You might be surprised that the political capital of the United States, Washington, DC., still lacks any representation in the US Congress, while it casts 3electoral votes in Presidential elections and the role of the Mayor and the city council are severely curtailed by close monitoring by Congress.
This primarily is due to the fact that, unlike every other part of the continental United States, the District of Columbia is not a state, and the US Constitution states that only the States of the Union shall elect members of Congress.
The Bill has passed the Senate, and is expected to pass the House soon. Its last attempt at passage, in 2007, fell three votes short of the 60 needed in the Senate, while passing the House comfortably, so it is expected to be passed and signed into law by President Obama. The Bill also increases the number of seats for the 50 states from 435 to 436, which will give an extra seat to Utah for the 2010 election, as Utah was the closest to getting a seat at the 2000 census. However, the upcoming 2010 census will likely see an increase in Utah’s population, meaning an extra seat would’ve been granted to the Mormon-dominated state from 2012 anyway.
As may be obvious, the constitution appears to clearly state that territories, like DC, as well as US possessions like Puerto Rico, do not have the right to representation in the US Congress due to their lack of statehood. It appears certain that the bill will face challenge in the courts, and could be struck down. Indeed, some Senators opposed the bill on constitutional grounds, including staunch Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, one of the only Democrats to vote against it. Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed a constitutional amendment to similar effect. Such an amendment was proposed in 1978, but failed to be ratified by the necessary 38 states. Likewise, many have supported an effort for DC Statehood, with a draft constitution for the proposed state of New Columbia being passed by the District’s council in the early 1980s. The US Congress refused to consider the idea, which would have also given Washington DC two US Senators. Some have also suggested ceding the District to neighbouring Maryland. DC was originally an exact square, but the areas on the southwestern side of the Potomac river were returned to Virginia in 1846, with all that is left of the District originally being part of the colony of Maryland. It is stark that residents of the District have no congressional voting rights, their neighbours in the outer suburbs of Washington have full voting rights as residents of Maryland and Virginia. Indeed, the DC local council has generally been strongly supportive of efforts to gain statehood or voting rights, as can be seen by their local number plates, using the slogan of the American Revoutionary War:
The bill is also interesting in that it will, for the first time in almost fifty years, the number of electoral votes in presidential elections will be changed. The number has been fixed at 538 since 1961, when the 23rd Amendment passed, giving three electoral votes to DC. The bill would also give an extra electoral vote to Utah, giving it 6 EVs, up from 5 (although a national redistribution will take place prior to the 2012 election.
Interestingly, this debate also plays into the impending 2010 Census. The dicennial census is the trigger for the re-allocation of congressional districts between states prior to the congressional elections in every year ending in ‘2’. This also adds extra significance to the races for Governor and to control state legislatures in 2010, as most states give much influence to state politicians in gerrymandering House of Representatives districts to their political advantage for the next decade. NPR’s Political Junkie makes some predictions about which states will gain or lose seats.
Good to hear! Congressional representation for D.C. is long overdue. The territory ought to have two Senators as well (it has a larger population than Wyoming).
The reapportionment scenario in that last link is interesting. If you divide the electoral pendulum into two equal halves, i.e. Obama’s best 22 states (plus DC) worth 269 EV on one side and the rest (also worth 269 EV) on the other, then according to that analysis six EVs will flip from the former to the latter. A boost for the Republicans.
It’s true that red states are gaining ground at the expense of blue states, but some of those same trends giving more seats to red states are the same that are turning those seats purple. Look at Arizona and Texas, which gain six seats between them (pretty much the whole margin). Both those states have fast-growing latino populations, and many of those seats will likely be taken on by latino Democrats. The growing Latino population in those seats is also making them more winnable for Democrats in the Presidential race. If McCain wasn’t the candidate, Arizona would have likely turned blue in 2008, and Texas is trending that way.
Canberra, the Australian capital has a somewhat similar position.
Not really. Canberra elects two Senators and two Members of the House of Representatives who are treated the same as those elected by the States. While the ACT Assembly can be overruled by the Federal Parliament, there is much less interference than in the US, and they still do get to have a say in electing the national Parliament.
Canberra has two Senators as compared to Tasmania’s twelve (the populations are about 340,000 versus 500,000).
The ACT Assembly can be overruled not just by the Federal Parliament but by the Federal Executive.
Puerto Rico is more hard done by than DC though – they have a member of Congress who isn’t allowed a decisive vote, and no representation in the Electoral College at all.
The US electoral system does seem to be showing its age.
Comments are closed.