A List of House Representatives That Have Lost Their Minds

Suffrage and representation of the United States upper-case letter

Voting rights in District of Columbia
Demographics
Minimum voting age	xviii
Preregistration age	sixteen
Felon voting condition	No prohibition
Voter registration
Voter registration required	Yes
Online voter registration	Yes (since 2015)
Automatic voter registration	Yep (since 2018)
Same-solar day registration	Yes
Partisan affiliation	Yes
Voting process
In-person early-voting status	seven days prior
Postal ballot status	Yes (up to 15 days prior)
Straight-ticket device status	No
Election method	First-past-the-post (plurality)
Voter powers
Ballot question rights	initiative and veto referendum
Retrieve powers	For all local officials, except for the district delegate; incumbent may not exist recalled during first and last years in role
Federal representation level	Territory-level

Satellite view of the Commune of Columbia in relation to the states of Maryland and Virginia.

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the l U.S. states. The Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the The states Congress. As the federal capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, non a state, and therefore does not take voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".

In the House of Representatives, the Commune is represented past a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor simply can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the Senate. The Xx-tertiary Subpoena, adopted in 1961, entitles the Commune to the aforementioned number of electoral votes every bit that of the to the lowest degree populous state in the election of the president and vice president.

The District's lack of voting representation in Congress has been an result since the capital's founding. Numerous proposals take been introduced to alter this situation, including legislation and ramble amendments, returning the District to the state of Maryland, and making the District into a new state. All proposals take been met with political or constitutional challenges, and in that location has been no alter in the Commune'south representation in Congress.

History [edit]

In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest exterior the edifice where the Continental Congress was meeting. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to let the delegates to leave. Despite requests from Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and and then Congress was forced to adjourn to New Jersey abruptly. This led to the widespread conventionalities that Congress needed command over the national capital. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43, "Without it, non only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; only a dependence of the members of the general regime on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the practice of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the regime and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." This belief resulted in the creation of a national capital, separate from whatever country, by the Constitution's District Clause.^[ane]

The "District Clause" in Article I, Department viii, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:

[The Congress shall take Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases any, over such Commune (not exceeding ten miles foursquare) equally may, past cession of particular states, and the credence of Congress, become the seat of the government of the U.s.a..

There were some reasons why voting rights for the Commune were non addressed. It was effectively agreed at an early stage that the upper-case letter was to be in the Southward, and Northerners would take bitterly opposed any clause that would give the Due south fifty-fifty more than voting power. Moreover, given the uppercase's planned location, many delegates assumed its permanent residents would primarily consist of slaves unable to vote in whatever case. They as well expected the federal government would only operate on a function-fourth dimension ground and assumed that those who were chosen to serve in federal office and those whose occupations would crave them to spend time in the district would come up mainly from the upper echelons of society and would therefore accept the means to maintain residency (and voting rights) in their home states.^{[ citation needed ]}

In 1788, the land on which the District is formed was ceded by Maryland. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Deed placing the District on the Potomac River between the Anacostia and Conococheague Creek with the exact location chosen by President George Washington. His option was announced on January 24, 1791, and the Residence Human action was amended to include land that Virginia had ceded in 1790. That land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially motion to the new federal capital until the first Monday in December 1800. During that time, the District was governed by a combination of a federally appointed Board of Commissioners, the state legislatures, and locally elected governments.^[2]

On February 27, 1801, simply a few months afterwards moving to the District, Congress passed the Commune of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal District under its sole authorisation as permitted by the District Clause, making Congress the supreme source of all local laws. Since the Commune of Columbia ceased being part of any state and was non a state itself, the District's residents lost voting representation in Congress, the Balloter College, and in the Constitutional amendment process – consequences that did not go without protestation.^[3] In January 1801, a meeting of District citizens was held which resulted in a statement to Congress noting that as a effect of the impending Organic Deed "we shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the near minute local regulations past which we are to exist affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated status of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Dandy Uk, of beingness taxed without representation."^[2] The following yr, the Lath of Commissioners was abolished, the City of Washington was incorporated, and a local authorities consisting of a locally elected 12-member council and a mayor appointed by the president was put in place.^[2]

In 1812, the District was given more significant home rule when the mayor became an elected official, chosen from amidst the group of 12 elected council members and 8 aldermen, and in 1820 the mayor became straight elected. Minor modifications were made over the years, only in 1871 the District authorities was again dramatically modified, getting a government more similar to that of the territories. Under this new government, the governor of the Commune was again appointed by the president, as were all members of one house of the District legislature.

The Congress abolished the territorial regime in 1874 and replaced it with a presidentially appointed council, which by 1878 was considered the District's permanent regime.^[2] It was later decided that this congressional act constituted the Commune'southward constitution, making the District the merely territory that had non been allowed to write its own constitution.^[ii]

By the 1930s, the District of Columbia was administered by House committees that had footling regard for the concerns of the local population; the representative Ross A. Collins from Mississippi cutting spending on local funds for welfare and teaching, stating that "my constituents wouldn't stand for spending money on niggers".^[4]

In the 1950s, as function of the more than prominent Civil Rights Movement, involvement emerged in giving the District full representation. As a compromise, the Xx-third Subpoena was adopted in 1961, granting the Commune some votes in the Electoral Higher in measure to their population, only no more than the smallest state. The Districts' residents have exercised this right since the presidential election of 1964.

The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 devolved certain Congressional powers over the Commune to a local government administered past an elected mayor, currently Muriel Bowser, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the correct to review and overturn any of the District's laws.^[5] Each of the District'southward 8 wards elects a single fellow member of the council, and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.^[6]

In 1978, Congress submitted the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to u.s.a. for ratification. Information technology would have given the Commune total congressional representation, full participation in presidential elections, and the potency of a country regarding amending the Constitution.^[7]

In 1980, District voters canonical the phone call of a constitutional convention to typhoon a proposed land constitution,^[8] just equally U.S. territories had done before their admission equally states. The proposed state constitution was ratified by District voters in 1982 for a new country to be chosen "New Columbia", but Congress has not granted statehood to the District.^[ix] Pursuant to that proposed state constitution, the District however selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, consisting of two shadow Senators and a shadow Representative, to lobby the Congress to grant statehood. The Congress does not officially recognize these positions. Additionally, until May 2008, the Congress prohibited the District from spending whatever funds on lobbying for voting representation or statehood.^[ten]

On December 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Arrangement of American States ended that the U.s. is violating the District of Columbia's rights nether Articles Two and XX of the American Annunciation of the Rights and Duties of Man past denying District of Columbia citizens an adequate opportunity to participate in the Congress. The Commission reiterated the post-obit recommendation to the U.s.: "Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in full general atmospheric condition of equality, in their national legislature".^[11]

A 2005 poll paid for past the advocacy grouping D.C. Vote, but conducted past the not-partisan polling business firm KRC Research, establish that 82% of 1,007 adults believed that D.C. should have full congressional voting representation.^[12] A 2007 Washington Mail poll of 788 adults found that 61% of those adults supported granting the District "a total voting" representative.^[13]

Arguments for and against [edit]

There are arguments both for and confronting giving the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress.

Consent of the governed [edit]

Advocates of voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as citizens living in the United States, the District's estimated 672,228 residents^[14] should accept the same right to determine how they are governed every bit citizens of a state. At to the lowest degree every bit early equally 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Proclamation of Rights:

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be gratis; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent mutual interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound past any law to which they have non, in like manner, assented, for the public expert.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.^[15]

Justice Hugo Black described the correct to vote equally key in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.Southward. one (1964). He wrote, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a vocalisation in the election of those who make the laws under which, equally proficient citizens, we must alive. Other rights, even the well-nigh basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."^[16]

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Deed allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home land'south Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the globe. If a U.S. citizen were to move to the District, that person would lose the ability to vote for a member of Congress. U.Southward. citizens who have permanently left the United states of america are still permitted to vote absentee for the Congress in the land where they last held residency. Scholars have argued that if U.Due south. citizens who are residents of other countries are immune to vote in federal elections, and then Congress tin extend the same rights to residents of the nation'south capital.^{[16] [17]}

Constitutional provisions [edit]

The principal objection to legislative proposals to grant the District voting rights is that some Constitution provisions suggest that such an activity would exist unconstitutional.^[eighteen] How the Business firm of Representatives is to be composed is described in Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Yr by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the nearly numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that Country in which he shall be called. Representatives ... shall exist apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers[.]

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reaffirms Commodity I, Section 2 in that regard when it says:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

In addition, the Seventeenth Amendment correspondingly describes the election of "2 Senators from each State". Those who believe D.C. voting rights legislation would be unconstitutional point out that the Commune of Columbia is not a U.S. country.^[19] Advocates of voting rights legislation claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), which grants Congress "exclusive" legislative say-so over the District, allows the Congress to pass legislation that would grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress.^[16] The 20-third Amendment says the District is entitled to:

A number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a Land, but in no event more than the to the lowest degree populous State[.]

Since this subpoena'southward adoption in 1961, the District has had 3 electoral votes in each presidential ballot.^[20]

Tax arguments [edit]

Dissimilar residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which as well accept not-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are bailiwick to all U.S. federal taxes.^[21] In fiscal year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes nerveless from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita.^[22] This state of affairs has given rise to the apply of the phrase "Terminate Taxation Without Representation" by those in favor of granting D.C. voting representation in the Congress. The slogan currently appears on the city's vehicle license plates. The issue of taxation without representation in the District of Columbia is not new. For case, in Loughborough v. Blake 18 U.S. 317 (1820), the Supreme Courtroom said:

The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed past a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast body of water, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to revenue enhancement a part of the gild...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the instance with the district, is likewise obvious not to nowadays itself to the minds of all. Although in theory information technology might exist more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may exist doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does non consider their want of a representative in Congress every bit exempting it from equal taxation.^[23]

In 1971, Susan Breakefield sued to recover iii years of income taxes she paid to the District of Columbia because she said she was a victim of taxation without representation.^[24] Breakefield lost her case before both the District of Columbia Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.^[24]

Opponents of D.C. voting rights point out that Congress appropriates money directly to the D.C. government to assist first some of the city'due south costs.^[25] Nonetheless, proponents of a tax-axial view against D.C. representation do not apply the same logic to the 32 states that received more than coin from the federal government in 2005 than they paid in taxes.^[26] Additionally, the federal government is exempt from paying metropolis belongings taxes and the Congress prohibits the Commune from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who work in the metropolis. Limiting these acquirement sources strain the local government'southward finances.^[25] Like the 50 states, D.C. receives federal grants for assistance programs such as Medicare, accounting for approximately 26% of the metropolis's total acquirement. Congress likewise appropriates money to the District's government to help outset some of the city's security costs; these funds totaled $38 million in 2007, approximately 0.5% of the Commune'south budget.^[27] In addition to those funds, the U.S. government provides other services. For example, the federal government operates the District's court system, which had a budget of $272 meg in 2008.^[28] Additionally, all federal law enforcement agencies, such as the U.Due south. Park Constabulary, have jurisdiction in the urban center and help provide security.^[29] In full, the federal government provided nigh 33% of the District's full general acquirement.^[30] On average, federal funds formed about xxx% of the states' general revenues in 2007.^[31]

Political considerations [edit]

Opponents of D.C. voting rights accept also contended that the District is too minor to warrant representation in the Firm and Senate. Nonetheless, sponsors of voting rights legislation point out that both Wyoming and Vermont have a smaller population than the District of Columbia.^[32]

In modern times, all elections held in the district have been overwhelmingly won by the Democratic Political party. The Democrats' support of increased D.C. representation in Congress and the Republicans' opposition to it have been declared to be purely for cocky-serving reasons.^{[33] [34] [35]}

Human rights [edit]

Since 2006, the United nations Human being Rights Committee study has cited the United states of america for denying D.C. residents voting rights in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the U.s. ratified in 1992.^[36]

In 2015, D.C. became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.^[37]

Proposed reforms [edit]

Advocates for D.C. voting rights have proposed several competing reforms to increase the District's representation in Congress. These proposals generally involve either treating D.C. more like a country or assuasive Maryland to take back the country it ceded to grade the District.

Legislation [edit]

Several bills accept been introduced in Congress to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in one or both houses of Congress.

The constitutional argument about whether Congress tin can provide the District of Columbia with a voting member in the House of Representatives, just non in the Senate, is heavily debated by each side. In Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805), the Supreme Courtroom held that the right of residents of the Commune to sue residents of other states is non explicitly stated in Article Iii, Department 2.^[38] In National Mutual Insurance Co. five. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.South. 582 (1949), the Supreme Court held that Congress could grant residents of the District of Columbia a correct to sue residents of other states.^[39] However, opponents of the constitutionality of the legislation to grant D.C. voting rights point out that seven of the nine Justices in Tidewater rejected the view that the District is a "state" for other ramble purposes.^[twoscore] Opponents have also pointed out that if the power of Congress to "practice exclusive legislation" over the District is used to supersede other sections of the Constitution, and then the powers granted to Congress could potentially be unlimited.^[33]

On January 24, 2007, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on this subject. Co-ordinate to the CRS, "it would announced probable that the Congress does not take authorisation to grant voting representation in the Firm of Representatives to the Commune."^[41]

A secondary criticism of a legislative remedy is that any law granting representation to the District could be undone in the future. Additionally, recent legislative proposals bargain with granting representation in the House of Representatives only, which would still leave the issue of Senate representation for District residents unresolved.^[40] Thus far, no bill granting the Commune voting representation has passed both houses of Congress. A summary of legislation proposed since 2003 is provided below.

Proposals during assistants of George W. Bush [edit]

The Justice Department during the administration of President George Due west. Bush took the position that "explicit provisions of the Constitution do non allow Congress to grant congressional representation to the District through legislation."^[42] Diverse such proposals were considered by the Congress during Bush's tenure:

• The No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 (H.R. 1285 and S. 617) would have treated D.C. as if it were a state for the purposes of voting representation in the Congress, including the addition of two new senators; nonetheless, the bill never made it out of committee.^[43]
• The District of Columbia Off-white and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 (H.R. 5388) would have granted the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives only. This neb never fabricated it out of commission.^[44]
• The Commune of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 328) was the kickoff to propose granting the District of Columbia voting representation in the Business firm of Representatives while also temporarily adding an extra seat to Republican-leaning Utah to increment the membership of the House by two. The improver of an extra seat for Utah was meant to entice bourgeois lawmakers into voting for the bill by balancing the addition of a likely-Democratic representative from the District. The bill still did non brand information technology out of committee.^[45]
• The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 1433) was substantially the same neb as H.R. 328 introduced previously in the same Congress. This bill would still have added 2 additional seats to the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and a 2d for Utah. The bill passed 2 commission hearings earlier finally being incorporated into a second bill of the same proper noun.^[46] The new bill (H.R. 1905) passed the full House of Representatives in a vote of 214 to 177.^[47] The bill was then referred to the Senate (S. 1257) where information technology passed in committee. However, the pecker could only become 57 of the threescore votes needed to break a Republican delay and consequently failed on the floor of the Senate.^[48] Following the defeated 2007 nib, voting rights advocates were hopeful that Autonomous Party gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the November 2008 elections would help pass the bill during the 111th Congress.^[49] Barack Obama, a Senate co-sponsor of the 2007 bill, said during his 2008 presidential campaign that as President he would continue to support the rights of DC residents.^[50]

Proposal during assistants of Barack Obama [edit]

On January 6, 2009, Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, and D.C. Consul Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced in the Firm the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Human activity of 2009 (H.R. 157 and South. 160). On Feb 26, 2009, the Senate passed Due south. 160 by a vote of 61–37.^[51] Yet, before passing the bill, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator John Ensign that would have removed the authority of the Commune of Columbia to prohibit or unduly burden the ability of its residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business. The Ensign subpoena would accept also repealed Commune legislation requiring gun registration, the Commune's ban on semiautomatic weapons, and the District's criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.^[52] Following the Senate's passage of the bill, as amended, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on March four that he had postponed a House vote on the bill for at least a calendar week,^{[53] [54]} but it quickly became clear there were not enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without any amendments.^[55] Despite Hoyer'southward efforts to have the amendment's supporters withdraw it and advise it equally separate legislation,^[56] and Norton's efforts to reach consensus within the District's political community, where there is strong opposition to Ensign'south amendment, Hoyer had to denote on June 9 that the neb was on hold indefinitely.^[57] In April 2010, the bill rather abruptly returned to the agenda,^[58] just the week a vote was expected, Hoyer declared the neb was unlikely to be passed during the 111th Congress.^[59] District politicians reiterated their opposition to the Firm passing the bill with Ensign's amendment.^[60] The House nib was reintroduced in the 112th Congress equally H.R. 267.^[61]

The Justice Department has separate over the constitutionality of legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. The Office of Legal Counsel reported to Attorney General Eric Holder that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional, simply Holder overrode that determination and instead obtained an stance from officials of the United States Solicitor General's part that the legislation could be defended if information technology were challenged after its enactment.^[62]

Retrocession [edit]

The procedure of reuniting the District of Columbia with the state of Maryland is referred to as retrocession. The District was originally formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia which they had ceded to the Congress. However, Virginia's portion was returned to that state in 1846; all the land in present-24-hour interval D.C. was once office of Maryland.^[63] If both the Congress and the Maryland country legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, mayhap excluding a small-scale tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White Firm, and the Supreme Courtroom building.^[64] If the District were returned to Maryland, citizens in D.C. would proceeds voting representation in the Congress as residents of Maryland. One problem with any of these proposals, according to one Virginia Republican in a 1999 interview, is that the state of Maryland does not currently want to take the District dorsum.^{[65] [ better source needed ]} Further, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify a minimum size for the Commune, retrocession may require a constitutional amendment, as the District's part equally the seat of government is mandated past the Constitution's Commune Clause.^{[65] [66]} Retrocession could also alter the thought of a separate national capital as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.^[67] It may likewise violate the 20-3rd Subpoena to the United states Constitution's granting of votes in the balloter college, as they would still exist constitutionally granted to the district.

A proposal related to retrocession was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R. 3709), which would take treated the residents of the Commune as residents of Maryland for the purposes of congressional representation. Maryland'south congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District.^[68] Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authorisation to laissez passer such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the Commune in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Human activity of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.^[17] However, the proposed legislation never made it out of commission.^[68]

Amendment process [edit]

Given the potential constitutional bug with legislation granting the Commune voting representation in Congress, scholars have proposed that amending the U.South. Constitution would exist the advisable fashion to grant D.C. full representation.^[33]

Commune of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment [edit]

In 1978, Congress proposed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Subpoena. Under this amendment, the District of Columbia would take been "treated as though it were a State" regarding congressional representation, presidential elections (replacing the limited treatment under the Twenty-tertiary Amendment), and the ramble amendment procedure. The amendment had to be ratified within seven years to exist adopted. The amendment was ratified by just 16 states, short of the requisite 3-fourths (38) of the states, and then it expired in 1985.^[41] The amendment has never been resubmitted for ratification.

Murkowski proposal [edit]

Senator Lisa Murkowski- (R-AK) believed the Commune of Columbia Business firm Voting Rights Human activity of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, and and then she proposed a constitutional amendment to provide the Commune with i representative.^{[69] [70]} Unlike the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Murkowski'southward proposal would not have provided the District any Senators or a role in the constitutional subpoena process. Her proposal was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never acted on the proposal.^[71]

Statehood [edit]

Article Iv, Section iii, Clause one of the Constitution gives Congress ability to grant statehood. If the District were to become a land, congressional authority over the District would be terminated, and residents would have full voting representation in both houses of Congress. All the same, there are some constitutional considerations with any such statehood proposal.^[9]

In 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new country. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of a new country to be called "New Columbia".^[72] This campaign for statehood stalled. After the Commune of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment expired in 1985, some other constitution for the state of New Columbia was drafted in 1987.^[72] The House of Representatives voted on D.C. statehood in Nov 1993, and the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153.^[ix] Like retrocession, information technology has been argued that D.C. statehood would erode the principle of a separate federal territory as the seat of the federal regime and that a constitutional amendment would be needed to avoid a violation of the Constitution'south District Clause.^[66]

On Apr 15, 2016, District Mayor Muriel Bowser called for a citywide vote on whether the District should become the 51st state.^[73] This was followed by the release of a proposed state constitution.^[74] This constitution would make the mayor of the District of Columbia the governor of the proposed country, while the members of the City Quango would make up the proposed House of Delegates. Despite requests for a different name, the proposed state constitution refers to the Commune as "New Columbia."^[75] Nonetheless, the Council of the District of Columbia passed legislation making the proposed name "Land of Washington, D.C." Under this proposed name "D.C." stands for "Douglass Commonwealth," a reference to the historic abolitionist Frederick Douglass.^[76] Commune residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, in an informational referendum, but statehood legislation is unlikely to be enacted.^{[77] [78]} On June 26, 2020, during the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill to grant statehood to the Commune (H.R. 51) past a vote of 232–180. H.R. 51 never received a vote in the Senate during the 116th Congress.^[79] The Office of Management and Budget said President Donald Trump's advisors would've recommended he veto H.R. 51 if information technology was passed by Congress.^[80] H.R. 51 has been introduced in the 117th Congress.^[81]

Comparison with other federal capitals [edit]

Other countries with federal systems similar to the U.South. extend full voting rights to residents of the federal capital, comparable to those of a elective country.

Federal districts and territories [edit]

In the National Congress of Argentina, the Autonomous Metropolis of Buenos Aires has 25 seats in the Bedchamber of Deputies^[82] too as 3 in the Senate, the same as a province.^[83]

In the Parliament of Australia, the Australian Capital letter Territory (Deed) has seats in both the Firm of Representatives and Senate. However, information technology was not until 1974 that residents of the Human action were able to vote for the latter.^[84] Unlike a state, which elects twelve Senators, the ACT merely elects two^[85] which is equal to the representation by the Northern Territory.

In the National Congress of Brazil, the Federal District has eight seats in the Bedroom of Deputies,^[86] and three in the Federal Senate, the aforementioned number as a land.^[87]

In the Parliament of India, the National Capital Territory of Delhi is represented past 7 members in the Lok Sabha (lower house)^[88] and three members in the Rajya Sabha (upper house), the latter being indirectly elected by the union territory's Legislative Assembly.^[89] Hence, information technology is represented on the same basis every bit the other states of the Union.

In the Parliament of Malaysia, the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur (the original federal capital and notwithstanding the seat of parliament) has eleven MPs in the Dewan Rakyat (lower house) by members, while Putrajaya (the administrative centre since 1999) has ane. In the Dewan Negara (upper house), each of the federal territories is represented by two Senators, only these are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. In dissimilarity, those representing the states are indirectly elected by each state legislative assembly.

In the Congress of Mexico, Mexico City is represented in the Bedroom of Deputies,^[90] too as the Senate.^[91]

In the National Assembly of Nigeria, the Federal Uppercase Territory has two seats in the House of Representatives and i seat in the Senate, unlike the states, each of which has three.

In the Parliament of Pakistan, the Islamabad Uppercase Territory has two seats in the National Assembly^[92] and 4 in the Senate.^[93]

City-states [edit]

Berlin, the capital of Frg, is besides both a metropolis and ane of the sixteen states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the directly elected Bundestag, in which it has well-nigh 20-iv directly elected seats, and the indirectly elected Bundesrat, to which its Senate (or executive) sends four members.^[94]

Vienna, the capital of Republic of austria, is also one of the nine states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the Parliament, in the directly elected National Council and the indirectly elected Federal Council, to which its Gemeinderat and Landtag sends members.^[95]

Brussels, the capital of Belgium, is also one of the three regions of Belgium, forming the Brussels-Majuscule Region, and is represented in the Federal Parliament by fifteen directly elected members of the Chamber of Representatives and indirectly elected members of the Senate, called by the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital letter Region. In addition, as the capital of the Flemish region and the Flemish Community, Brussels is also represented in the Flemish Parliament. Withal, its members have no voting rights on matters devolved to the Brussels-Uppercase Region.^[96] The metropolis is also capital of the French Community and has members in the Parliament of the French Community, elected by the French linguistic group of the Parliament of the Brussels-Upper-case letter Region.

Paris, the capital of France, a unitary country, is also one of the special status collectivities, and is nevertheless represented on the same basis as the other departments in the National Assembly and the Senate.

See too [edit]

• Voting rights in the U.s.
• Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
• Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico

References [edit]

1. ^ District of Columbia Business firm Voting Rights Act of 2007: Hearing Notes. DIANE publishing. March xiv, 2007. p. 23. ISBN978-one-4223-2085-3.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e} Forbes-Lindsay, C. H. (1908). Washington: The City and Seat of Government (PDF). Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co. p. 110. Retrieved November xvi, 2015.
3. ^ "Statement on the subject field of The District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Acts" (PDF). American Bar Clan. September 14, 2006. Retrieved July 10, 2008.
4. ^ Home Rule or House Rule? Congress and the Erosion of Local Governance in the District of Columbia by Michael K. Fauntroy, University Press of America, 2003 at Google Books, folio 94
5. ^ "History of Self-Government in the District of Columbia". Council of the Commune of Columbia. 2008. Archived from the original on March 31, 2009. Retrieved 2008-12-29 .
6. ^ "D.C. Metropolis Council". DC Watch. Retrieved Oct one, 2010.
7. ^ New York State Legislature - Groundwork Newspaper 79-three
8. ^ District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Records, Special Collections Research Center, Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library, The George Washington University
9. ^ ^{a b c} "Statehood: A Timeline". DC Statehood Light-green Political party. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
10. ^ Sheridan, Mary Beth (May 29, 2008). "D.C. Seeks to Fund Lobbying Try for a Voting Business firm Member". The Washington Post. pp. B01. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
11. ^ Statehood Solidarity Commission, Case 11.204, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States), Study No. 98/03, para. 119, OEA/Ser.L/5/II.118 (2003).
12. ^ "Poll Shows Nationwide Support for DC Voting Rights" (PDF). DC Vote Voice. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 24, 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
13. ^ "Washington Mail Poll: D.C. Voting Rights". The Washington Post. April 23, 2007. Retrieved June 10, 2008.
14. ^ Commune of Columbia QuickFacts - Us Census Bureau
15. ^ "Virginia Declaration of Rights past George Mason". Revolutionary War and Across. Retrieved Feb 25, 2011.
16. ^ ^{a b c} "25 Legal Scholars Back up Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights" (PDF). DC Vote. March 12, 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 24, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
17. ^ ^{a b} Rohrabacher, Dana (June 23, 2004). "Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform" (PDF). DC Vote. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 29, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
18. ^ von Spakovsky, Hans (February 23, 2009). "Violating Their Sacred Honor". National Review. Archived from the original on February 24, 2009.
19. ^ Fortier, John (May 17, 2006). "The D.C. colony". The Hill. Archived from the original on Oct xi, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
20. ^ "A History of the Debate", The Washington Post (February 25, 2009)
21. ^ "Individuals Living or Working in U.S. Possessions". Internal Acquirement Service. Retrieved July 24, 2008.
22. ^ "Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Yr 2007" (XLS). Internal Revenue Service. 2008. Retrieved August xx, 2008.
23. ^ "Loughborough five. Blake, xviii U.S. five Wheat. 317 (1820)". U.S. Supreme Courtroom Center. 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
24. ^ ^{a b} "High Court Refuses D.C. Taxpayer's Suit". The Washington Post. February 23, 1971. p. B2. ProQuest 148189648.
25. ^ ^{a b} Richards, Mark David (November 2002). "10 Myths about the Commune of Columbia". DC Vote. Archived from the original on Oct 24, 2008. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
26. ^ "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid past State, 2005". The Taxation Foundation. October nine, 2007. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
27. ^ "Introduction to the FY 2007 Budget and Fiscal Programme". Office of the chief financial officer. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 22, 2010. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
28. ^ "Almost the District of Columbia Courts". District of Columbia Courts. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
29. ^ "U.S. Park Police Authority and Jurisdiction". National Park Service. March three, 2006. Retrieved June 10, 2008.
30. ^ "State and Local Regime Finances by Level of Government and past Land: 2005–06". United States Census Bureau. July 1, 2008. Archived from the original on July nine, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2009.
31. ^ "Country Government Finances: 2007". United States Census Agency. Nov 4, 2008. Retrieved Jan 13, 2009.
32. ^ "D.C. voting-rights postal service offers hit-and-miss data". @politifact . Retrieved July 29, 2019.
33. ^ ^{a b c} Volition, George F. (March 29, 2007). "The Seat Congress Can't Offer". The Washington Mail service. pp. A19. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
34. ^ D.C. Voting Rights Expressionless Again|NBC4 Washington. Nbcwashington.com (2010-11-30). Retrieved on 2013-08-16.
35. ^ House GOP Disenfranchises DC Voters First|MyFDL. My.firedoglake.com. Retrieved on 2013-08-16.
36. ^ "Norton Says Latest UN Human Rights Committee Criticism of U.S. Treaty Violation on D.C. Voting Rights Calls for Urgent Action from the Administration and Congress". March 28, 2014.
37. ^ "UNPO: Commune of Columbia (Washington, DC)". unpo.org . Retrieved July 29, 2019.
38. ^ "Hepburn v. Ellzey". The University of Chicago Press. 1987. Retrieved Dec 29, 2008.
39. ^ Dinh, Viet D.; Adam H. Charnes (November 2004). "The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the Firm of Representatives" (PDF). D.C. Vote. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 19, 2006. Retrieved Dec 29, 2008.
40. ^ ^{a b} Turley, Jonathan (August 20, 2007). "D.C. Vote in Congress: House Judiciary Committee". Argument for the Tape, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5388 . Retrieved December 28, 2008.
41. ^ ^{a b} Thomas, Kenneth (January 24, 2007). "The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the Commune of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole" (PDF). Congressional Inquiry Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on February three, 2009. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
42. ^ Elwood, John. "Constitutionality of D.C. Voting Rights Human activity of 2007," Archived March 25, 2009, at the Wayback Auto Testimony to Senate Subcommittee (May 23, 2007).
43. ^ "No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 (108th Congress, H.R. 1285)". GovTrack. 2003. Retrieved Dec 28, 2008.
44. ^ "District of Columbia Off-white and Equal House Voting Rights Deed of 2006 (109th Congress, H.R. 5388)". GovTrack. 2006. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
45. ^ "Commune of Columbia Off-white and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (110th Congress, H.R. 328)". GovTrack. 2007. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
46. ^ "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007". GovTrack. 2007. Retrieved Dec 28, 2008.
47. ^ "Commune of Columbia Firm Voting Rights Act of 2007 (110th Congress, H.R. 1905)". GovTrack. 2007. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
48. ^ "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (110th Congress, S. 1257)". GovTrack. 2007. Retrieved December 28, 2008.
49. ^ Burr, Thomas (December fifteen, 2008). "D.C. looks to get House vote – with Utah's help". The Common salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved Dec 28, 2008.
50. ^ "Two More DC Superdelegates Endorse Barack Obama". Obama for America. February 26, 2008. Archived from the original on October vii, 2008. Retrieved Dec 28, 2008. Senator Obama said, "I thank Senators Strauss and Brown for their back up. Even without the vote, they take always been strong advocates for the rights of DC residents -- rights I will go on to back up as President. And I look forward to working with them and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Adrian Fenty in the months ahead to bring about existent change not just in the District of Columbia, but all across this country."
51. ^ Warren, Timothy (February 26, 2009). "Senate votes to requite D.C. full Firm vote". The Washington Times. Retrieved Feb 26, 2009. The Senate curlicue call is here [ane].
52. ^ "Senate Subpoena 575 to Due south.160 — District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009". United States Senate. Library of Congress. Feb 25, 2009.
53. ^ Nakamura, David A. (March 4, 2009). "Rep. Hoyer Wants More than Talk on Voting Rights Neb". The Washington Post.
54. ^ Kossov, Igor (March 4, 2009). "D.C. Vote Bill Stalls in Firm". CBS News.
55. ^ Nakamura, David; Stewart, Nikita (March 5, 2009). "Gun Law Push Puts D.C. Vote Pecker on Indefinite Hold". The Washington Post. p. B01.
56. ^ Sheridan, Mary Beth (March 11, 2009). "Leaders Strategize on How to Laissez passer D.C. Vote Beak". The Washington Post. pp. B03. Retrieved March 11, 2009.
57. ^ Miller, S. A. (June 10, 2009). "Gun provision foils D.C. voting rights neb". The Washington Times. Retrieved June 11, 2009.
58. ^ "Is Congress Getting Closer to Granting D.C. Voting Rights?". April 16, 2010. Archived from the original on April 18, 2010. Retrieved Apr 18, 2010.
59. ^ "Hoyer Says D.C. Voting Rights Bill Likely Dead for Year". CQ Politics. April twenty, 2010. Archived from the original on April 26, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
60. ^ Craig, Tim; Marimow, Ann E. (April 20, 2010). "Gun law proposal snarls local support for D.C. voting rights". Washington Mail . Retrieved April xx, 2010.
61. ^ H.R.267, District of Columbia Firm Voting Rights Act of 2011, Bill and Summary and Condition, congress.gov.
62. ^ Johnson, Carrie (Apr 1, 2009). "A Split at Justice on D.C. Vote Bill". The Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved April one, 2009.
63. ^ "Go to know D.C." The Historical Gild of Washington, D.C. 2004. Archived from the original on September 18, 2010. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
64. ^ "District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act (110th Congress, H.R. 1858)". GovTrack. 2007. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
65. ^ ^{a b} "Q&A with Rep. Tom Davis". The Washington Post. March 3, 1998. Archived from the original on February 24, 1999. Retrieved Jan 26, 2013.
66. ^ ^{a b} Pate, Hewitt R. (August 27, 1993). "D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
67. ^ Madison, James (Apr 30, 1996). "The Federalist No. 43". The Independent Journal. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on Baronial 23, 2011. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
68. ^ ^{a b} "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004 (108th Congress, H.R. 3709)". GovTrack. 2004. Retrieved Dec 29, 2008.
69. ^ "Text of Murkowski proposal". Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
70. ^ "Sen. Murkowski Introduces D.C. Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment" (Press release). Function of Senator Lisa Murkowski. February 25, 2009. Retrieved February 27, 2009.
71. ^ "S. J. RES. 11: All Congressional Actions". 111th Congress, 1st Session. U.s. Senate. Congress.gov Library of Congress. February 25, 2009.
72. ^ ^{a b} "District of Columbia Official Lawmaking - Title I, Subchapter II. Statehood". District of Columbia. 2018. Retrieved Feb 18, 2018.
73. ^ Austermuhle, Martin. "Mayor Wants Statehood Vote This Year By D.C. Residents". WAMU 88.v. Retrieved April 15, 2016.
74. ^ Giambrone, Andrew (April 29, 2016). "D.C. Statehood Commission Will Release Typhoon Constitution Side by side Friday". Washington City Newspaper. Retrieved May 15, 2016.
75. ^ Kinney, Jen. "Welcome, New Columbia? D.C. Drafts 51st State Constitution". Adjacent City. Retrieved May 15, 2016.
76. ^ Giaritelli, Anna (Oct xviii, 2016). "DC Council approves name alter if city becomes state". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved October 19, 2016.
77. ^ Golgowski, Nina (November 10, 2016). "D.C. Votes To Become The 51st State, But It Likely Won't". Huffington Mail service. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
78. ^ 2016 D.C. election results - D.C. Board of Elections
79. ^ Mike Lillis and Juliegrace Brufke (June 26, 2020). "Business firm approves statehood for DC in 232-180 vote". The Hill . Retrieved June 26, 2020. {{cite news}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
80. ^ Role of Direction and Upkeep (June 24, 2020). "Statement of Assistants Policy" (PDF). whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
81. ^ Norton, Eleanor Holmes (Jan four, 2021). "H.R.51 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Washington, D.C. Admission Act". www.congress.gov . Retrieved Jan 26, 2021.
82. ^ "Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Nación Argentina". Archived from the original on September 23, 2016. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
83. ^ Search Results Listado por Provincia - Honorable Senado de la Nación Argentine republic
84. ^ Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973. No. 39, 1974
85. ^ About Parliament - Senate
86. ^ The Chamber of Deputies, Chamber of Deputies (Brazil)
87. ^ The Federal Senate
88. ^ Lok Sabha constituencies get a new profile, The Hindu, vii September 2006
89. ^ Rajya Sabha Introduction - Process for Election/Nomination
90. ^ Listado de Diputados por Grupo Parlamentario
91. ^ Senadores por Entidad Federativa
92. ^ Composition - National Assembly
93. ^ Composition / Construction - Senate of Pakistan
94. ^ Subnational Democracy in the European Union : Challenges and Opportunities: Challenges and Opportunities, John Loughlin OUP Oxford, 2001, folio 91
95. ^ The Composition of the Federal Quango
96. ^ 'Reflections on the Belgian federal land', Patrick Peeters, Multinational Federations, eds. Michael Burgess, John Pinder, Routledge, Apr 2007, pages 39-40

External links [edit]

• D.C. Statehood Green Political party
• DC Vote
• DC Correspond
• Cityhood for DC
• The Founder's Constitution: Article 1, Section viii, Clause 17
• Students for D.C. Statehood

lusktheingly1992.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

Share this post