Should DC Be Given a Voting US House Rep?

One of the bills that consistently floats around congress is a bill that would give DC a voting member of the US House of Representatives, as well as apportion an additional member to Utah until the next census, so as to balance things out from a partisan standpoint(DC is very democratic, Utah is very Republican). Obama has supported the measure, and his influence could help it to finally pass in congress. It seems fair. DC residents pay taxes just like everyone else, so they should be represented, no?

However, this is pretty clearly unconstitutional. DC is usually not considered a state for government purposes, and the US constitution states that only states should have representatives to the House.

However, DC residents and supporters of the movement often counter with the fact that DC residents are required to pay income tax, despite the fact that the 16th amendment specifies, as does the clause concerning representatives to the House(in fact in very similar wording) that income tax shall be levied "among the several states." Why should DC residents be forced to pay income tax but not be able to have a representative constitutionally if the wording is very similar?(I bet many would be happy not being represented and having no federal income tax though.)

DC residents have been given a few nice advantages. For example, students from DC can count themselves as in state to students to a state college in any state, thus getting the reduced tuition rate. However, DC more is more directly affected by congress than most other states. DC has a city council, but congress can pass local laws affecting DC, such as when the Republican congress repealed the ban on assault weapons passed by the local government of DC. It seems unfair to DC residents that they should not have any representation in this.

DC does have electors for presidential elections, but it took an amendment to get them that.

Personally, I think DC should get a representative somehow, though it will likely take an amendment(it's hard in my opinion to argue that the Supreme Court would be incorrect in ruling the bill currently in congress unconstitutional). Supposedly, the US was founded on the idea of representation for everyone(and ironically "No taxation without representation" is always associated with the revolution, only it isn't true with regards to DC and federal congress. DC liscence plates have "Taxation without Representation" in bas-relief on them)

Unfortunately for DC, a constitutional amendment any time soon seems unlike because members of congress either don't care about the issue, or in the case of some conservative members, worry that giving DC a representative will, in the long term, tip the balance of legislative power very very slightly toward democrats.

You've got a good point. Since D.C. citizens do pay taxes, I think it only fair that they're allowed to be given the right for voting. But as you mentioned, they can't since they aren't a state. Unless they're made a state (not likely), or an amendment is made, they won't be given the right. Again, as you said, the latter won't happen because our government is too busy and most probably don't care. As for the conservatives not wanting the residents of D.C. not having a rep because they're of the opposing party, that's just retarded since fairness should over rule that. (I'm conservative and I'm okay with it)

Well, in the end it all comes down to Obama, if he is able to pull this off, the people in D.C. will get what they deserve.

Are the people living in DC counted as living in Virginia or Maryland?

I don't understand the point of having DC. It's not big enough to be its own state, and it's situated in such a place that it wouldn't be hard to just include it in the boundaries of another state. And all the citizens there would pay taxes to that state and be counted as that state's population. Wouldn't that solve this Rep problem?

Neither, DC is not under the jurisdiction of any state. That's one of the points of DC. Under the US's federal system, states have quite a bit of power and certain powers are reserved specifically to the states in the constitution. So, the founders wanted a federal city because

1) In the early days, there was much less unity among states. Putting the capital in one state might have upset the others and smacked of favoritism.

2) Clearly there has to be a capital somewhere where the federal government can all be in more or less the same place and do things.

3) The founders wanted a city that would be outside the jurisdiction of any states and thus prevent needless conflict between federal and state governments over trivial matters.(This was back in a time when states' rights and sectionalism were much more prevalent than today.)

I say they shouldn't get a rep. Since they are not a state. Territories of the United States don't get Representative. Puerto Rico doesn't pay income taxes but, pays for that by not having a voice in the government. I think the answer is just easier to give D.C. residents an income tax "break" instead of giving all American territories that aren't states a rep (which they would want in D.C. got one). That or repealing that 16th amendment so D.C. wouldn't need a rep based on "We pay income tax".

I see the options as

Don't tax them on income (like puerto rico)

Remove income tax all together (constitutional amendment)

Give them a a voting rep (they already have one if I remember right but, isn't allowed to cast votes) which requires a constitutional Amendment.

Two of the three options require a constitutional amendment. We know how well those get through the meat grinder.

You figure that income tax in DC is probably something that got challenged in the courts at some point, and was upheld. I don't know of the case or any good way to look it up(or even what level it was at), but it would be interesting to read the arguments and rulings for that case, assuming it exists.

it seems to me that dc's issue is that they are being taxed as a state but are not getting the benifets of a state and that is not fair and they want justice.Now with what is in the world today thi will prolly not happen any time soon however it can mostlikely happen if they take it as far as possible while the kettle is hot.If they do this then there chances of a rep and POSSIBLE statehood go up.

I agree with most of what Fiery_penguin_of_doom stated. I think that right now, D.C. should not get a representative in the House. They are not a state, they are technically citizens of the government. They should however, be given some sort of tax break as there are around 600,000 people living in D.C. (interesting fact: more than Wyoming) And yes, most anything that does happen would probably require an Amendment, which isn't likely.

On the issue of DC getting a representative as well as Utah until the next census, I assume Utah would then have three. After the next census (which is next year), would Utah keep the extra representative, or would it go to another state, or just disappear? I would like to know a bit more on this proposition.

Although D.C. has an elected city government due to the 1973 Home Rule Act, congress still has the right to review, overturn, and intervene in policies and local affairs. I think control of D.C. is a part of the topic of representation.

Agreed, It would be an interesting read.



Just out of curiosity which part or parts did you not agree with?

Not much. Specifically, even though I read it now as a different choice, I didn't agree with repealing the 16th amendment. As much as I and everyone else hates taxes, they're usually beneficial. That was it, I'm pretty sure, and it's just habit for me to write most, instead of all.
Loughborough v. Blake Edit: not too much. Will continue searching.

Loughborough v. Blake is from 1820, and while it deals with article 1, it is from long before income tax even existed. Article 1 is not thought to permit income taxes, since an amendment was required.

This whole topic brings up another point. A lot of people sort of worship the constitution as infallible these days it seems. And while, legally, this is true, just because the constitution says something doesn't mean that it is morally correct and should never be changed. There is an amending process for a reason. I think in the case of giving DC a rep, that going by the spirit of democracy on which the country was founded, DC should have a representative. The founders were wise and crafted what I believe to be one of the greatest legal and government documents in the history of humanity, but there are some things in there of dubious morality. Slavery wasn't prohibited, the three-fifths compromise is still written into the constitution. The constitution was meant to be pragmatic to a certain extent and useful, which some strict constitutionalists seem to miss. And if it fails to reflect the democratic ideals which the nation was founded on, then it can and should be changed, albeit with great care.

You haven't read a lot of my posts it seems. Repealing the 16th means that the FairTax can be implemented which is the only tax system I approve of. I left out mentioning it so I wouldn't derail the topic.



I blame the southern colonies. They were steadfast about keeping their slaves when the colonies only had a couple months to scrape together their militias into a formidable army. The Continental congress decided to just put the topic off until after the revolution. A majority of the founding fathers recognized the hypocrisy in fighting for freedom while denying other men theirs.

I know I'm a bit of a "constitution worshiper" but, people throw "rights" around too freely. "I have a right to drive a vehicle!" "I have a right to own a house (regardless if they can afford or maintain it). "I have a right to free health care at the expense of others" instead of "I have a right to receive medical care". This is why I choose to just "stay" with the original ten. People don't understand what is really means to have "rights". To me, a right is something you are willing to die to protect. I'll gladly trade my life to ensure everybody rights to assemble, speech, etc.

Apparently I haven't (I haven't gotten into some of the other discussions yet, but will once I know more about them). I also admit that I know very little of FairTax, I like keeping an open mind about most everything, so I will read up on it this weekend and possibly form an opinion.

On topic: To WhiteLion, or someone else that knows, I had a couple of questions from earlier regarding the opening paragraph.Also, I don't currently have much to add on the issue of the constitution.

From what I have heard they haven't figured out what to do yet. The rep won't disappear as there would be huge uproar. Nobody has ever gotten a rep and lost it. Since if they remove the Utah rep then D.C. will probably lose it's or another state will lose their rep.

So here is the clever part: Utah was already forcasted next in line to get another rep based on population projections. So what would happen is that when the next reapportionment was done, Utah would simply keep the rep(unless some catastrophe wiped out half of Utah or something), and some state in the rustbelt would lose a rep. It's not really even unfair either, since the reapportionment simply mathematically reallocates the representatives according to population change(although the fact that states cannot have less than 1 rep makes small states "overrepresented" from a mathematical perspective).



Yes, plenty of people want stupid things, unfortunately, and I think other governments have shown that having a very difficult amendment process is a good thing. I simply think that this is a case of representation in government, which is something important enough to at least consider changing the constitution over. Some strict constitutionalists have used the constitution in an argument that almost implies that giving DC a rep under any circumstances would somehow be immoral and go against the founders' wishes. I personally think that is a load of crap.

I see, that's interesting. So instead of 435 representatives, we would have 436 (437 for a short while). Which brings another question I have to this idea, why add one to Utah and D.C., why not just wait until the next reapportionment, and skip the 437 phase?