For a short period last year, there was some hope that the Constitutionally-imposed disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia might finally be brought to an end. No such luck, it seems, and now, after the recent elections, the idea of providing DC residents a voting voice in Congress again seems not just on the back burner, but off the stove entirely.
The fundamentals of this issue are clear to me: Truly how is it possible, in the United States of America, where we proclaim ourselves the ultimate small-d democrats, that we have a group of citizens who have only second-class representation in Congress?
It's unclear what the Founding Daddies might have been thinking when the Constitution was drafted and no provision for DC's representation in Congress was made. My own view is that they weren't thinking. For all the talk in that document about states, the term is never really defined, and the framers just forgot about the minor detail of people who might live in the federal District.
Regardless of what they may have been thinking, the question ought to be resolved, indeeed ought to have been resolved long ago. The reasons the problem has never been dealt with are, of course, mainly political.
Some opponents hide behind strict construction of the Constitution ("The Constitution makes us do it.") But we were able to amend the Constitution's de jure definition of slaves as only 60 percent of a "person" (as well as the subsequent reality of their de facto complete disenfranchisement after Emancipation), so we ought to be able to fix this. DC representation is more fundamental, in fact, because we can at least understand the historical developments, social attitudes, and political exigencies that caused slaves (even freed ones) to be given such short shrift, while there were no such extenuating factors relating to the District of Columbia.
The real sticking point is one of political balance, which suggests why Republicans, though not alone in opposing DC voting rights, are proportionately much more set against it: The District of Columbia is a Democratic stronghold, and Republicans naturally would prefer not to have an additional Democratic seat in the House of Representatives. It's that simple. Still, I submit that equal voting rights should trump these political considerations.
Extending that "political balance" argument are some like Congressman Darrell Issa, who will now presumably be the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who argues that representation in the House would lead inevitably to later pressures to grant the District of Columbia two seats in the Senate. My first reaction to that is, "well, big whoop!" - shouldn't that be our goal, really? After all, the District, despite its postage-stamp size, has about the same population as the state of Wyoming, which does have two Senators. And perhaps that would lead us to consider the serious and growing disparities of per capita representation in the Senate between populous states and vacant ones (see my post "U.S. Elections, One Month After" on this blog).
I think Issa is being hypocritical but OK, if that's a bridge too far, there are options: One good one is to have the people of DC vote for Senatorial candidates in Maryland, the state which contributed the territory that now forms the District of Columbia.
In any event, our failure as a democratic society to deal with DC disenfranchisement is shameful. Far from throwing in the towel, I believe advocates should capitalize on the current moment, while the shellack brush is still wet in Republican hands, to push the issue. Doesn't the Republican Party believe in one man, one vote? (Or even if they don't, will they come out publicly to say they don't?). Or are they really members of a third party, the Hypocrats? If Republicans - who now also control more state Governorships - support DC representation, and get behind a Constitutinonal amendment, it can be done. Democrats who oppose will likely fall in line, but their votes aren't needed. And there might be a silver lining for Republican support on this issue: Wouldn't it be interesting if the first elected Representative from the District of Columbia were ... gasp!! -- a Republican?
"Acey-deucey" (in my title above) is an old term for the throwing of a 1-2 combination in backgammon. There's a basic political freedom here, which shouldn't be subject to a roll of the dice. Go for it, DC.