I Want a Congressman

One of the more bizarre aspects of America's bizarre constitution is that I am represented in congress by zero United States Senators and one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, even though residents of the District of Columbia have less say over congress than do other American citizens, congress actually has more authority over the colony where we live. Even weirder, essentially everyone agrees that the reason we Districters don't have congressional representation is just that too many black people live here so Republicans wouldn't be competitive. This is not, if you think about, a very compelling justification for denying us equal political rights.

At any rate, Orrin G. Hatch, Joe Lieberman, Tom Davis and Eleanor Holmes Norton say we deserve a vote and they're right, damnit.

Comments

Sure you deserve a Congressman. As Maryland's 9th District. You could even vote for Senators too. This business of DC as a netherworld should stop; the reason for it ended long ago.

Posted by Mac | September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

Joe the Ho is clearly good for something when he's not saying Dems are, you know, traitors and losers and advocating World War III with the A-rabs.

Posted by Farty Peretz | September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

I agree, but can anyone explain why it is that this vote needs to be traded for another vote in Utah? I'm not looking for the political reason, which is obvious, but the legal or constitutional basis for doing this. What, we're just giving Utah another vote? Why? Just because their population is almost enough for a 4th Representative?

Posted by jhupp | September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

You want a congressman? Move to a real state, not a company town with the (Constitutionally mandated) status of, say, American Samoa.

Posted by Mr Contrarian | September 12, 2007 10:31 AM

I would like to make a preemptive accusation of disdain for the concept of democracy against the first person who writes something along the lines of, "But nobody's forcing you to live there." The point is that all good and competent people within a country should be integrated into its decisio-making process, regardless of where they live.

The constitutional issues are a little trickier. There is no constitutional justification for voting congressional representation for an entity that does not assume the role of a state.
"chosen every second year by the People of the several States"
That is not to say there is no way to give DC congressional representation, but it is tricky.

Posted by Moral Panicker | September 12, 2007 10:31 AM

Nah, I disagree. If you want the vote, you should have to move to somewhere decent and get a real job.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:32 AM

As a voter in California, represented by 2 senators, just like Utah or Alaska, forgive me if I don't join in Matt's shocked outrage that our system treats him unfairly. The democratic unfairness of the Senate as it currently is dwarfs his complaint here. Does Matt favor the reform or elimination of the Senate? If not, then this post is just him thinking that a system that treats many unfairly is alright as long as it treats him ok.

Posted by Counterfactual | September 12, 2007 10:34 AM

PS when I said "you" in the above post, I was referring to the denizens of corrupt Swampland, not to Matthew specifically.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:34 AM

Of course, Don, your argument could apply equally well if I proposed a bill to strip statehood from Rhode Island. After all, nobody's forcing you to live there, and it's so tiny you could probably commute from Massachusetts. Democracy doesn't mean "people from places Don likes get to vote".

Posted by Dan Miller | September 12, 2007 10:38 AM

The District of Columbia is under the total control of COngress for reasons of defense. Same reason traffic is screwed up because of all those traffic circles set up so cannon can cover the approachs.

The Founders knew that one day we longsuffering taxpayers would decide to storm your walls and burn you out like eradicating rats in the corn crib.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:38 AM

What about Puerto Rico? The Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam? If you want a vote, all you have to do is move about five miles.

Congressional control over the district, on the other hand, is quite absurd.

Posted by right | September 12, 2007 10:39 AM

"Nah, I disagree. If you want the vote, you should have to move to somewhere decent and get a real job."

D.C. isn't composed solely of ambitious, mobile, educated white elites; a significant number--in fact, the vast majority--are poor immobile blacks.

Posted by Mark | September 12, 2007 10:40 AM

Re "As a voter in California, represented by 2 senators, just like Utah or Alaska, forgive me if I don't join in Matt's shocked outrage that our system treats him unfairly. The democratic unfairness of the Senate as it currently is dwarfs his complaint here. "
-------------
No it doesn't. Two Senators per State was set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:41 AM

Boy you can sure tell that Op-Ed was written by 3 republicans and one Democrat (Holmes Norton) who has no power and desperately needed the others' help. I love the line about how "Democrats were wrong to filibuster civil rights in the 1960s". And framing this as a civil rights issue for the people in Utah.

I'm very sympathetic to the need for representation for DC (although I really do think this bill is unconstitutional, and citing Bush's hack Viet Dinh as an authority doesn't exactly sway my thinking), but this Op-Ed was crap.

Posted by Glenn | September 12, 2007 10:42 AM

Besides, any complaints by Californians re representation should more properly be directed to the legislature of Mexico.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:43 AM

The land for DC was carved out of VA and MD, right? For the purposes of Congressional and Senate elections, redraw the old lines. What's the insurmountable drawback?

Posted by Jim | September 12, 2007 10:48 AM

Re Dan Miller's comment "Of course, Don, your argument could apply equally well if I proposed a bill to strip statehood from Rhode Island. After all, nobody's forcing you to live there,"
-----------
Actually I don't live in Rhode Island. If I did, I wouldn't want the vote -- I would want a gun so that I could shoot myself.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 10:49 AM

Counterfactual's arguments are jaw-droppingly brilliant, I just have to say.

Posted by Mark | September 12, 2007 10:50 AM

As a voter in California, represented by 2 senators, just like Utah or Alaska, forgive me if I don't join in Matt's shocked outrage that our system treats him unfairly.

This kind of thing is the problem. Yes, the Senate is unfair and should be changed. I grew up in New York getting fucked by the Senate. Now I live in DC getting fucked by our lack of congressman. It's all bad and it all should be changed. But the different groups getting fucked over shouldn't be sniping at one another. There's a bill to give DC congressional representation pending in congress -- support it! I'll support whatever kind of other reforms (electoral college seems most promising in the short term) come up.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 12, 2007 10:50 AM

As a voter in California, represented by 2 senators, just like Utah or Alaska, forgive me if I don't join in Matt's shocked outrage that our system treats him unfairly.

That's idiotic. Because the system treats you unfairly, you can't be upset about any other unfairnesses in the system?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 12, 2007 10:51 AM

I'm all for statehood and representation and self rule for DC. All you have to do is move the 10 mile square capitol city somewhere else. North Dakota, western Nebraska, the Maldives, would welcome it. just move it. The 125,000 people still left will prove that representation in Congress is not all its cracked up to be.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 12, 2007 10:51 AM

The land for DC was carved out of VA and MD, right? For the purposes of Congressional and Senate elections, redraw the old lines. What's the insurmountable drawback?

The drawback is that there's a lot of poor people in DC and nobody wants to take on the financial burden.

The federal government doesn't pay state taxes, so it's not like MD or VA would be getting much of a tax base to make up for the added drain on the state coffers.

As for the issue of the Senate, I think we all learned in school why it's set up that way; it was a compromise fashioned to persuade the small states to join the Union. Of course the compromise has unfair aspects, but a deal is a deal. It's worth noting that the composition of the Senate is the one and only thing in the Constitution that can't be altered by an amendment: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." (Article V)

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 11:04 AM

It has more to do with the Constitution than with anything else. The correct answer would be to cede all but the Federal Triangle back to Maryland (Virginia got its piece of DC back during the 19th century).

You would then have a representative, and the senators from MD. Additionally, it wouldn't violate the Constitution.

Posted by James Robertson | September 12, 2007 11:09 AM

The votes will unlikely ever be there for it to happen, but given that Congress blows money for far more stupid things, why not appropriate 30 billion to pay a one time benefit of 50 thousand, tax free, to all who were residents on January 1, 2007, and anybody who is desperate to have a Congressman and Senators can get out of town?

Mattthew, for 50k, will you stop complaining?

Posted by Will Allen | September 12, 2007 11:19 AM

As a proud resident of Prince George's County Md, home of Steny Hoyer, your Washington Redskins, the Oak Hill detention center and W's favorite bike path, I speak for many when I say we do not appreciate suggestions that you foist any more crap from the federal district onto our humble, open, loving spaces. We would like the Bullets back, however

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 12, 2007 11:21 AM

Interesting the cavalier way so many dismiss a core principle of America's existence - "No taxation without representation". Would those who blithely believe that people who actually live in DC (nevermind the thousands who are actually born here) deserve to be treated as second-class citizens consent to releasing DC residents from all federal taxation and military obligations in the interests of fairness and consistency?

As for Orrin Hatch's pious claims of "counting irregularities" which deprived poor Utah of a Congressional seat - that has been litigated twice in the federal courts - once all the way up to the Supreme Court - and Utah's claims of "irregularities" did not hold water. Why should fundamental American rights denied to a portion of the populace be held hostage to Utah's claims (which, by the way, would also result in at an additional almost guarranteed Electoral Vote for the GOP in 2008 - funny that).

I find it somewhat hard to believe that Hatch, Davis, and the rest of the Republican ilk would find it within themselves to make such a principled stand if the disputed additional Congressional seat was in, say, Massachusetts. It's just naked partisan blackmail masquerading as supporting lofty American principles. If the principles were so lofty - and the GOP so principled, they wouldn't put any conditions at all to remedying the DC problem.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

"D.C. isn't composed solely of ambitious, mobile, educated white elites; a significant number--in fact, the vast majority--are poor immobile blacks.

"Significant number" is undoubtedly true. But "vast majority?" Let's not get carried away. As of 2005 census estimates, the District was 57% black and the poverty rate was 18.3%.

Oh, and for everyone objecting to Matt's claim that "the reason we Districters don't have congressional representation is just that too many black people live here so Republicans wouldn't be competitive" on the grounds that "it's in the Constitution," let's not forget that the Constitution can be amended. In fact, it WAS amended in the 1960s to give DC residents a Presidential vote.

So why isn't there 2/3 support in Congress for such an amendment? Because too many black people live there and Republicans wouldn't be competitive.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 12, 2007 11:26 AM

Yes, DC isn't a real state, but both Dakotas are. And Alaska isn't just an unpopulated glorified oil colony, either.

Posted by Justin | September 12, 2007 11:34 AM

"the reason we Districters don't have congressional representation is just that too many black people live here so Republicans wouldn't be competitive" on the grounds that "it's in the Constitution,"

In the same vein, it was amended to give Black people the right to vote, and to count them as full people regardless of their ::ahem:: job status.

Posted by Justin | September 12, 2007 11:36 AM

I'm with Ethel-to-Tilly. This proposal is a loser. Sorry DC. You deserve representation, but this deal with the devil ain't the way. This so-called compromise is a much better deal for Utah than it is for DC. And the whole thing is clearly unconstitutional.

Those who say DC should be re-attached to Maryland are missing something. DC has not been a part of Maryland since John Adams was president over 200 years ago. DC has essentially no historical ties to any state. It has been its own entity for almost the entire history of the US. Reattaching DC to Maryland would likely require a constitutional amendment anyway.

As for the argument about Puerto Rico--PR could become a state at any time if the people of the commonwealth so voted. In fact, there was a very close election on this matter some 20 years ago. PR came within about 2 percentage points of statehood.

Sadly, any solution to the DC voting right issue would require a constitutional amendment, due to the wording of the constitution. This happened once before when DC was granted a vote in presidential elections by the 23rd amendment. Statehood may or may not make sense. Representation in congress could be granted short of statehood, however, as the precedent of the 23rd amendment shows. With the strong support of a president, a fair solution is possible.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 12, 2007 11:53 AM

Say it slowly, Counter...United...States. Again. United...States. If you have a problem with the equality of states being recognized formally in the system, by all means fight for change. But there is nothing intrinsically unfair about it, and it is certainly not comparable to denying millions of people any federal representation at all.

Posted by nolaboyd | September 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Just give it back to Maryland already, like they gave Arlington County back to Virginia. Call it Columbia County, since MD already has a Washington County. Retain whatever federal control that might be necessary over the non-residential parts of the city. There's no point in patching a stupid system, especially when there's such an obvious solution available.

(And also, while I'm making imperative statements, remember personal info!)

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 12, 2007 11:58 AM

"D.C. isn't composed solely of ambitious, mobile, educated white elites; a significant number--in fact, the vast majority--are poor immobile blacks."

Damn. Lacking a vote AND paralized from the neck down... They really DO have it bad, don't they?

"So why isn't there 2/3 support in Congress for such an amendment?"

Because it's just too blatently obvious that this would favor a particular political party, and you can't get amendments ratified by a supermajority of the states which are that obviously designed to benefit one party in a two party system.

James R is right, the uncontraversial option is to cede the land back to Maryland; The reason it doesn't happen is that it wouldn't automatically give Democrats two senators and a Representative, and if they can't get that, it's just not worth it to them to give Matt a vote.

The reason for coupling pseudo-statehood for DC to an extra House seat for Utah is to bribe the GOP into not putting up a fight over the Constitutional violation... If the violation has bipartisan support, the Supreme court would likely give it a pass. But the bribe wasn't big enough, given that D.C. is likely to remain Democratic in perpetuity, while the Utah seat would be realocated as soon as we had another census.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM

If this was just about voting, DC folks would be clamoring for the residential areas to become part of Maryland. This is about Democrats having two more Senators and one more Representative in the House. Which is why the Republican want more votes in Utah in return.

Mime

Posted by MBunge | September 12, 2007 12:10 PM

"Damn. Lacking a vote AND paralized from the neck down... They really DO have it bad, don't they?"

HAHAHA Poverty funny!

I take LaFollette's point though. I lived for a time in SE so my perception is skewed.

Posted by Mark | September 12, 2007 12:20 PM

"However, Georgetown law professor Viet Dinh, ...detailed the many ways the Supreme Court has approved congressional action equating the District to a state for constitutional purposes. Whether "commerce among the states," federal lawsuits between "citizens of different states," "direct taxes . . . apportioned among the several states" and more, the court has ruled that the word "states" in various constitutional provisions includes our capital city".

That's the op-ed's case fore the proposed bill not violating the constitution. Now, I'm not an expert in American constitutional history, but wasn't a special capital district directly ruled by the federal government and without representation in Congress the very point of creating DC? They didn't amend the constitution for giving DC electoral votes for a reason.

I mean, treating DC as a state in areas the framers probably didn't really think through when they created it is one thing, directly going against their intent is quite another.

Posted by Patrick | September 12, 2007 12:23 PM

Retrocession back to Maryland solves two of DC's biggest problems: first, lack of representation in Congress. Second, lack of county and state-level elected offices which provide outlets for people with, shall we say, "political personalities," instead of having them muck up the system on the school board, city council, and ANCs.

Posted by Tyro | September 12, 2007 12:24 PM

Because it's just too blatently obvious that this would favor a particular political party, and you can't get amendments ratified by a supermajority of the states which are that obviously designed to benefit one party in a two party system.

And how does that not apply to the twenty-third amendment?

Posted by John | September 12, 2007 12:24 PM

What I meant, of course, was "for no reason".

Posted by Patrick | September 12, 2007 12:25 PM

Also, retrocession of the vast majority of DC to Maryland would not require a constitutional amendment, any more than retrocession to Virginia did in the 1840s.

Posted by John | September 12, 2007 12:27 PM

Lower rent isn't the only reason I decided to live in Arlington. I think an annual Tea Party in the Tidal Basin is more than called for.

Posted by Angry Sam | September 12, 2007 12:27 PM

If this was just about voting, DC folks would be clamoring for the residential areas to become part of Maryland. This is about Democrats having two more Senators and one more Representative in the House. Which is why the Republican want more votes in Utah in return.

Nonsense, this bill has nothing to do with the Senate - it would just make Eleanor Holmes Norton a voting representative. The same result would accrue if most of DC was retroceded, so they get one more representative either way.

Posted by John | September 12, 2007 12:29 PM

I've heard the "if they want representation they should move" argument all my life and I find it truly bizarre. Voting rights depend on ... moving to certain places that have them? And certain places shouldn't have them? If you were born and American in a certain place, raised there, it's your home ... why should you move to get the vote?

And of course the Senate should be changed. Why should a person in Wyoming get the equivalent of 60 times the representation in Washington that a Californian does? Because that rule was set in part of a document that encouraged the slave trade over 200 years ago? Why keep that deal now? What was it Oliver Wendell Holmes said? Something about having "no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV ..."?

Posted by Armand | September 12, 2007 12:31 PM

The disadvantage of retrocession to Maryland, however, is that DC's flag is really cool, and while Maryland's flag is somewhat cooler than most other flags ("OOo! Let's slap the state seal on a solid background!"), I still prefer DC's flag. If we negotiate a retrocession where we get to keep our flag, I'm cool with it.

I used to have sympathy for the "if you don't like lack of representation, move!" argument, until I moved here. Then I realized, "Wow. The federal government pretty much abandoned much of DC in favor of sending money to other states who had congressional representatives to agitate for them." It's a matter of justice: no one in Washington, DC cares about you unless you have an elected representative whose job depends on his or her ability to advocate and exert power on your behalf.

Now, if Congress wants to exempt us all from federal income taxes like they do with puerto rico, we can talk about that.

Posted by Tyro | September 12, 2007 12:39 PM

It is highly doubtful that you'd find any serious interest on the part of Maryland toward acquiring DC. It would mean picking up a large urban, relatively poor population without any corresponding offsetting increase in tax base. Many of DCs wealthiest already live in suburbs already - what you would be adding would be additional inner city residents with troubled schools, etc. who are need of services. Services that, in Maryland, already go to Baltimore which would not want to see it's political influence diluted. Nor would the rest of the state likewise want to see their statewide political influence diluted. 19th century retrocession to VA was different. Very few people lived in Arlington and Alexandria (one of the reasons for the retrocession was the the trans-Potomoc part of the District would never develop) - and Virginia actually wanted the retrocsession. Can't say that for 21st century Maryland.

Ineresting the ways that some will tie themselves up in knots and impose unwanted "solutions" on others just because they insist on looking at fundamental American rights solely in self-interested partisan terms. How Americans would case their votes if given voting rights should be immaterial. If the GOP is so concerned with DC voting Democratic - why can't they changed themselves as a party to appeal more to the people in DC? Says a lot about the GOP in a nutshell.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | September 12, 2007 12:49 PM

i don't see why we don't merge D.C. into Virginia, still give it a sort of semi-autonomous thing, just seems like D.C. political and social patterns are more intricately tied to northern VA than anywhere else...

Posted by onceler | September 12, 2007 12:55 PM

As a DC-ite, I feel about this roughly the way a gay guy in a 15-year relationship feels about getting a "domestic partnership": like I'm being patted on the head and condescendingly told I'm almost good enough to get real-people privileges.

There's a solution: statehood. Nobody dicks around tries to figure out whether it's more fair for Wyomingans to be Montanans or Coloradans. Nobody has to cut deals to ensure the existence of two Dakotas. DC is, by this point, a distinct entity with its own population and culture, and it should be a state.

Posted by SDM | September 12, 2007 1:13 PM

As Moral Panicker pointed out far, far above, there is a possibility that this law would be unconstitutional, because the House must be composed of representatives of "the several States". Make DC a state, and there you go. Or as has been mentioned repeatedly, incorporate it into Maryland and/or Virginia. It's not necessarily cut-and-dried that Article I, Section 8 requires the seat of government to be a federal district, since both New York and Philadelphia served in the role. And if it does, well, restrict the district to the Mall and its environs. I don't think a teeming metropolis of six hundred thousand was what the drafters had in mind.

I'd also suspect that giving Utah alone a special extra at-large Congressional seat would run afoul of "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers."

Posted by mds | September 12, 2007 1:29 PM

Maryland doesn't want D.C. The two have been independent politically for twice as long as the Dakotas have been, and for what it's worth, longer than West Virginia's been free of Virginia.

There's nothing "uncontroversial" about appending a polity with an independent history and identity to a state that doesn't want it. If Maryland says no, you move on to the next solution that enables the citizens of D.C. to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as other Americans, even if they have the negative habit of favoring one political party.

Posted by Brittain33 | September 12, 2007 1:37 PM

Whatever happened to the alleged concern so many on the left claim to have for the Constitution? This campaign to get D.C. a voting Congressman doubly disrespects the Constitution: first, by ignoring the founders' intent, and second by attempting to give the District the trappings of statehood by extra-Constitutional means.

You don't like what the Constitution says about D.C.? There's a built-in solution: campaign to amend it. Of course, you'd never get the votes of three-fourths of the state legislatures on this, but that doesn't justify you trying to shortcut the process by using extra-Constitutional means.

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 1:37 PM

Onceler, what makes you think DC is more like Northern Virginia than it is like Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland?

MDS, the Senate version of the bill makes the Utah district a normal one, not at large. But I don't see what in the sentence you quote would prohibit adding an at-large member, as long as the total number of the representatives for the state was determined by the usual method -- which is what this bill does. Utah isn't even mentioned in the House version. The idea is just to expand the House by two seats and give one to DC and the other to whichever state would get the seat normally, which right now happens to work out to be Utah (which is of course what sparked the idea in the first place).

Representatives are apportioned in integral numbers. If Utah deserves 3.5, it has to have either 3 or 4, and it's not an outrage or unfair for it to be therefore slightly over- or underrepresented, just like plenty of other states.

Posted by KCinDC | September 12, 2007 1:43 PM

I think the problem arises because of the name of Washington DC's NFL football team: The Redskins.

Native Americans on other federal reservations have also had a problem getting the right to vote until recently: See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189382,00.html

So maybe the District of Columbia could rename their football team to something more appropriate. As a Philadelphia Eagles fan, may I suggest the "Washington Pansies"?

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 1:48 PM

"Nonsense, this bill has nothing to do with the Senate - it would just make Eleanor Holmes Norton a voting representative. The same result would accrue if most of DC was retroceded, so they get one more representative either way."

Yeah, cause we all know the people who live in DC would be completely content with just have a Congressman. They's NEVER just start complaining about not having any Senators, would they?

And if DC residents become part of Maryland, Maryland might get another representative and another state lose one out of the set total for the U.S. House...but that wouldn't automatically give DC it's own Congressman. DC's population could be divided up into two or more Districts. That would give those folks votes, but wouldn't create a DC Congressman with all the political power of such a position.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 12, 2007 1:50 PM

Well, Fred, as a DC resident who is about to drop my not insubstantial quarterly federal income tax payment into the mail, I wonder why the fuck I shouldn't have the same right of representation to go along with this privilege as every other citizen.

DC, by the way, has a pretty damn good tax base, and anyone who suggests that all of the wealthy folks have left the city for the suburbs hasn't been here.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 12, 2007 1:51 PM

They's NEVER just start complaining about not having any Senators, would they?

The nerve of them--to even think of such a thing.

Look, I know it's hard to accept for people who have an overly polarized view of American society, but residents of D.C. are U.S. citizens with the same human aspirations and desires as people living in other states. Yes, including red states. They fight in America's wars, they pay American taxes, they debate American issues, they earn American salaries and pay an American cost of living, and they move across state lines for jobs and family reasons as others do, while maintaining a sense of home in one place more than others.

If you find yourself talking about a whole chunk of American citizens in terms you'd reserve for a drunk passed out on your steps in a pool of vomit, or for the neighbor who lets his kids trash your yard and torture your dog, you've got issues. At the very least, don't assume it's obvious that everyone shares your prejudices or views and should get their asses out of the way to accommodate them because they're just so clear-headed and sane. Sometimes, you need to think about what's right.

Posted by Brittain33 | September 12, 2007 2:03 PM

Re onceler's comment "i don't see why we don't merge D.C. into Virginia "
---------
Oh, great. You don't like Southern politicans in Congress running the District like "The Last Plantation" , so you want to turn it over to the legislature of Virginia. The last time I checked, they were still flying Confederate flags in Richmond.

And one legacy of the Byrd Machine is that the State Legislature of Virginia runs the state with an iron fist.

That's why Northern Virginia is such a hopeless shithole -- Richmond sucks up all the road taxes from Northern VA and spreads them around the state. Hence, you have a 4 lane highway carrying maybe 10 cars running from Wytheville to Abington and Bluefield in southwest Virginia while people sit in a parking lot on I66.

Plus whenever a developer in Northern VA wants to get a 1000% return on investment, he buys a farm in Prince William County, ignores the local zoning and puts up a subdivision. Supervisors squawk, developer sues, and the local state judge says Richmond has written the law so as to show "strong respect for property rights". Possibly because state legislators from central and southwest Virginia like all those campaign donations from the Northern Virginia real estate lobby.

The Developer, of course, doesn't have to proffer shit to pay for the associated infrastructure impacts -- sewer, water, roads, schools. That's why the common people of Fairfax and Prince William counties have the highest property taxes in the state.

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 2:05 PM

Hey Tyro see my comment at 11:21. We don't want your flag either, although we would let you wave it at Bullets games.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 12, 2007 2:05 PM

You do deserve one. 'course, it's not all it's all it's cracked up to be. Beyond the genuinely valuable constituent services things Congressmen (or, rather, their offices) do, they're far too much in the thrall of the party to actually represent YOU, no matter what your positions are.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 12, 2007 2:26 PM

"Look, I know it's hard to accept for people who have an overly polarized view of American society, but residents of D.C. are U.S. citizens with the same human aspirations and desires as people living in other states."

It's quite easy for me to accept that. Can you accept that they don't live in a state, and only people who live in states get representation?

The district was originally set up, and written right into the Constitution, for reasons which appeared at the time to be sensible, and which still strike many people who consider the matter as sensible. But whether or not they're good reasons is irrelevant, the District's special status IS written into the Constitution, and can't be changed short of a constitutional amendment.

It's only a few square miles, and nobody in it is chained to a post. If they don't think getting the vote is worth moving a few miles, why should anybody else give a darn about their situation?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 2:41 PM

How about this- ya'll give us back our turf in Alexandria and Arlington then we get to be a state. Virginia gets a lot redder so the Republicans can be happy, Maryland only has one screwed up urban center, and we get to make DC whole again.

Posted by Felipe | September 12, 2007 2:41 PM

What Mr. Damiani said. Democracy's great and all, but I actually can't think of one way my life would be measurably different if my congressperson didn't exist.

Posted by too many steves | September 12, 2007 2:42 PM

Left Nut:

"Well, Fred, as a DC resident who is about to drop my not insubstantial quarterly federal income tax payment into the mail, I wonder why the fuck I shouldn't have the same right of representation to go along with this privilege as every other citizen."

Every salaryman who lives in CT or NJ and commutes to a job in New York City pays New York State and City taxes with no representation in either place. Despite the famous grievance of the American Revolution, paying taxes doesn't confer much in terms of voting rights in modern America.

I'm surprised you brought up your "not insubstantial" tax payments, because I doubt you'd be happy if paying significant taxes were a prerequisite for voting. If it were, than the bottom two quintiles of American tax payers who pay no net federal income taxes wouldn't get to vote. And I bet you know which way party affiliation skews with those two quintiles.

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 2:47 PM

Brett,

Because it's my goddamned home and I shouldn't have to move from it to have the same rights as other Americans. Believe it or not, people here like their homes and neighborhoods, the fact that we don't have to commute, and the pleasures of living in a beautiful city. But we pay our taxes like everyone else (and unlike the folks in the territories) and we deserve representation. I can't believe this is subject to debate.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 12, 2007 2:52 PM

The "if people don't like they should just move" argument is really silly. First, such arguments are just wrong-headed generally: we all have a right to agitate to make things better. "Love it or leave it" is a moronic response.

Second, maybe the argument could have been used against the first persons to move there after DC was created. But there's a whole hell of a lot of people who were born in DC and didn't (and don't) exactly have a lot of choice in the matter. Too bad for them, huh? The argument, frankly, smacks a lot of the same kind of sentiment that was directed by certain quarters at NO residents who didn't "get off their ass" ahead of Katrina.

Posted by Glenn | September 12, 2007 2:57 PM

Left Nut:

Aren't you a lawyer by profession? If so, didn't you study the Constitution at some point during law school? If I am confusing you with another poster who said he was a lawyer, my apologies.

Also, re this sentence of yours:

"But we pay our taxes like everyone else (and unlike the folks in the territories) and we deserve representation."

Two questions:

1) What does tax paying have to do with representation today? People who don't pay income taxes (e.g., welfare mothers, college students) are still eligible to vote.

2) Why do you feel that American citizens in D.C. deserve the representation the Constitution reserves for citizens living in States, but that American citizens living in territories do not?

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 3:05 PM

Fred,

I seem to recall that being obligated to pay taxes and representation in the bodies that levy such taxes was once a rather basic cornerstone of American thought. Is it, like the Geneva Conventions, now thought quaint?

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 12, 2007 3:09 PM

Klien, the Constitution is quite clear on the matter: The District of Columbia, deliberately, is neither a state, nor inside a state. Representation in Congress is reserved for the residents of states.

There are 4 constitutional approaches to resolving the situation:

1. Statehood.

2. Retrocession.

3. Amendment to change the District's special status, as was done with voting for President.

4. Move.

You might notice that one of these approaches, and only one, you can achieve entirely on your own. Unlike somebody living in Puerto Rico, you won't even have to move very far.

You might also notice that Congressional Democrats are concentrating on option 5: Violate the Constitution. I wonder why?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 3:13 PM

Left Nut:

I'd be happy to go back to a system where only those paying net taxes got to vote nationally. After all, it doesn't seem fair for those with no skin in the game to have a say in fiscal decisions. What's to prevent the net recipients of federal largess to vote for higher transfer payments from the minority of net tax payers? This is of course the Democrats' M.O.

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 3:19 PM

Re Don Williams

As much as I hate to say this, I am in agreement with Mr. Williams that No. Virginia is getting screwed by the redneck, white trash peckerwoods in Richmond (we get back 30 cents on every dollar sent to Richmond). My solution is to split off Northern Virginia from the rest of the state, just like West Virginia was during the Civil War. The State of Northern Virginia would consist of Arlington Co. the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax, Fairfax Co. and Louden Co.

Posted by SLC | September 12, 2007 3:22 PM

SLC, we DC residents are on the side of the patriotic rebellion of our brothers from Northern Virginia!

In fact, we invite you to join our grand patriotic union, which we will call Virlumbia! I confess you will have to put up with the presence of Marion Barry, but he's a pretty colorful guy and a snappy dresser.

Posted by Tyro | September 12, 2007 3:26 PM

What's to prevent the net recipients of federal largess to vote for higher transfer payments from the minority of net tax payers? This is of course the Democrats' M.O.

Except, of course, for the fact that the heavily Democratic states tend also to be the ones that pay out far more federal taxes than they get back. It's the "red states" that are, by and large, lined up at the federal trough.

By the way, the idea that "no taxation without representation" was ever intended to be applied on a person-by-person basis, i.e., that it meant one's right to representation was based on the amount of taxes one actually paid, is of course ridiculous, ahistorical bullshit. But then again, consider the source.

Posted by Glenn | September 12, 2007 3:29 PM

Re SLC

C'mon you try to form another breakaway Virginia state then what happens next is the VA Eastern shore secedes and some unholy Delmarva state develops my proposal is much better. Leave the rednecks and join us Make DC whole again, give us some good public schools, Vietnamese food and a real Southwest. As a new state we'd be a power.

Posted by Felipe | September 12, 2007 3:29 PM

Aren't you a lawyer by profession? If so, didn't you study the Constitution at some point during law school? If I am confusing you with another poster who said he was a lawyer, my apologies.

I don't know about the other poster, but I am a lawyer by profession, and I happen to know that the constitutional argument is a lot less clear-cut than you professional blog commenters are making it out to be.

Conservative legal scholar Viet Dinh surely doesn't have the last word on the subject, but his analysis is hardly something you can dismiss with the wave of a hand.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 3:32 PM

The position of DC makes clear what, ultiamtely, politics is all about: it's about having power to get the federal government to do stuff for you. Without it, the federal government doesn't have any incentive to give a damn. If you want the federal government to do it's job beyond what the courts will enforce out of constitutional obligation, you need power. And you need representatives to have power. And when you everyone else has power and you don't, you pretty quickly realize that everyone else is getting a better deal.

Posted by Tyro | September 12, 2007 3:36 PM

But whether or not they're good reasons is irrelevant, the District's special status IS written into the Constitution, and can't be changed short of a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution doesn't specify the boundaries of the District. Amending the Residence Act would be sufficient to redraw the boundary of the "seat of government" to something much more restricted to the actual seat of government. What to do with the rest would still produce the questions already raised; the Maryland and Virgina assemblies could presumably do takebacks, though making the region a state (which would still be more populous than Wyoming) would remain a possibility. Of course, its shape would be rather peculiar, the symmetry of the flag would be spoiled, and Republicans would demand statehood for Orange County in exchange.

Then again, this is much ado about nothing, because people who live in one state and work in another pay state income taxes in both places, but have say only over the state government where they reside, and also over their federal taxes due to their representation in Congress. Logically, this is exactly equivalent to people in D.C., who have no say whatsoever over their income taxes.

(Personally, I'd decommission D.C. as the capital entirely, and replace it with an enormous roving dirigible. But that's just me.)

You might also notice that Congressional Democrats are concentrating on option 5: Violate the Constitution.

Wow, Orrin Hatch is now a Democrat. Who realized that Mr. Bellmore had a penchant for chewing on Chinese toys?

Posted by mds | September 12, 2007 3:36 PM

Retrocession would require fixing the constitution's provision for DC's electoral votes, no?

Posted by right | September 12, 2007 3:47 PM

Who knew that Orin Hatch favoring an unconstitutional proposal for D.C. voting rights logically excluded the possiblity that Democrats do, too? I certainly never picked up on this quirk of formal logic.

Reality check: There are causes which are Democratic causes, even if a few Repubicans also champion them, and causes which are Republican causes, even if a few Democrats sign onto them.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 3:50 PM

Fred,

I didn't advocate limiting voting to taxpayers; merely posited that you all shouldn't be so cavalier about our rights to representation when we pay taxes, just because we might vote for Democrats.

I am a lawyer and have studied the Constitution and do not believe that it is an impediment to granting us a vote in the House.

Brett,

Your insistance that my right to representation requires me to move is arrogant beyond belief. When the Constitution was adoped the District of Columbia existed as an idea only. There were no residents to speak of here, whereas there are now about 520,000 of us. The reason we are being deprived of representation has nothing to do with high minded constitutional issues and everything to do with ugly partisanship by the Republican Party.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 12, 2007 3:52 PM

"Retrocession would require fixing the constitution's provision for DC's electoral votes, no?"

Unless you're comfortable with DC's Presidential vote being exercised by the handful of people who actually live in the Mall, (One presumes we're not going to hand the White house lawn over to Maryland.) yes.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 3:53 PM

Orrin Hatch, Jack Kemp, Viet Dinh, Ken Starr, Michael Steele, Dan Burton, Tom Davis, Darrell Issa, Ray LaHood, Wayne Gilchrest, Frank Wolf, Mike Pence, Rick Renzi, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, George Voinovich, and plenty of others are all Democrats now, apparently.

And could people please stop talking about Virginia taking back its land? That happened in 1846. All of DC's current land came from Maryland originally. Just look at a map.

Posted by KCinDC | September 12, 2007 3:54 PM

"Look, I know it's hard to accept for people who have an overly polarized view of American society, but residents of D.C. are U.S. citizens with the same human aspirations and desires as people living in other states."

It's not "other" states. It's "people who live IN states".

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 12, 2007 3:56 PM

KCinDC I for one am not talking about Virginia taking back nothing. I am talking about us taking back what was ours once and should be ours again. I want the living space for my people that can only come with the suburban expanses of Arlington County.

Posted by Felipe | September 12, 2007 3:58 PM

"The reason we are being deprived of representation has nothing to do with high minded constitutional issues and everything to do with ugly partisanship by the Republican Party."

Really? Who would have guessed that D.C. residents were disenfranchised in the 1860's... (There not being a Republican party before then!) Certainly doesn't say so in my high school history text!

The reason you're deprived of representation is the same reason residents of Puerto Rico are deprived: You don't live in a state. The Constitution has NEVER been interpreted to allow representation of people who don't live in states.

Ok, ugly partisanship is why, in this particular instance, Republicans are actually standing up for the Constitution. That I'll agree. But that's what they're doing.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 3:59 PM

Here's my proposal: Make DC a state, then to counterbalance, separate NYC from the rest of New York and make it a state. Absent NYC, upstate NY would probably tend Republican, giving the GOP 2 Senators to balance the predicted 2 Dems from DC. And we in NYC would finally get out from having to be ruled by those fucking morons in Albany.

Of course, I'd really rather NYC just become its own country, but I'll take it one step at a time.

Posted by Glenn | September 12, 2007 4:01 PM

As a DC resident, I don't mind reverting to Maryland. Then we get state funds to pay for repairs on the roads and the bridges that Marylanders and Virginians use to commute to DC, to say nothing of the water and sewers and other city amenities they use and never pay for since Congress won't let DC levy a commuter tax.
GAO warned that DC, because something like one-third of its property can't be taxed and because it's not allowed a commuter tax, has a huge crumbling infrastructure problem that its current tax base is too limited to pay for.

Otherwise, stop charging us federal income tax.

Posted by lou | September 12, 2007 4:06 PM

"The reason we are being deprived of representation has nothing to do with high minded constitutional issues and everything to do with ugly partisanship by the Republican Party."

And how does Democratic partisanship NOT play just as big a role? If the Democrats were really concerned about your representation, they'd support the simplist and most-likely-to-happen way of achieving that - retrocession.

The Democratic Party no more cares about your right to vote than the GOP. They just want another Dem Congressman and, eventually, two more Dem Senators. You getting to vote matters not at all.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 12, 2007 4:09 PM

Yeah, MBunge, the Democrats are just falling over themselves to give DC representation. That's why the cause progressed so much when Democrats had both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Posted by KCinDC | September 12, 2007 4:16 PM

What they want, I suspect, is to establish that non-state territories can be given representation in Congress without the tedious matter of giving them statehood, which status limits federal power over them. Once this is established, since Congress can create and subdivide territories at will, the way is open to create an arbitrarilly large number of reliably Democratic territories, represented in Congress, but without the independence from federal rule needed to stand up to Congressional pressure.

If permitted, it's a backdoor through which a temporary Congressional majority can make itself permanent.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 12, 2007 4:19 PM

Brett, have you even read Viet Dinh's analysis? It's clear that DC is, at best, a special case. There's absolutely no argument that Congress can grant representation to non-state territories.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 4:31 PM

Re Felipe's "I want the living space for my people that can only come with the suburban expanses of Arlington County. "
-------
Lebensraum!

Posted by Don Williams | September 12, 2007 4:43 PM

Redefine DC as the federal triangle, make the rest of the District its own state. And set up $100 toll booths manned by people with assault rifles at the state line. (You can do it if you like, Brett.)

It'd be the inverse of Haussman carving ou the boulevards of Paris.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 12, 2007 7:13 PM

Re Don Williams

In these parts, we refer to the NFL team in suburban Maryland as the Washington Deadskins.

Posted by SLC | September 12, 2007 7:19 PM

It has more to do with the Constitution than with anything else. The correct answer would be to cede all but the Federal Triangle back to Maryland (Virginia got its piece of DC back during the 19th century).
You would then have a representative, and the senators from MD. Additionally, it wouldn't violate the Constitution.
Posted by James Robertson

Problem is Maryland doesn't want it back.

Nor does Virginia wish to claim the shithole of violent parasites that 3/4s of DC has become.

Ethel-to-Tilly Interesting the cavalier way so many dismiss a core principle of America's existence - "No taxation without representation".

It was a good slogan in the Declaration of Independence that was never intended to be an absolute mandate when the Constitution was drafted.

1. There has never been a requirement that anyone who pays taxes in several states or cities gets to vote in each one. Not from colonial times. Not now. Do people that commute into DC and pay DC taxes get to vote there on Marion Barry as well as in Chevy Chase? No.

2. Limits on right to vote had nothing to do with tax-paying. Tax paying women w/o the vote were fine by the Constitution for over half our nation's history and required an Amendment to get the vote. I paid sales taxes since being a kid and did income taxes on a business I had
before I was 18. No vote.

3. Convicted violent felons are punished in many States by being denied the rights of other citizens to carry a gun, hold certain jobs, and vote.

4. If taxation was the qualifier that allowed and required voting rights - then welfare mothers, college students, jobless people in the 'hood should be denied the vote as non-taxpayers?
That might be something most of the country would go for it put to a vote. (ie. you get to vote if you show up at the polls with proof that you paid taxes. No taxes paid, no vote. People taxed on property in several locales get to vote in each one..)

Posted by Chris Ford | September 12, 2007 7:38 PM

"But whether or not they're good reasons is irrelevant, the District's special status IS written into the Constitution, and can't be changed short of a constitutional amendment."

Well, are you going to support the idea of statehood for DC? If you did, I missed that, but if you follow your logic but still don't support statehood for DC as a way for it to get Congressional representation, then you're just a tool.

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 8:04 PM

What they want, I suspect, is to establish that non-state territories can be given representation in Congress without the tedious matter of giving them statehood, which status limits federal power over them. Once this is established, since Congress can create and subdivide territories at will, the way is open to create an arbitrarilly large number of reliably Democratic territories, represented in Congress, but without the independence from federal rule needed to stand up to Congressional pressure.
If permitted, it's a backdoor through which a temporary Congressional majority can make itself permanent.
Posted by Brett Bellmore

Pretty accurate read. In fact, the Dems did try pushing it in the early years of the Clinton Administration before the 1994 Slapdown. They ranted away with their "No taxation without Representation" slogan as reason why the Democrat delegates from Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, DC ALL deserved to be voting. Hey, it was RACIST to deny Eleanor Holmes her vote, she said in her patented Strong Black Woman voice...the "Perpetually Indignant and Outraged" one.

Jesse Jackson was running around declaring he was already DC's de facto "Shodow Senator" fighting for DC resident's rights and he should have a Senate seat to "give the disposessed and disenfranchized democracy due them!"

The Dems would love to carve out some dysfunctional shithole cities, claim they were denied "equal representation" in their States, and make permanently Democratic fiefdoms complete with 2 Senators and at least one Rep. New Orleans has made squeals that they too deserve Statehood. Senator Nagin, anyone?

What sunk the Dems back in the early 90's was that various Senators, Reps, and State Legislators thought very, very poorly of the Dem's Congress-packing scheme that would dilute established State powers of representation, and their byzantine attempts to circumvent Constitutional Statehood recognition processes.
And told the various Democrats in Congress and in activist circles trying to orchestrate it that they would trigger a Constitutional Crisis and immediate Court injunctions and States aligning their elected Reps the 1st time Holmes-Norton was allowed to cast a vote on the floor.

They backed down because they fully know what Constitution violations are involved, and no activist judge can - even the most expansive - ever get away with conferring Statehood by fiat on the 8-11 entities Democrats are eyeing for 16-22 new Senators and 11-17 new perpetually Democratic Congress House seats.

Nor can DC really complain that they "lose out" on funds from lack of allowing Eleanor Holmes-Norton to do more than make Strong Black Woman speeches in her resonant voice.
They get 6.48 cents in Federal dollars given to DC for each dollar in taxes they pay. No State, not even the W. Virginia of the Great Appropriator himself, Robert Byrd, get even 2 bucks for each buck in taxes sent to the Feds.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 12, 2007 8:23 PM

"Hey, it was RACIST to deny Eleanor Holmes her vote, she said in her patented Strong Black Woman voice...the "Perpetually Indignant and Outraged" one."

Wow, you're pretty creepy.

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 8:28 PM

Gee, Chris, I can't understand why anyone would think you're racist.

Posted by KCinDC | September 12, 2007 9:52 PM

Make DC part of Maryland for the purposes of Federal elections.

Posted by Fubar | September 12, 2007 10:24 PM

These "but it's not in the Constitution!" arguments are really quite annoying, to the extent that it entirely sidesteps the moral issue.

The people of Washington DC deserve representation in their own government as human beings, as citizens, and as Americans. That they do not have it is /wrong/, even if it is written in the Constitution.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 12, 2007 10:50 PM

Chris F.

You are a flat out racist asshole.

And a moron to boot.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | September 12, 2007 10:51 PM

Chris is such an idiot we have no intention to carve out little tiny new pseudo-states. We are thinking much bigger and it's all about the Nafta. We will merge with Mexico and Canada- I figure that's way more Senators then we can get from creating South Texas, freeing Cleveland from Ohio, or letting in American Samoa. But if the prairie Canadians or some northern Mexicans slip to the Repubs then we can always start reaching out to the Caribbean islands and incorporating them in. Chris you are right to be afraid very afraid.

Posted by Felipe | September 13, 2007 2:44 AM

No, I would not favor statehood for DC. The area is an economic basket case, with a dysfunctional political culture. It would be the political equivalent of taking a 13 year old delinquent, and declaring them a legal adult. DC simply wouldn't work as a state!

I suggest we go back to the original conception of the district, as an isolation ward for the capitol, and depopulate the residential areas. Use eminent domain to seize all that land, converting it to parkland around the Mall, and legally prohibit anyone from making the district their legal residence. The relatively few people who actually NEED to work in the district would have no trouble commuting in.

That would deal nicely with the "immobile" poor, they'd get a check and a buss ticket, and get dispersed throughout some more functional states.

And you'd all have the vote, without violating the Constitution.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 13, 2007 7:25 AM

Ummm.... yeah. No constitutional violations in THAT idea.

Posted by Mark | September 13, 2007 8:38 AM

Brett,

You're a fucking moron too. "The area is an economic basket case." And what, pray tell, is your evidence for this ignorant and probably racist assertion. I have lived here for 25 years, travel extensively throughout the United States, and I have seen few areas that can match the economic vitality of this region or the center city itself. The city is running a surplus, the unemployment rate here is one of the lowest in the country and housing prices have soared to more than twice the national average. It's pretty hard selling $600,000 two bedroom condos in an economic basket case.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | September 13, 2007 9:04 AM

That would deal nicely with the "immobile" poor, they'd get a check and a buss ticket, and get dispersed throughout some more functional states.

And you could even wear your white sheet and hood while doing it, Brett.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 13, 2007 9:04 AM

Brett is endorsing government seizure of an entire city by eminent domain? And it's supposed to be a less worrisome precedent than granting DC residents a vote in the House?

Posted by KCinDC | September 13, 2007 9:17 AM

Brett, do you have any idea how large DC is? You know, this place is larger than the National Mall, Georgetown, and the Convention Center.

And that's actually the problem-- DC was supposed to be a special federal district, and the government set all this land aside for itself, and then they haven't done anything with it. Or, at least, for a while, they did make use of much of the district, but slowly, over time, they realized that they were perfectly able to move various government agencies out to other states and regions which (gasp) had congressional representatives who would agitate on their behalf. The feds haven't taken much interest in DC, so it's only natural that people are going to want someone to use their leverage to force the feds to take an interest in anyplace north of Q Street and east of Union Station.

Posted by Tyro | September 13, 2007 9:33 AM