House Bill Gives Each D.C. Resident a Pony

No, not really. But, as expected and as reported in the Washington Post, a bill did pass by a vote of 241 to 177 that would create a voting seat in the House of Representatives for District of Columbia residents and, just to be bipartisan, a new seat in Utah, as well.

Voting representation in Congress for D.C. residents now faces only three minor obstacles: the Senate, the White House and the Constitution.

Washingtonians deserve full representation in both the House and the Senate and the only sensible method of addressing the current injustice is retrocession of the city to Maryland. Neither Maryland nor D.C. residents are open to that eminently fair resolution, the same resolution by which Northern Virginians who live in what was once Virginia’s contribution to the federal city now enjoy the dubious benefits of taxation with representation.

Maryland wants no part of the city’s crumbling infrastructure, disastrous school system, urban poverty and crime and, worse yet, its concentration of tens of thousands of District voters who would instantly upset the state’s political status quo. D.C. believes itself worthy of full statehood and sees the most recent House vote as a step in that direction.

Some legal scholars (one such here) believe that the Constitution’s grant to Congress of nearly plenary authority over the District and a 'careful' reading of prior case law suffices for statutory enfranchisement to pass constitutional muster. Of course, some legal scholars believe or purport to believe the Constitution is sufficiently flexible as written to accomplish whatever their political hearts’ desire. Not that the Founders’ thoughts on this or any subject are of much interest to such folks, here is a bit of historical background.

Professor Raskin, author of the law review article linked above, makes what I think is the least intellectually compelling though perhaps the most emotionally effective argument in his discussion of the predominantly black racial composition of the District in comparison to congressional redistricting plans deemed racial gerrymandering under Shaw v. Reno. District residents have never had voting representation in Congress since its establishment and the current racial composition of the city is all but politically irrelevant, though Raskin strives to offer counterarguments against the import of that fact.

Still, the sad history of America is such that consideration of race can never be eliminated from discussion of anything so fundamental to our political system as the right to vote. Indeed, if race really is at issue here, then there is a metaphorical “Three-Fifths Compromise” disingenuousness about the current effort. However honorable their intentions, proponents of the current House bill have an intellectual obligation (I know, an odd thing to expect of Congress under the best of circumstances) to explain how a voting seat in the house without Senate voting representation as well redresses the current injustice.

I seriously doubt the House bill will pass in the Senate and I am confident that if it did it would be vetoed by the President. I am equally confident that if that veto were overridden the statute would be struck down by the current Supreme Court. But these predictions go to politics, not to justice. Thursday’s vote, whatever its symbolic value to District residents may be, does not significantly further their legitimate interests. They deserve full representation in Congress. They do not deserve it on their own terms. Neither legal sophistry nor political posturing will make it so.