Friday, May 12, 2006
The Constitutionality of a Full DC Vote in the House
There is a proposal to give DC one full vote in the House - D.C. Vote's Stars Are Aligning, Davis Says – but is it constitutionally allowed? This is a quick review of the Constitutional arguments against as I see them (but I stand ready to be shown otherwise).
U.S. Constitution - text
Article I, Section 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,…”
The Constitution expressly reserves membership in the House to those selected by the people of the States.
“When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.”
Would the Mayor qualify as the “executive authority thereof”?...and, if not, who would appoint the successor – the President?
Article I, Section 8:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,..”
The District is clearly seen as something distinct from a State by those who put together the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…”
As the District did not always enjoy the benefits of a “Republican Form of Government”, I’m going to infer that the Framers and those that followed did not consider the District to be State-like.
Amendment XXIII:
“1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of enators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors
appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”
Again, the Constitution clearly delineates between the District and the several States. They are not interchangeable. This was also addressed in the Federalist Papers, Number 43, where Madison discussed why the proposed Union needed a distinct District which was independent of any and all States:
“Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence.” Federalist Papers Number 43
Bottom line: I just don’t think this passes Constitutional muster. If people want the District to have a full vote in the House, they’re going to have to go the Constitutional Amendment route. In other words….nothing to see here – yet.
UPDATE:OK - maybe they're not that aligned
U.S. Constitution - text
Article I, Section 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,…”
The Constitution expressly reserves membership in the House to those selected by the people of the States.
“When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.”
Would the Mayor qualify as the “executive authority thereof”?...and, if not, who would appoint the successor – the President?
Article I, Section 8:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,..”
The District is clearly seen as something distinct from a State by those who put together the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…”
As the District did not always enjoy the benefits of a “Republican Form of Government”, I’m going to infer that the Framers and those that followed did not consider the District to be State-like.
Amendment XXIII:
“1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of enators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors
appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”
Again, the Constitution clearly delineates between the District and the several States. They are not interchangeable. This was also addressed in the Federalist Papers, Number 43, where Madison discussed why the proposed Union needed a distinct District which was independent of any and all States:
“Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence.” Federalist Papers Number 43
Bottom line: I just don’t think this passes Constitutional muster. If people want the District to have a full vote in the House, they’re going to have to go the Constitutional Amendment route. In other words….nothing to see here – yet.
UPDATE:OK - maybe they're not that aligned
Comments:
<< Home
I tend to think you're right; the federal district is foreclosed from representation in Congress unless admitted as a state. What say you to the proposal to simply reincorporate most of the population centers of DC back into Maryland, at least for purposes of representation, leaving only a bare minimum under federal authority?
I guess the devil would be in the details....if we brought most of DC back into the Maryland fold, wouldn't that qualify MD for an additional House seat and the requisite added Electoral vote. On the flip, what do we do with the 3 Electoral votes DC already (by constitutional amendment) has.
I can't see the Republicans giving the Dems a sure added House vote AND Electoral vote unless it also means DC gives up its 3 Electoral Votes or otherwise alters that count. And I don't think the Dems would be to thrilled with that.
I can't see the Republicans giving the Dems a sure added House vote AND Electoral vote unless it also means DC gives up its 3 Electoral Votes or otherwise alters that count. And I don't think the Dems would be to thrilled with that.
Davis uses this report to support the constitutionality of his bill.
As to electors, wouldn't DC just keep the three it has now? The 23rd Amendment says that DC gets the number it would be entitled to if it were a state. So even with a voting member of the House, that would still be three, correct?
As to electors, wouldn't DC just keep the three it has now? The 23rd Amendment says that DC gets the number it would be entitled to if it were a state. So even with a voting member of the House, that would still be three, correct?
Welcome & thanks for the link, AGR. I incorporate it in a more recent post. As to the the 23rd; yeah, it'll stay in force until a later amendment repeals it. i don't think that becomes problematic unless DC voters become part of another state's (MD's) voting population.
Post a Comment
<< Home
