59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–52 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 2 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 

OF 2007 

MARCH 20, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY, DISSENTING, AND 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1433] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia 

as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the 

House of Representatives, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 10 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 10 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 11 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 13 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 13 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 14 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 14 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 15 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 27 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 32 

Additional Dissenting Views ................................................................................... 34 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
2 

1 H.R. 1433, 110th Cong. (2007). 

2 Rick Bress, Memorandum submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the 

Judiciary, Constitutionality of the D.C. Voting Rights Bill (March 2006). 3 Id. 

4See H.R. 1433, Sec. 2, 110th Cong. (2007). 5DC Vote, Memorandum submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the 

Judiciary, DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act (March 2006). 6Testimony on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 before the H. Comm. 

on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Prof. Viet. D. Dinh). Professor Dinh also 

points out that during 1790–1800, 1790 being the year in which Maryland and Virginia ceded 

land to the Federal Government for the creation of the capital city, and 1800 being the year 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1433, the ‘‘District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 

2007,’’ will provide the District of Columbia with full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats. 

The two-seat increase will provide a vote to the District of Columbia and a new, at-large seat through the One Hundred Twelfth 

Congress to the State next entitled to increase its congressional 

representation. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the State next 

entitled to increase its congressional representation. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Over half a million people living in the District of Columbia lack 

direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and 

Senate.1 For over 200 years, the District has been denied this voting representation in Congress—the very entity that has ultimate 

authority over all aspects of the city’s legislative, executive, and judicial functions. The United States is the only democracy in the 

world that deprives the residents of its capital city voting representation in the national legislature.2 Essentially, citizens of every 

State have a vote regarding the laws that govern the District, 

while those living in the District itself do not.3

Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay 

billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, serve on juries, and 

assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship.4 Notably, numerous District residents work for the Federal Government. Yet despite such contributions, the United States denies democracy in its 

capital while it promotes democracy abroad. Many Americans realize the great injustice of denying U.S. citizens living in the Nation’s 

capital representation in Congress. In January 2005, a national 

poll indicated that 82% of Americans believe that Washingtonians 

deserve congressional representation.5 There is no sound explanation as to why District residents have been disenfranchised since 

the District was created in 1800. 

The Constitution is completely silent on the question of congressional representation for District residents; it neither provides nor 

denies representation for them. While there is no evidence that the 

Framers intended to deny voting representation for District residents, the Framers did provide the Congress with absolute authority over the District to rectify such a problem. Professor Viet Dinh 

explains, ‘‘[t]here are no indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the Framers intended that congressional authority under 

the District Clause, extraordinary and plenary in all respects, 

would not extend also to grant District residents representation in 

Congress.’’ 6


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
3 

in which the Federal Government assumed control over the District, District residents were able 

to vote in congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia. He says, ‘‘[t]he actions of this first 

Congress, authorizing District residents to vote in congressional elections of the ceding States, 

thus demonstrate the Framers’ belief that Congress may authorize by statute representation for 

the district.’’ Id. 7 U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 8, cl. 17. 8 Common Sense Justice for the Nation’s Capital: An Examination of Proposals to Give D.C. 

Residents Direct Representation: Hearing on H.R. 5388, Before the H. Comm. on Government Reform, 108th Cong. (2004). (testimony of the Hon. Kenneth W. Starr). 9 Id. 

10 110 F.2d 246, 249 (D.C. App. 1940). 11 733 F.2d 128, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 12 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 55–56 (D.D.C. 2000). 13 Id. at 72. 

CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE

CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION TO THE DISTRICT

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17—the ‘‘District Clause’’—provides 

Congress with the authority to provide the District with full representation in the U.S. House Representatives. The District Clause 

provides: 

‘‘The Congress shall have Power . . . 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....’’ 7

Testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on 

June 23, 2004, Kenneth Starr said: 

‘‘Congress’s powers over the District are not limited to simply 

those powers that a State legislature might have over a State. 

As emphasized by the Federal courts on numerous occasions, 

the Seat of Government Clause is majestic in scope. In the 

words of the Supreme Court, ‘‘[t]he object of the grant of exclusive legislation over the [D]istrict was, therefore, national in 

the highest sense. . . . In the same article which granted the 

powers of exclusive legislation . . . are conferred all the other 

great powers which make the nation.’’ (quoting O’Donoghue v. 

United States, 289 US 516, 539–540 (1933)). And my predecessors on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals once held that 

Congress can ‘‘provide for the general welfare of citizens within 

the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation 

which it may deem conducive to that end.’’ 8

Numerous case law substantiates Starr’s claim that ‘‘the Seat of 

Government Clause is majestic in scope.’’ 9 Neild v. District of Columbia holds that the District Clause is ‘‘sweeping and inclusive in 

character.’’ 10 United States v. Cohen finds that Congress has ‘‘extraordinary and plenary power’’ over the District.11 Even in Adams 

v. Clinton, in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that District residents do not have a judicially cognizable right to congressional representation as the District is not 

a State under article I, section 2,12 the Court found that ‘‘if [the 

plaintiffs] are to obtain [relief], they must plead their cause in 

other venues.’’ 13 The court stated that counsel for defendant House 

officials acknowledged that ‘‘only congressional legislation or constitutional amendment can remedy plaintiffs’ exclusion from the 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
4 

14 Id. at 40. 15 6 U.S. 445 (1805). 16 U.S. CONST., Art. III, § 2 (emphasis added). 17This opinion in Hepburn provides the foundation for the opinion in Adams. Both courts recognized the ability of the Congress to act through legislation where the Judiciary was unable 

to act through an order. 18 6 U.S. 445, 453 (1805). 19 National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Co., 337 U.S. 582, 

589 (1949). 20 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2. 21 337 U.S. 582, 589 (1949). 22 91 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 23 411 U.S. 389 (1973). 24 Clarke v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 654 F. Supp. 712 (D.D.C. 1985), aff’d, 808 F.2d 

137 (D.C. Cir. 1987), 

franchise.’’ 14 This holding confirms that Congress is enabled, 

through the District Clause, to provide the District with congressional representation through simple legislation. 

The Supreme Court first recognized Congress’s plenary authority 

over the District in 1805. In Hepburn v. Ellzey,15 the Supreme 

Court held that diversity jurisdiction did not exist between the District and Virginia, as article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that diversity jurisdiction only exists ‘‘between citizens of different States.’’ 16 However, the Court, explaining ‘‘this is a subject 

for legislative, not for judicial consideration,’’ 17 clarified Congress’s 

authority to enact legislation extending diversity jurisdiction to the 

District.18 Congress went on to enact such a statute, which, when 

later challenged in National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District 

of Columbia v. Tidewater Co., was upheld based on Congress’s article I power to legislate for the District.19

Tidewater advances the argument that the District Clause can be 

used to grant District residents certain Constitutional rights and 

status reserved for State citizens. As such, while article I, section 

2 provides for the election of Members of the House of Representatives by the ‘‘people of the several States,’’ 20 Congress is not precluded from providing the District with the opportunity to elect a 

House Representative. Significantly, five of the concurring justices 

in Tidewater believed that the District was a State under the terms 

of the Constitution or that the Congress, through use of the District Clause, could treat the District like a State.21

Aside from diversity jurisdiction, the Congress has used its plenary authority over the District to provide the District with other 

rights and privileges afforded to the States. Congress treating the 

District as a State for purposes of alcohol regulation under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act was upheld in Milton S. Kronheim & 

Co. Inc. v. District of Columbia.22 In Palmore v. United States,23

the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s designation of the District of 

Columbia Court of Appeals as the ‘‘highest court of a State’’ for 

purposes of Supreme Court review of final judgments. Among other 

examples, the District is also treated like a State for purposes of 

affording 11th amendment immunity to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.24

CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MANDATE A

TEMPORARY AT-LARGE SEAT

Article I, § 4 of the Constitution provides: 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
5 

25 400 U.S. 112 (1970). 26 Id. at 119. 27 541 U.S. 267, 275 (2004). 28L. Paige Whitaker and Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Memorandum, Constitutionality of Congress Creating an At-Large Seat for a Member of Congress’’

(June 5, 2006) at 1–2. 29 2 U.S.C. 2(c) 30See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1864). 31 Id. at 18. 32L. Paige Whitaker and Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Memorandum, Constitutionality of Congress Creating an At-Large Seat for a Member of Congress’’

(June 5, 2006) at 4. 

the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by 

Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places 

of [choosing] Senators. 

In interpreting article I, the Supreme Court has determined that 

the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to regulate national elections. In Oregon v. Mitchell,25 Justice Black wrote, ‘‘[i]n 

the very beginning the responsibility of the States for setting the 

qualifications of voters in congressional elections was made subject 

to the power of Congress to make or alter such regulations, if it 

deemed advisable to do so.’’ 26 In 2004, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, Justice 

Scalia noted that, ‘‘article I, § 4, while leaving in State legislatures 

the initial power to draw districts for Federal elections, permitted 

Congress to ‘make or alter’ those districts if it wished.’’ 27

Given this broad authority to regulate Federal elections, Congress has the ability to mandate that Utah’s fourth seat be an atlarge seat through the year 2012. The congressional Research Service (CRS) finds that ‘‘Congress has ultimate authority over most aspects of the congressional election process’’ and that ‘‘congressional 

power is at its most broad in the case of House elections.’’ 28 As 

such, Congress has the constitutional authority to temporarily 

mandate an at-large seat for Utah, notwithstanding the general 

statutory requirement in 2 U.S.C. 2(c) that Members run from single-member districts rather than at-large districts.29

Additionally, a temporary at-large seat in Utah is consistent with 

the ‘‘one person, one vote’’ principal. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

held that the U.S. Constitution requires that each congressional 

district in a State contain equal population.30 The Court has held 

that article I, § 2 of the Constitution requires that ‘‘as nearly as is 

practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be 

worth as much as another’s.’’ 31 In Utah, all voters will have the 

opportunity to vote both for a candidate to represent his or her congressional district and a candidate to represent the State at-large, 

‘‘thereby comporting with the one person, one vote principle.’’ 32

HEARINGS

The full Committee on the Judiciary held 1 day of hearings on 

H.R. 1433 on March 14, 2007. Testimony was received from Viet 

D. Dinh, former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy 

at the U.S. Department of Justice; Bruce Spiva, Chair of the Board 

of DC Vote; Rick Bress, Partner in the Washington, DC office of 

Latham & Watkins; and Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at 

George Washington University. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
6 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 15, 2007, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1433 favorably reported, by a vote of 21 to 13, 

a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1433. 

1. An amendment offered by Mr. Smith, providing for expedited 

judicial review and explicit standing for Members of Congress. The 

amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 19. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 15 19 

2. An amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to amend an 

amendment offered by Mr. Cannon, requiring Utah to redistrict 

into four single-member districts. The amendment failed by a vote 

of 14 to 20. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
7 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 14 20 

3. An amendment offered by Mr. Cannon, permitting Utah to redistrict before 2012. The amendment failed by a vote of 8 to 26. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
8 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 8 26 

4. Amendment #A offered by Mr. Gohmert, as amended by an 

amendment offered by Mr. Franks, delaying the seating of Members elected pursuant to the legislation until the One Hundred and 

Thirteenth Congress. The amendment failed by a vote of 10 to 24. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
9 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 10 24 

5. Amendment #1 offered by Mr. Gohmert, expanding the total 

number of congressional districts by classifying military reservations with populations greater than 10,000 as separate congressional districts. The amendment failed by a vote of 3 to 31. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 3 31 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
10 

H.R. 1433, was ordered favorably reported by a vote of 21 to 13. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner ............................................................................................ X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 21 13 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
11 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1433, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, March 16, 2007. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford (for 

federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, and Melissa 

Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 

225–3220. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Lamar S. Smith. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1433—District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1433 would expand the number of Members in the House 

of Representatives from 435 to 437 during the 110th Congress. The 

legislation would provide the District of Columbia with one Representative and add one new at-large Member (after a special election). Under H.R. 1433, the new at-large seat would initially be assigned to the state of Utah and then would be reallocated based on 

the next Congressional apportionment following the 2010 census. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 

spending by about $200,000 in 2008 and by about $2.5 million over 

the 2008–2017 period. In addition, implementing the bill would 

have discretionary costs of about $1 million in 2008 and about $9 

million over the 2008–2012 period, assuming the availability of the 

appropriated funds. 

H.R. 1433 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 

that the costs would not be significant and would not exceed the 

threshold established in UMRA ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates 

as defined in UMRA. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
12 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1433 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2008, that Utah will hold a special election before or early in the second session of the 110th Congress, 

and that spending will follow historical patterns for Congressional 

office spending. 

The legislation would permanently expand the number of Members in the House of Representatives by two to 437 Members. The 

new representatives would take office on the same day. One new 

Member would represent the District of Columbia and the other 

would be a Representative at-large for the state of Utah until the 

next apportionment based on the 2010 census. The District of Columbia currently has a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives and would not hold a special election. H.R. 1433 would 

establish voting representation for the conversion of the District’s 

delegate to Representative and would not add significant costs 

since the position is already funded with the same salary and administrative support as other Representatives. 

Direct Spending 

Enacting H.R. 1433 would increase direct spending for the salary 

and associated benefits for the new at-large Representative. CBO 

estimates that the increase in direct spending for the Congressional 

salary and benefits would be about $2.5 million over the 2008–2017 

period. That estimate assumes that the current Congressional salary of $165,200 would be adjusted for inflation. With benefits, the 

2008 cost would be about $200,000. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGCBO1433.eps
13 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

Based on the current administrative and expense allowances 

available for Members and other typical Congressional office costs, 

CBO estimates that the addition of a new Member would cost 

about $1 million in fiscal year 2008 and about $9 million over the 

2008–2012 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

H.R. 1433 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

UMRA because it would temporarily preempt laws in the state of 

Utah that govern the election of Members of the House of Representatives. The bill would require the state to elect an additional 

Member of the House using a statewide election. The state may derive benefits from having an additional Member of the House of 

Representatives. However, Utah could incur some costs to hold a 

special election in 2007 or 2008 and would incur small marginal 

costs to elect the additional Member through the 2010 election 

cycle. CBO estimates that those costs would not be significant and 

would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($66 million 

in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation.) 

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The legislation contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE

On March 16, 2007, CBO also provided a cost estimate for H.R. 

1433 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform on March 13, 2007. The two versions of 

the bill are similar, and our cost estimates are the same. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford (226–2860) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 

(225–3220) 

Impact on the Private-Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226–2940) 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Peter H. Fontaine 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1433, will provide the District of Columbia with full representation in the U.S. 

House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution and article I, section 4, clause 1. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
14 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 1433 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title. This section designates the short title of 

the bill as the ‘‘District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 

2007.’’

Section 2. Findings. This section notes that the citizens of the 

District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the U.S. 

Senate and House of Representatives. It notes that District Citizens have served in every war since the War of Independence and 

that they pay Federal taxes. This section also notes that the Nation 

is founded on principles of ‘‘one person, one vote’’ and ‘‘government 

by the consent of the governed.’’

Section 3. Treatment of District of Columbia as Congressional 

District. This section establishes that the District of Columbia shall 

be considered a congressional district for purposes of representation 

in the House of Representatives. It clarifies that the District remains entitled to three Presidential electors as required by the 

23rd Amendment. It makes conforming amendments at various 

places in the U.S. Code where the current language mentions congressional districts in States, adding ‘‘the District of Columbia.’’

Section 4. Permanent Increase in the Membership of House Representatives. This section provides that, effective for the 110th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the size of the Congress shall 

be increased by two Members. One seat would be designated for 

the District of Columbia, and the other seat would go to Utah, the 

State next in line under the 2000 Census apportionment formula. 

The section also requires that the new seat established in Utah 

shall be an at-large seat that shall exist through the 112th Congress, the period prior to elections for redrawn seats pursuant to 

the 2012 reapportionment. 

Section 5. Repeal of the Office of the District of Columbia Delegate. The section repeals the Office of the District of Columbia Delegate and makes conforming amendments. 

Section 6. Repeal of Office of Statehood Representative. This section eliminates the Office of Statehood Representative, but leaves 

intact the Office of Statehood Senator. This section also makes appropriate conforming amendments. 

Section 7. Nonseverability of Provisions. This section ensures that 

should any section of this bill be struck down, all sections will be 

vacated. The carefully crafted balance is an essential part of this 

legislation. Any result that would grant a seat to the District and 

not Utah, or vice versa, would be counter to Congress’s intent. 

Therefore, no provision of this legislation should be effective unless 

all provisions are effective. No provision of the bill should be enjoined without the entire bill being so enjoined. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
15 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1929 

AN ACT To provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to 

provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress. 

SEC. 22. (a) On the first day, or within one week thereafter, of 

the first regular session of the Eighty-second Congress and of each 

fifth Congress thereafter, the President shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each 

State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population, 

and the number of Representatives to which each State would be 

entitled under an apportionment of øthe then existing number of 

Representatives¿ the number of Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred Tenth Congress by the method known as 

the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one 

Member. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) This section shall apply with respect to the District of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a State, except 

that the District of Columbia may not receive more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members. 

SECTION 3 OF TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE 

NUMBER OF ELECTORS

§ 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law 

entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be 

chosen øcome into office;¿ come into office (subject to the twentythird article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

in the case of the District of Columbia); except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall 

be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and 

Representatives. 

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Army 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
16 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution 

(a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last day of 

the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection (j). Subject 

to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, nominated by 

the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District 

of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 

through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the State, or in 

the congressional district, from which he is nominated, or in øthe 

District of Columbia,¿ Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, or the 

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 6954. Midshipmen: number 

(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen (determined for any year as of the day before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed 

by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h). Subject to that 

limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) Five from the District of Columbia, nominated by the 

Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of 

Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

§ 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission 

(a) * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
17 

(b) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 

through (9) of section 6954(a) of this title must be domiciled in the 

State, or in the congressional district, from which he is nominated, 

or in øthe District of Columbia,¿ Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 

Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Air Force 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution 

(a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the Academy 

(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of the 

academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, nominated by 

the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District 

of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses (3) 

through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the State, or in 

the congressional district, from which he is nominated, or in øthe 

District of Columbia,¿ Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, or the 

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE ACT 

TITLE II—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE TO THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia 

Delegate Act’’. 

øDELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

øSEC. 202. (a) The people of the District of Columbia shall be 

represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate, to be 

known as the ‘‘Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
18 

District of Columbia’’, who shall be elected by the voters of the District of Columbia in accordance with the District of Columbia Election Act. The Delegate shall have a seat in the House of Representatives, with the right of debate, but not of voting, shall have all the 

privileges granted a Representative by section 6 of Article I of the 

Constitution, and shall be subject to the same restrictions and regulations as are imposed by law or rules on Representatives. The 

Delegate shall be elected to serve during each Congress. 

ø(b) No individual may hold the office of Delegate to the House 

of Representatives from the District of Columbia unless on the date 

of his election— ø(1) he is a qualified elector (as that term is defined in section 2(2) of the District of Columbia Election Act) of the District of Columbia; 

ø(2) he is at least twenty-five years of age; 

ø(3) he holds no other paid public office; and 

ø(4) he has resided in the District of Columbia continuously 

since the beginning of the three-year period ending on such 

date. 

He shall forfeit his office upon failure to maintain the qualifications 

required by this subsection.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øOTHER PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

øSEC. 204. (a) The provisions of law which appear in— ø(1) section 25 (relating to oath of office), 

ø(2) section 31 (relating to compensation), 

ø(3) section 34 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(4) section 35 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(5) section 37 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(6) section 38a (relating to compensation), 

ø(7) section 39 (relating to deductions for absence), 

ø(8) section 40 (relating to deductions for withdrawal), 

ø(9) section 40a (relating to deductions for delinquent indebtedness), 

ø(10) section 41 (relating to prohibition on allowance for 

newspapers), 

ø(11) section 42c (relating to postage allowance), 

ø(12) section 46b (relating to stationery allowance), 

ø(13) section 46b–1 (relating to stationery allowance), 

ø(14) section 46b–2 (relating to stationery allowance), 

ø(15) section 46g (relating to telephone, telegraph, and radiotelegraph allowance), 

ø(16) section 47 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(17) section 48 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(18) section 49 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(19) section 50 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(20) section 54 (relating to provision of United States Code 

Annotated or Federal Code Annotated), 

ø(21) section 60g–1 (relating to clerk hire), 

ø(22) section 60g–2(a) (relating to interns), 

ø(23) section 80 (relating to payment of compensation), 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
19 

ø(24) section 81 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(25) section 82 (relating to payment of compensation), 

ø(26) section 92 (relating to clerk hire), 

ø(27) section 92b (relating to pay of clerical assistants), 

ø(28) section 112e (relating to electrical and mechanical office equipment), 

ø(29) section 122 (relating to office space in the District of 

Columbia), and 

ø(30) section 123b (relating to use of House Recording Studio), 

of title 2 of the United States Code shall apply with respect to the 

Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply 

with respect to a Representative. The Federal Corrupt Practices 

Act and the Federal Contested Election Act shall apply with respect to the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia in the same manner and to the same extent as 

they apply with respect to a Representative. 

ø(b) Section 2106 of title 5 of the United States Code is amended 

by inserting ‘‘a Delegate from the District of Columbia,’’ immediately after ‘‘House of Representatives,’’. 

ø(c) Sections 4342(a)(5), 6954(a)(5), and 9342(a)(5) of title 10 of 

the United States Code are each amended by striking out ‘‘by the 

Commissioner of that District’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘by the 

Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia’’. 

ø(d)(1) Section 201(a) of title 18 of the United States Code is 

amended by inserting ‘‘the Delegate from the District of Columbia,’’

immediately after ‘‘Member of Congress,’’. 

ø(2) Sections 203(a)(1) and 204 of title 18 of the United States 

Code are each amended by inserting ‘‘Delegate from the District of 

Columbia, Delegate Elect from the District of Columbia,’’ immediately after ‘‘Member of Congress Elect,’’. 

ø(3) Section 203(b) of title 18 of the United States Code is 

amended by inserting ‘‘Delegate,’’ immediately after ‘‘Member,’’. 

ø(4) The last undesignated paragraph of section 591 of title 18 

of the United States Code is amended by inserting ‘‘the District of 

Columbia and’’ immediately after ‘‘includes’’. 

ø(5) Section 594 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended 

(1) by striking out ‘‘or’’ immediately after ‘‘Senate,’’, and (2) by 

striking out ‘‘Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and 

possessions’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner’’. 

ø(6) Section 595 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended 

by striking out ‘‘or Delegate or Resident Commissioner from any 

Territory or Possession’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Delegate 

from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner’’. 

ø(e) Section 11(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

1973i(c)) is amended by striking out ‘‘or Delegates or Commissioners from the territories or possessions’’ and inserting in lieu 

thereof ‘‘Delegate from the District of Columbia’’. 

ø(f) The second sentence in the second paragraph of section 7 of 

the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (D.C. Code, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
20 

sec. 25–107) is amended by striking out ‘‘the presidential election’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘any election’’.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 1—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—STATEHOOD 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INITIATIVE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART I—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—123. Call of convention; duties of convention; adoption 

of constitution; rejection of constitution; election 

of Senator and Representative. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) Following the approval of a proposed constitution by a majority of the electors voting thereon, there shall be held an election 

of candidates for the øoffices of Senator and Representative¿ office 

of Senator from the new state. Such election shall be partisan and 

shall be held at the next regularly scheduled primary and general 

elections following certification by the District of Columbia Board 

of Elections and Ethics that the proposed constitution has been approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon. In the event 

that the proposed constitution is approved by the electors at the 

general election to be held in November, 1982, the primary and 

general elections authorized by this paragraph shall be held in September, 1990, and November, 1990, respectively. 

(2) The qualifications for candidates for the øoffices of Senator 

and Representative¿ office of Senator shall conform with the provisions of Article I of the United States Constitution and the primary 

and general elections shall follow the same electoral procedures as 

provided for candidates for nonvoting Delegate of the District of Columbia in the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955, subchapter I of Chapter 10 of this title. The term of the 1st Representative elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 2, 

1991, and shall expire on January 2, 1993. The terms of the 1st 

Senators elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
21 

2, 1991, and shall expire on January 2, 1997, and January 2, 1995, 

respectively. At the initial election, the candidate for Senator receiving the highest number of votes will receive the longer term 

and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes 

will receive the shorter term. A primary and a general election to 

replace øa Representative or¿ a Senator whose term is about to expire shall be held in September and in November respectively, of 

the year preceding the year during which the term of øthe Representative or¿ the Senator expires. Each øRepresentative shall be 

elected for a 2-year term and each¿ Senator shall be elected for a 

6-year term as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. 

(3) The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics shall: 

(A) Conduct elections to fill the positions of 2 United States 

Senators øand 1 United States Representative¿; and 

* * * * * * * 

(e) A øRepresentative or¿ Senator elected pursuant to this subchapter shall be a public official as defined in § 1—1106.02(a), and 

subscribe to the oath or affirmation of office provided for in § 1—

604.08. 

(f) A øRepresentative or¿ Senator: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) A øRepresentative or¿ Senator may solicit and receive contributions to support the purposes and operations of the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s public office. A øRepresentative or¿ Senator may accept services, monies, gifts, endowments, donations, or 

bequests. A øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall establish a District 

of Columbia statehood fund in 1 or more financial institutions in 

the District of Columbia. There shall be deposited in each fund any 

gift or contribution in whatever form, and any monies not included 

in annual Congressional appropriations. A øRepresentative or¿ 

Senator is authorized to administer the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s respective fund in any manner the øRepresentative or¿ Senator deems wise and prudent, provided that the administration is 

lawful, in accordance with the fiduciary responsibilities of public office, and does not impose any financial burden on the District of 

Columbia. 

(2) Contributions may be expended for the salary, office, or other 

expenses necessary to support the purposes and operations of the 

public office of a øRepresentative or¿ Senator, however, each øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall receive compensation no greater than 

the compensation of the Chairman of the Council of the District of 

Columbia, as provided in § 1—204.03 and § 1—611.09. 

(3) Each øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall file with the Director 

of Campaign Finance a quarterly report of all contributions received and expenditures made in accordance with paragraph (1) of 

this subsection. No campaign activities related to election or reelection to the office of øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall be conducted nor shall expenditures for campaign literature or paraphernalia be authorized under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

(4) The recordkeeping requirements of subchapter I of Chapter 

11 of this title, shall apply to contributions and expenditures made 

under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
22 

(5) Upon expiration of a øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s term of 

office and where the øRepresentative or¿ Senator has not been reelected, the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s statehood fund, established in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall be 

dissolved and any excess funds shall be used to retire the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s debts for salary, office, or other expenses 

necessary to support the purposes and operation of the public office 

of the øRepresentative or¿ Senator. Any remaining funds shall be 

donated to an organization operating in the District of Columbia as 

a not-for-profit organization within the meaning of section 501(c) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, approved October 22, 1986 (100 

Stat. 2085; 26 U.S.C. 501(c)). 

(h) A øRepresentative or¿ Senator elected pursuant to subsection 

(d) of this section, shall be subject to recall pursuant to § 1—

1001.18, during the period of the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s 

service prior to the admission of the proposed new state into the 

union. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—125. Statehood Commission. 

(a) The Statehood Commission shall consist of ø27¿ 26 voting 

members appointed in the following manner: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) The United States Senators shall each appoint 1 member; 

and 

ø(6) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 member; and¿ 

ø(7)¿ (6) The Mayor, the Chairman of the Council, and the 

Councilmember whose purview the Statehood Commission 

comes within shall be non-voting members of the Commission. 

(a-1)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, members 

serving unexpired terms on August 26, 1994, may continue to serve 

until appointments or reappointments are confirmed. Appointments 

or reappointments shall be made immediately after August 26, 

1994, in the following manner: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(H) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 member for a 2 year term.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—127. Appropriations. 

There is authorized to be appropriated from the General Fund of 

the District of Columbia an amount for the salaries and office expenses of the elected representatives to the Senate øand House¿ referred to in 1—123(d) during the period of their service prior to the 

admission of the proposed new state into the union. 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
23 

PART B—HONORARIA LIMITATIONS 

§ 1—131. Application of honoraria limitations. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of 1—135, the honoraria limitations imposed by part H of subchapter I of Chapter 11 of this title 

shall apply to a Senator øor Representative¿ elected pursuant to 

1—123(d)(1), only if the salary of the Senator øor Representative¿ 

is supported by public revenues. 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM 

§ 1—135. Application of Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act. 

All provisions of the District of Columbia Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act, subchapter I of Chapter 11 of this 

title, which apply to the election of and service of the Mayor of the 

District of Columbia shall apply to persons who are candidates or 

elected to serve as United States Senators øand United States Representative¿ pursuant to this initiative. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 10. ELECTIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I. REGULATION OF ELECTIONS 

§ 1—1001.01. Election of electors. 

In the District of Columbia electors of President and Vice President of the United States, øthe Delegate to the House of Representatives,¿ the Representative in the Congress, the members of the 

Board of Education, the members of the Council of the District of 

Columbia, the Mayor and the following officials of political parties 

in the District of Columbia shall be elected as provided in this subchapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—1001.02. Definitions. 

For the purposes of this subchapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(6) The term ‘‘Delegate’’ means the Delegate to the House 

of Representatives from the District of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(13) The term ‘‘elected official’’ means the Mayor, the Chairman and members of the Council, the President and members 

of the Board of Education, øthe Delegate to Congress for the 

District of Columbia, United States Senator and Representative,¿ the Representative in the Congress, United States SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:06 Mar 21, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR052P2.XXX HR052P2

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
24 

ator, and advisory neighborhood commissioners of the District 

of Columbia. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—1001.08. Qualifications of candidates and electors; nomination and election of øDelegate¿ Representative, 

Mayor, Chairman, members of Council, and members of Board of Education; petition requirements; 

arrangement of ballot. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h)(1)(A) The øDelegate,¿ Representative in the Congress, Mayor, 

Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia and the 4 atlarge members of the Council shall be elected by the registered 

qualified electors of the District of Columbia in a general election. 

Each candidate for the office of øDelegate,¿ Representative in the 

Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, and at-large members of the Council in any general election 

shall, except as otherwise provided in subsection (j) of this section 

and 1-1001.10(d), have been elected by the registered qualified electors of the District as such candidate by the next preceding primary election. 

* * * * * * * 

(i)(1) Each individual in a primary election for candidate for the 

office of øDelegate,¿ Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the Council shall be 

nominated for any such office by a petition: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j)(1) A duly qualified candidate for the office of øDelegate,¿ Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council, or 

member of the Council, may, subject to the provisions of this subsection, be nominated directly as such a candidate for election for 

such office (including any such election to be held to fill a vacancy). 

Such person shall be nominated by petition: 

(A) * * * 

(B) In the case of a person who is a candidate for the office 

of member of the Council (other than the Chairman or an atlarge member), signed by 500 voters who are duly registered 

under 1-1001.07 in the ward from which the candidate seeks 

election; and in the case of a person who is a candidate for the 

office of øDelegate,¿ Representative in the Congress, Mayor, 

Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the Council, 

signed by duly registered voters equal in number to 1 1/2 per 

centum of the total number of registered voters in the District, 

as shown by the records of the Board as of 123 days before the 

date of such election, or by 3,000 persons duly registered under 

1-1001.07, whichever is less. No signatures on such a petition 

may be counted which have been made on such petition more 

than 123 days before the date of such election. 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
25 

§ 1—1001.10. Dates for holding elections; votes cast for President and Vice President counted as votes for presidential electors; voting hours; tie votes; filling vacancy where elected official dies, resigns, or becomes unable to serve. 

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3)(A) Except as otherwise provided in the case of special elections under this subchapter or section 206(a) of the District of Columbia Delegate Act, primary elections of each political party for 

øthe office of Delegate to the House of Representatives¿ the office 

of Representative in the Congress shall be held on the 1st Tuesday 

after the 2nd Monday in September of each even-numbered year; 

and general elections for such office shall be held on the Tuesday 

next after the 1st Monday in November of each even-numbered 

year. 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) In the event that any official, other than øDelegate,¿ 

Mayor, member of the Council, member of the Board of Education, 

or winner of a primary election for the office of øDelegate,¿ Mayor, 

or member of the Council, elected pursuant to this subchapter dies, 

resigns, or becomes unable to serve during his or her term of office 

leaving no person elected pursuant to this subchapter to serve the 

remainder of the unexpired term of office, the successor or successors to serve the remainder of the term shall be chosen pursuant 

to the rules of the duly authorized party committee, except that the 

successor shall have the qualifications required by this subchapter 

for the office. 

(2)ø(A) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Delegate before May 1 of the last year of the Delegate’s term of office,¿ 

In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in 

the Congress before May 1 of the last year of the Representative’s 

term of office, the Board shall hold a special election to fill the unexpired term. The special election shall be held on the first Tuesday that occurs more than 114 days after the date on which the 

vacancy is certified by the Board unless the Board determines that 

the vacancy could be filled more practicably in a special election 

held on the same day as the next District-wide special, primary, or 

general election that is to occur within 60 days of the date on 

which the special election would otherwise have been held under 

the provisions of this subsection. The person elected to fill the vacancy in the office of Delegate shall take office the day on which 

the Board certifies his or her election. 

ø(B) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Delegate 

on or after May 1 of the last year of the Delegate’s term of office, 

the Mayor shall appoint a successor to complete the remainder of 

the term of office.¿ 

(3) In the event of a vacancy in the office of øUnited States Representative or¿ United States Senator elected pursuant to § 1—123 

and that vacancy cannot be filled pursuant to paragraph (1) of this 

subsection, the Mayor shall appoint, with the advice and consent 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
26 

of the Council, a successor to complete the remainder of the term 

of office. 

* * * * * * * 

§1—1001.11. Recount; judicial review of election. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) If in any election for President and Vice President of the 

United States, øDelegate to the House of Representatives,¿ Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council, member of the Council, President of the Board of Education, or member 

of the Board of Education, the results certified by the Board show 

a margin of victory for a candidate that is less than one percent 

of the total votes cast for the office, the Board shall conduct a recount. The cost of a recount conducted pursuant to this paragraph 

shall not be charged to any candidate. 

* * * * * * * 

§1—1001.15. Candidacy for more than 1 office prohibited; 

multiple nominations; candidacy of officeholder for 

another office restricted. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person holding the office of Mayor, øDelegate,¿ Representative in the Congress, Chairman or member of the Council, or member of the Board of Education shall, while holding such office, be 

eligible as a candidate for any other of such offices in any primary 

or general election. In the event that said person is elected in a 

general election to the office for which he or she is a candidate, 

that person shall, within 24 hours of the date that the Board certifies said person’s election, pursuant to subsection (a)(11) of § 1- 

1001.05, either resign from the office that person currently holds 

or shall decline to accept the office for which he or she was a candidate. In the event that said person elects to resign, said resignation shall be effective not later than 24 hours before the date upon 

which that person would assume the office to which he or she has 

been elected. 

* * * * * * * 

§1—1001.17. Recall process. 

(a) The provisions of this section shall govern the recall of all 

elected officers of the District of Columbia except øthe Delegate to 

the Congress from the District of Columbia¿ the Representative in 

the Congress. 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(27) 

1 According to the last U.S. census, Utah was next in line to receive a new Member based 

on its population growth. 2 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp.2d 35, 50 (D.D.C. 2000). 3 National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). 

MINORITY VIEWS

We write to express our serious concerns regarding portions of 

H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 

2007. 

H.R. 1433 would, by statute, attempt to create a full-fledged 

Member of Congress to represent the District of Columbia. At the 

same time, it would abolish the position of Delegate for the District 

of Columbia. The bill would also grant one additional Member to 

Utah.1 The new Utah Member would serve ‘‘at-large.’’ The bill 

would also permanently increase the size of the House to include 

437 Members. The bill also contains a ‘‘non-severability’’ clause, 

such that if any of the provisions of the bill are struck down, the 

entire bill will be rendered invalid. 

What follows is a summary of what many have argued are constitutional and policy flaws in the legislation. 

Supporters of the bill claim Congress has the authority to enact 

this bill under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution 

(‘‘the District Clause’’), which states ‘‘The Congress shall have 

power . . . 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’’ However, 

that very clause would seem to spell trouble for this legislation, as 

it makes clear that D.C. is not a State, and Article I, Section 2 of 

the Constitution makes clear that ‘‘The House of Representatives 

shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the Several States ...’’ Since D.C. is not a State, it does not 

appear it can have a voting Member in the House. 

In 2000, a federal district court in D.C. itself stated ‘‘We conclude 

from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the 

apportionment of congressional representatives.’’ 2

Supporters of the bill point for precedent to a case decided by the 

Supreme Court in 1949 3 that upheld a federal law extending the 

diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases in which 

D.C. residents were parties. But as the Congressional Research 

Service stated in a recent report, ‘‘The plurality opinion [in that 

case] took pains to note the limited impact of their holding . . . 

[T]he plurality specifically limited the scope of its decision to cases 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
28 

4Kenneth R. Thomas, CRS Report to Congress, RL33824, ‘‘The Constitutionality of Awarding 

the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole’’ (January 24, 2007) at 16. 5 In 1978, Congress passed a constitutional amendment providing the District with full representation in both the House and Senate. The amendment then needed 38 of the 50 state legislatures to ratify it within seven years time. Ultimately, only 16 did so, and the amendment was 

rendered void. The following is a list of the 16 states that approved the amendment: New Jersey; Michigan; and Ohio in 1978; Minnesota; Massachusetts; Connecticut; and Wisconsin in 

1979; Maryland and Hawaii in 1980; Oregon in 1981; Maine; West Virginia; and Rhode Island 

in 1983; Iowa; Louisiana; and Delaware in 1984. 6 Jonathan Turley, ‘‘Too Clever by Half: the Unconstitutional D.C. Voting Rights Bill,’’ Roll 

Call (January 25, 2007). 

which did not involve an extension of any fundamental right,’’ 4

such as the right to vote for a Member of Congress. 

If that 1949 Supreme Court case does what proponents of the bill 

says it does, Congress would not have had to go through the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment to the States, which it 

did in 1978, that would have provided D.C. two Senators and a 

Representative. That amendment failed to get the approval of 

three-quarters of the States over seven years.5

Even conceding for purposes of argument the proponents of this 

bill’s understanding of the vast breadth of the District Clause, the 

bill would actually set a terrible precedent for civil rights, and be 

unfair to others. 

The bill provides for only one Representative for D.C. and not 

two Senators as well. As Professor Jonathan Turley has written, 

that is akin to pretending as if ‘‘allowing Rosa Parks to move to 

the middle of the bus would have been a civil rights victory.’’ 6

The bill requires us to ask what will happen in the future under 

the precedent it sets? Will future Congresses use this same authority to grant D.C. two, five, or ten or more Members, or Senators, 

when politically expedient? Will they take them back again if they 

vote the wrong way? This bill invites political gamesmanship and 

manipulation of the District’s representation. 

Further, surely if Congress can give voting rights to D.C. under 

the constitution by statute—and ignore other provisions of the Constitution in the process—then Congress can take rights away. 

Under the constitutional theory of proponents of this bill, Congress 

could, by statute, deny D.C. voters the protection from racial discrimination in voting under the Fifteenth Amendment, deny them 

the protections from discrimination in voting based on sex in the 

Nineteenth Amendment, and take away the right to vote to those 

over 18 granted by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, all under the 

‘‘plenary’’ authority of the District Clause. Again, this bill sets a 

very bad precedent by opening up the possibility of such abuses. 

This bill also arguably subjects our men and women training for 

the military at Forts around the country to unfair, unequal treatment. The very same Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which supporters of this bill say gives Congress the authority 

to grant D.C. a Member of Congress by statute, grants the very 

same authority to Congress to do the same thing for our men and 

women training for the military at Forts around the country. That 

very same clause of the Constitution states: ‘‘The Congress shall 

have power . . . to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the 

Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, 

Dockyards, and other needful Buildings;...’’ So if the District 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
29 

7 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (apportionment) (emphasis added). 

Clause grants Congress the authority to grant D.C. a voting Member by statute, then it must also grant Congress the authority to 

grant military forts their own voting Members in the House. Mr. 

Gohmert offered two amendments to make that very point at a 

time when Members of the majority party are advocating 

hamstringing the efforts of our men and women in the military. 

The bill cries out for a provision requiring expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of its provisions to make sure that, if 

the bill unconstitutionally grants D.C. a voting Member, that unconstitutional action does not go on any longer than it has to. Such 

an amendment was offered by Ranking Member Smith, but rejected on a party line vote. That amendment would simply have required expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of the provisions of H.R. 1433. The amendment’s language was substantively 

identical to the expedited judicial review provisions in the McCainFeingold campaign finance law, Public Law 107–155, which were 

employed to facilitate the Supreme Court’s expeditious review of 

that legislation. 

Opponents of that amendment claimed that an expedited review 

of the legislation would already be provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2284 

and 1253. But that is far from clear. 28 U.S.C. § 2284 only applies 

to ‘‘action[s] filed challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment of congressional district or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.’’ The creation of a new House Member to represent a non-State constitutes neither an ‘‘apportionment’’—which 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines as ‘‘the allocation of congressional 

representatives among the states based on population’’ 7—nor something relating to a ‘‘statewide legislative body.’’ Further, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1253 states that ‘‘any party may appeal to the Supreme Court 

from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.’’ However, nothing in that 

section requires the Supreme Court to ever hear the case, and absent a statutory requirement the Supreme Court retains the discretion regarding whether and when to hear a case. 

In contrast, the amendment requiring expedited judicial review 

offered by Ranking Member Smith would have required that the 

case be brought in the District of Columbia before a three-judge 

federal district court with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Most importantly, Ranking Member Smith’s amendment provided 

that ‘‘It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United 

States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.’’ The amendment also set out specific time frames within which the filings of 

notices of appeal and jurisdictional statements must be made. The 

amendment also provided for challenges to the law or intervention 

by Members of Congress, just as the McCain-Feingold law provided 

for. Obviously, if the votes of Members of Congress are to be diluted by the creation of additional Members whose seats are unconVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:06 Mar 21, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR052P2.XXX HR052P2

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
30 

8 H. Rep. No. 95–886 (95th Cong., 2d Sess.) at 4. 

stitutional, such Members should have the ability to be a part of 

a legal challenge to that unconstitutional action. 

Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said in his remarks offered at the hearing on 

the bill held in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Civil Liberties, ‘‘Permit me to be blunt, I consider this Act to 

be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.’’ As Professor Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal 

challenge to this bill could produce chaos. With a relatively close 

party division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote 

subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity of untold pieces of future legislation into question. 

If the existence of either the new District Member, or the new 

Utah Member, is subject to a temporary or permanent injunction, 

a provision of the Act would not have been technically ‘‘declared or 

held invalid or unenforceable.’’ Rather, it could be enjoined for 

years on appeal, without any declaration or holding of unenforceability. By adding a district for Utah, that new seat would add another electoral vote for Utah in the presidential election. Given the 

experience of the last two presidential elections, it is possible that 

another presidential tie or one-vote margin in the Electoral College 

could be mired in litigation surrounding this very bill. 

Most people understand that the District of Columbia is not a 

state, and that the Constitution, unless amended, allows Members 

of Congress to be elected only by citizens of the several States. Congress knows a constitutional amendment is required to change 

that, and Congress passed such an amendment to the states in 

1978, but only 16 of the required 38 states ratified it. There is absolutely no reason to prolong a judicial resolution of these important issues, especially when doing so risks constitutional chaos regarding the validity of future legislation passed by the House. 

When the House Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of 

Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress, reported 

out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be 

able to do, the report accompanying that constitutional amendment 

stated the following: ‘‘If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is 

essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.’’ 8 If this committee 

does not want to take advice from its own Democratic predecessors, 

it should have at least been willing to submit the question to the 

Supreme Court on an expedited basis. 

Finally, the bill would require superimposing an at-large seat 

onto the existing three seats elected by district in Utah. In doing 

so, it would require the creation of an anomalous situation that 

this country has not seen since the development of the Supreme 

Court’s ‘‘one man, one vote’’ line of cases. In effect, under this ‘‘atlarge’’ arrangement, all voters in Utah would be able to vote for 

two Representatives—their district Representative and their atlarge Representative—whereas voters in the rest of country would 

only be able to vote for their one district Representative. This situation would result in Utah voters’ having disproportionately large 

voting power compared to voters in the other States, and it could 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
31 

make the bill even more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. 

In any case, the Utah legislature met in special session last year 

to pass a new redistricting plan to accommodate an additional 

Member into Utah’s districting map. Requiring Utah to resort to an ‘‘at-large’’ seat in the bill would require negating that effort of the 

Utah legislature. Mr. Cannon and Mr. Sensenbrenner both offered 

amendments that could have ameliorated, but not eliminated, the 

potential constitutional flaws of the legislation, but such amendments were not adopted by the Committee. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

HOWARD COBLE. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. 

BOB GOODLATTE. 

STEVE CHABOT. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 

STEVE KING. 

TOM FEENEY. 

TRENT FRANKS. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(32) 

1 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 

2 Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 286 (2003) 

DISSENTING VIEWS

I write to express my constitutional concerns regarding the atlarge provision in H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting 

Rights Act of 2007. 

Most everyone on this Committee will agree that District of Columbia residents should have representation in the House of Representatives. The question is how to achieve this goal. 

H.R. 1433 seeks to solve this problem by authorizing a new voting Member for the District of Columbia, and also a new Member 

for the State of Utah. Unfortunately, the bill provides that the new 

seat established in Utah shall be filled by a Member elected atlarge. Choosing to proceed in this manner is fraught with constitutional concerns. 

The provision of this bill that would make the additional seat in 

Utah one that would be filled at-large is problematic. Superimposing an at-large seat onto the existing three seats elected by 

district in Utah would create an anomalous situation that this 

country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court’s 

‘‘one man, one vote’’ line of cases. As Professor Turley noted during 

his testimony on the hearing for H.R. 1433, in effect, under this atlarge arrangement, all voters in Utah would be able to vote for two 

Representatives—their district Representative and their at-large 

Representative—whereas voters in the rest of country would only 

be able to vote for their one district Representative. This situation 

would result in Utah voters having disproportionately large voting 

power compared to voters in the other States. 

Ever since the ‘‘one-man, one-vote’’ doctrine was established in 

Wesberry v. Sanders,1 at-large districts have been frowned upon. 

Congress even codified it in 1967. Justice Stevens has noted, ‘‘As 

I read the 1967 statute it entirely prohibits States that have more 

than one congressional district from adopting either a multimember district or electing their Representatives in at-large elections.’’ 2

‘‘In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any 

subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative 

under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of section 22 of the Act of June 18, 1929, entitled ’An 

Act to provide for apportionment of Representatives’ (46 Stat. 26), 

as amended, there shall be established by law a number of districts 

equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so 

entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so 

established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative 

and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
33 

3Pub. L. 90–196, 81 Stat. 581 (emphasis added). 

at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first 

Congress).’’ 3

To rectify the constitutional trouble with an at-large district, last 

year the Utah legislature met in special session to approve a redistricting map adding a fourth congressional seat to the State’s delegation. This was done to assuage my concerns regarding the constitutionality of an at-large seat. Requiring Utah to resort to an atlarge seat in the bill would require negating that effort of the Utah 

legislature. I offered an amendment to remove the at-large seat 

and resort back to Utah’s map, which raises no constitutional red 

flags, but it was not adopted by the Committee. 

The Wesberry Court stated that congressional representation 

must be based on population as nearly as is practicable. H.R. 1433 

fails to meet this standard. 

In its current form, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights 

Act fails to meet the basic one-person, one-vote requirements of the 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(34) 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS

Last year, Congress passed the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act of 2006. In reauthorizing this important civil 

rights law, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held twelve hearings examining the ongoing discrimination experienced by minority 

voters in Section 5 covered jurisdictions. The Subcommittee heard 

testimony that one of the most frequently used election practices 

that has been and continues to be used by state and local jurisdictions to diminish the weight of a vote is through the use of at-large 

elections. It is ironic that the Majority now incorporates this type 

of election practice into such an important bill, rejecting efforts to 

ensure that protections provided in the Constitution are preserved. 

STEVE CHABOT. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING