy.
Indeed, Jefferson described them
as “self evident.” The Framers’
concern for there own autonomy
is an anachronism. Congress has
long been able to defend itself
from intrusions by the local
populace. The controversy now is
not over if, but rather how, to
restore the rights of D.C.
residents. Some people who
oppose statehood argue that a
constitutional
amendment
is
required. Not only has this been
tried unsuccessfully, but also it is
unnecessary. The Constitution
does not limit the rights of local
residents. In fact, it only gives
Congress the right to do as it
pleases. Since the amendment
process is so cumbersome, this
approach is the least practical.
Others argue for retrocession to
Maryland. Proponents note that
this process was used in 1846 to
return land to Virginia that had
been ceded for the Capital.
Although this would restore our
rights, it requires acceptance not
only by Congress but also
Maryland. This would double the
urban population of the state. In
addition, the overwhelming influx
of registered Democrats would
lead to opposition from state
23
Republicans. Again, this makes
this approach seem impractical.
Still others believe we should
proceed
incrementally.
This
approach has dominated efforts
for the past decade. The feeling is
that we should attempt to secure
our rights one at a time as we
progress towards full equality.
Thus far, millions of dollars have
been expended and years have
been wasted with little to show for
our efforts. Although the District
continues in this vein, most
recently
proposing
a
local
referendum on budget autonomy,
my opinion is that this approach
will continue to be unproductive.
Even if successful, these measures
result in small gains and may, in
fact, be counterproductive. If the
D.C. Voting Rights Act had
passed, giving us a single vote in
the House, I believe that our effort
for a vote in the Senate would
have been handicapped because
many
would
view
partial
representation as sufficient. In
addition, Congress can take away
any right granted by Congress.
Therefore, it should be viewed as
temporary. Our efforts should be
aimed at permanent equality—in
other words, statehood.
Making the District a state is the
only reasonable way to restore
equality in a way that is permanent
and irrevocable. The District voted
overwhelmingly for statehood in a
1980 referendum. It held a
Constitutional
Convention,
approving a Constitution for the
24
Virginia Policy Review
state of New Columbia two years
later. All it takes is a simple
majority vote in Congress, and the
District would enter the union on
equal footing with all other states.
All federal buildings and public
facilities would remain property of
the nation’s Capital, thereby
fulfilling the requirements of the
Constitution. The surrounding
area would become the state of
New Columbia. The only residents
of the capital would be the
President and his family, who
would retain their voting rights
through the state in which they
resided at the time of their
election. There was a statehood
bill introduced in both houses of
Congress in 2012. The House
version had twenty-eight cosponsors and the Senate version
had four. I expect that both
versions will be reintroduced in
the next few weeks in the 113th
Congress. It’s simple, really: to be
equal in the United States of
America you need to be one of the
states. Anything less is just that—
less.
On November 6, 2012, Puerto
Ricans voted, for the first time, to
become a state. With 61% in favor
of statehood, they took a major
step on the road to statehood.
Elected officials from the District
of Columbia are talking with them
in attempt to develop a joint
strategy. The goal is to help both
jurisdictions reach their goal of
becoming fully vested American
citizens. Many territories have
become states by entering the
Union in pairs and this may well
provide us with a new opportunity
to advance statehood for both the
District and Puerto Rico.
The people of the District of
Columbia have been part of
America since its inception. We
pay among the highest per capita
federal income taxes in the nation.
More than 200,000 of us have
served during wartime, with 5,000
casualties of that service. We are
proud to be the home of 28
Congressional Medal of Honor
recipients and proud of our more
than 200 years of loyal citizenship.
We hold fast to the ideals set forth
in
the
Declaration
of
Independence and Constitution.
We move forth with a faith that we
will soon fulfill their promise of
democracy guaranteed to all
Americans.
The time has come to turn our
“magnificent
intentions”
into
reality and finally finish one of the
last great battles for inclusion in
our democracy. The 630,000
residents of the District must be
admitted as fully vested American
citizens of New Columbia, the 51st
State. The principles on which
this great nation was founded
demand equality. For the citizens
of the District of Columbia, that
means statehood.
As the new Congress begins, I will
be organizing citizens to lobby the
Senate and the House to support
the New Columbia Admissions
Act. Although the District has not
developed a comprehensive plan
yet, those of us in the statehood
movement
are
consistently
reaching out to try and garner the
Virginia Policy Review
support that was reflected in the
nationwide survey. Every attempt
has been made to put forth a
comprehensive,
well-designed
piece of legislation. The New
Columbia Admissions Act takes
into account all that we have
learned over the years. It carefully
outlines the boundaries of both
the new state and new capital. It
limits the power of the new state
to tax federal property or interfere
with the operation of the federal
government. It codifies existing
law and sets forth provisions for
the
orderly
transition
from
municipal to state government. It
provides for the admission of the
District on equal footing with all
other states. It incorporates the
Constitution passed by the District
and recognizes the superiority of
the U.S. Constitution. This
legislation has been designed to
anticipate potential objections and
to mitigate them. It maintains the
right of Congress to control the
jurisdiction it inhabits. It satisfies
the Constitutional requirement for
the establishment of a national
seat of government. It establishes
a republican form of government
like all other states and clearly
defines each new jurisdiction. It is
a solid piece of policy backed by
the most fundamental principles
of our democracy. Even so, we
know that we will have to continue
to struggle, especially given the
current partisan divisiveness on
Capitol Hill. We know that until
we can get America to stand with
25
us, we face an uphill battle. In the
end however, we will succeed
because we also know that
America believes in “liberty and
justice for all.”
Senator Michael D. Brown was first
elected in 2006 with 84% of the vote.
He serves the people of the District of
Columbia as an advocate for
statehood and equal rights. President
Obama has said “Even without a
vote, Senator Brown has always been
a strong advocate for the rights of
D.C. residents.” In 2009, he created
the non-profit, Teach DemocracyD.C., to engage teachers and students
to get involved in D.C.’s struggle for
statehood. Last year he was arrested
and went to trial in an act of civil
disobedience,
protesting
federal
interference with the District’s local
budget. Senator Brown is a graduate
of the University of Maryland, where
he received a Bachelor’s degree in
Government and Politics and a
Master’s degree in Public Policy.
26
Virginia Policy Review
i
Charles Dickens, “American
Notes for General Circulation,”
Chapter 8, 1842.
ii
“The Constitution of the United
States,” Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 17.
iii
The Constitution of the United
States,” 23rd Amendment, Ratified
March 29, 1961; “D.C. Voting
Rights
Constitutional
Amendment,” Passed August 28,
1978.
iv
There have been many cases in
Federal Court dating back to the
1800’s
Three of the most recent are:
Adams v Clinton; 40 F.Supp.2d 1
(1999); Banner v. United States, 44
Fed. Cl. 568, 577 (1999); District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008).
v
Many pieces of legislation have
been introduced in both Houses
of Congress. The following is a list
from the last decade: H.R. 1285,
“No
taxation
without
Representation Act of 2003”; H.R.
5388, “The District of Columbia
Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act
of 2006”; H.R. 328, “The fair and
Equal Voting Rights of 2007”;
H.R. 157, “District of Columbia
Voting Rights Act of 2009”; H.R.
265,
“The
New
Columbia
Admissions Act of 2011”; H.R 345,
The District of Columbia Budget
Autonomy Act of 2011”; H.R. 506,
“The District of Columbia Legal
Autonomy Act of 2011.” Senate
Bills: S. 617, “No Taxation without
Representation Act of 2003”; S.
1257, “ The District of Columbia
Fair and Equal Voting Right Act
of 2007”; S. 160, “District of
Columbia Voting Right Act of
2009”; S. 3697, The New Columbia
Admissions Act of 2012.”
vi
“Poll shows nationwide support
for D.C. Voting Rights,” D.C.
Vote, 2005; KRC Research.
vii
“District of Columbia Board of
Election and Ethics,” As of April
2012:
344,448
Registered
Democrats; 30,276 Registered
Republican eligible Voters in the
District of Columbia.
viii
The first notable Republican to
take a stand for equal rights for
the people of the District was
Frederick Douglas. Over the years
others have included Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who marched for
statehood, US Senators Barry
Goldwater and Ed Brooke who
supported the 1978 Constitutional
Amendment, President Dwight
Eisenhower who campaigned for
the
23rd
Amendment
and
supported Home Rule for the
District and five Republican
Senators who cosponsored the
“District of Columbia Voting
Rights Act of 2009: Orin Hatch
(UT), Bob Bennett (UT), Susan
Collins (ME); George Voinovich
(OH) and Olympia Snowe (ME)
also Representative Tom Davis of
Virginia, who helped lead the fight
for this legislation in the House
and was an original sponsor.