U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–625 PDF 2004

COMMON SENSE JUSTICE FOR THE NATION’S

CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS TO

GIVE D.C. RESIDENTS DIRECT REPRESENTATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 23, 2004

Serial No. 108–218

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 23, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Henderson, Wade, esq., executive director, Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights; Kenneth W. Starr, former solicitor general of the United

States; former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Ilir Zherka, executive director, D.C. Vote; Walter Smith,

executive director, D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc.;

Betsy W. Werronen, chairwoman, the District of Columbia Republican

Committee; and Ted Trabue, regional vice president for District of

Columbia affairs, PEPCO; Greater Washington Board of Trade .............. 63

Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California; and Hon. Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Ohio .................................................................................. 3

Williams, Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia; and Linda W. Cropp,

chairwoman, Council of the District of Columbia ...................................... 30

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 53

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 174

Cropp, Linda W., chairwoman, Council of the District of Columbia, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 39

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 20

Henderson, Wade, esq., executive director, Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights, prepared statement of ............................................................ 67

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representative in Congress from the

District of Columbia, information concerning party planks ...................... 165

Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 12

Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 5

Smith, Walter, executive director, D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and

Justice, Inc., prepared statement of ............................................................ 92

Starr, Kenneth W., former solicitor general of the United States; former

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 77

Trabue, Ted, regional vice president for District of Columbia affairs,

PEPCO; Greater Washington Board of Trade, prepared statement of ..... 158

Werronen, Betsy W., chairwoman, the District of Columbia Republican

Committee:

Information concerning Republicans and D.C. voting rights ................. 126

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 154

Williams, Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 33

Zherka, Ilir, executive director, D.C. Vote, prepared statement of .............. 87

(1)

COMMON SENSE JUSTICE FOR THE NATION’S

CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS

TO GIVE D.C. RESIDENTS DIRECT

REPRESENTATION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays, Lewis,

Cannon, Blackburn, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Davis of Illinois, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.

Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and communications director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; Howie Denis and Jim

Moore, counsels; Robert Borden, counsel and parliamentarian; Rob

White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk;

Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Phil Barnett, minority staff director; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel;

Karen Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior policy advisor; Michelle Ash, minority senior legislative counsel; Rosalind

Parker, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean

Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office

manager.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning. I’m going to give an opening statement, and Mr. Waxman has to leave. Dana, I’m going to

go to Mr. Waxman’s statement then we’ll go to you, then I’ll give

an opening statement. Thanks for being here. I’m conscious of your

time and when Mr. Regula gets in, conscious of his. We appreciate

your being here.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to give

my opening statement before you give yours and Mr. Rohrabacher,

thank you as well.

I appreciate the fact that we’re having this hearing, unfortunately I’m going to have a conflict between the time, so I’m not

going to be able to be here for this full hearing. But I want everyone to know that I think the chairman is doing a great service by

holding this hearing. I think it’s important that we look at the

2

issue of voting rights for D.C. citizens. I am a strong supporter of

giving the District of Columbia congressional representation.

This hearing to review all the legislative proposals is an important step forward. I welcome all the discussion that will lead to

equal voting rights for District residents. We should not deny voting representation to over half a million American citizens who live

in Washington, DC, have no voting representation on national

issues considered by Congress. They have no representation on

issues of taxation or warmaking authority, foreign policy, spending

on transportation initiatives, homeland security, health and welfare and the environment. These national issues affect the people

of the District of Columbia just like they affect other people who

are our constituents around this country.

In addition, often Congress passes measures such as the recent

school voucher law, directed specifically and exclusively at D.C.

residents. Yet the residents of the District have a limited voice in

the passage. To make matters worse, laws passed by the locally

elected D.C. City Council must be sent to Congress for review. In

fact, some non-controversial items were on the House floor earlier

this week, and we were able to move them quickly. But officially,

Congress sometimes refuses to approve measures passed by the

D.C. City Council, and has even overturned citizen passed ballot

initiatives.

The residents of other local jurisdictions do not have Congress

overturning their local laws or prohibiting those laws from taking

effect in the first place. Eleanor Holmes Norton does an incredible

job for the District of Columbia. Without the ability to cast a vote

on the House floor, she has been able to achieve stunning results

for the District. However, non-voting representation is not acceptable.

I have supported her legislation to give the District of Columbia

representation in the House and the Senate, and I believe that if

we can’t do both, we ought to put out on the House floor a bill to

give the D.C. residents a vote in the House of Representatives. I

don’t think it ought to be tied with anything else. It is a matter

of great sense and consistent with our values as a Nation to give

democracy to the people of the District of Columbia. The leadership

of the House is willing to spend billions of dollars to try to bring

democracy to Iraq. Why not allow a vote on the House floor to give

the District of Columbia representation?

The only reason I’ve heard is that they’re afraid that the District

of Columbia may elect a Republican. Well, that’s not a reason to

deny people—[laughter]—I stand corrected. If they only would recognize the fact that maybe even a Republican can win in the District of Columbia. But the fact that the D.C. residents who voted

in other elections are predominantly Democratic should not be a

reason to deny them the ability to have over half a million people

get a representative in the House itself.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your efforts. I know you are

strongly committed to this equal rights for the District of Columbia, and I look forward to working with you on it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman, thank you very much.

I’m going to go right now, we have our distinguished congressional panel here, Representative Regula, Chairman Regula and

3

Chairman Rohrabacher, both chairmen of important subcommittees. And Dana, you were here first, I’ll let you start, and we’ll go

to Mr. Regula. Then we’ll go back to opening statements, then we

have the Mayor and Chairman Cropp in the next panel.

But let me just say, we appreciate both of you being here today.

You both have innovative ideas and recognize that citizens of the

city should have representation. You have innovative ideas about

how to get that, and we appreciate your sharing those thoughts

with us.

STATEMENTS OF HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND

HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you for your concern about the lack of congressional representation for the residents of our Nation’s capital. No taxation

without representation is a fundamental principle of our democratic society which since our founding has continually expanded

the voting franchise. Today, thanks to the Uniformed and Overseas

Citizens Absentee Voting Act, there is nowhere in the world that

a U.S. citizen can move to, still owing Federal income tax and lose

their rights to voting representation in the U.S. Congress, nowhere

except, of course, our Nation’s Capital, Washington, DC.

I think that virtually every Member of this body, Republican or

Democrat, who thinks about the situation would agree that it

needs to be remedied. The dispute is not over whether D.C. residents should have voting representation, but over what form that

representation should take. Naturally I believe that my own proposal, H.R. 3709, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, is the fairest and most practical of the solutions. As its

name suggests, H.R. 3709 would restore to Washington, DC, residents the same voting rights they had prior to Congress taking

them away by the passage of the Organic Act of 1801.

Under my Restoration Act, residents of our Nation’s Capital

would once again have the right to vote for, to run for, and to serve

as, Maryland’s U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives and Presidential electors. And to provide some partisan balance, the Restoration Act adopts your idea, Mr. Chairman, of providing an additional

representative for Utah. In addition to my bill, I am also submitting for your consideration legislative language that I believe will

remove the issue on Utah redistricting as an impediment to moving

forward D.C. voting rights. This language simply locks into place

until after the next census the four district map that Utah has already enacted. Since that map is understood by all sides to be a

three to one plan, it should erase the fears of the Democratic leadership that including Utah in a D.C. representation bill would provide an undue Republican advantage.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on about the details of my bill, and I

have attached questions and answers to my testimony that further

describe H.R. 3709, but that’s not what’s the most important thing

at this moment. What’s most important is to get the bipartisan

support to move a District of Columbia representation bill to the

House floor, so that alternative proposals can be considered, and so

4

that we finally can give the residents of the District of Columbia

full and fair congressional representation.

And finally, let me just note, Mr. Chairman, that I think it’s sad

that politics has gotten in the way of the voting rights of the people

of the District of Columbia. But politics and democracy so often go

together. We have to recognize that’s part of the system that we

live in. So let’s try to find a way to take care of everybody’s political

problems and let’s move forward in a way that will result in the

people of the District of Columbia finally at last receiving their

rights to vote for congressional representation and yes, and why

don’t we give them rights to vote for U.S. Senators as well? So

thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dana Rohrabacher follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dana, thank you very much. You’ve obviously given this a lot of thought. Your entire statement and the accompanying Q&A will be entered into the record. We appreciate it

very much.

Mr. Regula, thank you very much for being with us. Chairman

Regula is a veteran of the old D.C. Committee, is that correct?

Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You’re welcome to come back here and sit

any time you want.

Mr. REGULA. I have been several times.

Mr. REGULA. I’ll summarize my testimony in the interest of time.

I will say that I sat on the District of Columbia Appropriations

Committee for several years, so I have some experience with it. Basically what I’m proposing is that it be a retrocession of D.C. into

the State of Maryland from whence it came. We did a similar thing

in the case of Virginia. This would allow the city to be a city in

the State of Maryland. They therefore would be able to vote on

State legislators, they would be able to vote on two U.S. Senators,

and they’d be able to have a Congressperson representing basically

the geographical area covered by the District of Columbia.

I think there are other advantages. It would give the city access

to the State of Maryland’s educational program. That would enhance the support for education at all levels. It would give the city,

the residents of the city access to economic development programs

of the State of Maryland. It would give them access to the Highway

Department of the State of Maryland and a whole host of other

State agencies. I think in the interest of the residents, they would

be best served by this approach it, while it does give them the voting rights that they seek.

I think it’s the only practical solution. Statehood is nice to talk

about, but I don’t anticipate that it’s going to happen. By doing the

retrocession program, the residents would benefit in all the different ways I suggested.

Can it work? It works in Canada, where the city is part of the

larger area, and yet has its own identity. It works in Rome, where

the Vatican is carved out as a separate political subdivision. So I

think this has a potential for working and has a potential for giving the residents voting rights, as well as quality of life issues that

could be very helpful to them.

I’ll be glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Regula follows:]

12

13

14

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you both very much. Let me just

say, Representative Regula, you’ve been a long time supporter of

voting rights for the District. Representative Rohrabacher, you obviously put a lot of thought and hard work into this, and your staff

has, and you’re also a veteran of the D.C. Committee. I want to

give you appropriate thanks for that.

Dana, one of your interesting aspects of your plan is that it

makes Maryland election law applicable within the District for the

House and Senate elections, and you have some home rule advocates, you obviously have to sift through that, there’s a lot of

thought in the city about those. But at least you took care of the

voting representation part at the national level. Do you want to address that at all?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Home rule is addressed in this as well.

There’s no taking away home rule from the people of the District.

That’s within my legislation.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Regula, one of the issues that comes

up with yours is you’re basically retrocession except for, what

would it be, like the Mall area, is that what we’re looking at?

Mr. REGULA. Yes, it’s what we carve out, and it’s what they’ve

done in Canada, carve out the governmental portions. When I say

government, the U.S. Government. So that the areas, like along the

Mall, would be retained as Federal property, and it would be the

balance of the area that would become a city in the State of Maryland.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Interestingly, I’ve just remembered how

we got here. It was 221 years and 2 days ago that the Philadelphia

Mutiny, it was June 21, 1783—221 years ago—that the Mutiny appeared. This is when a group of pensioners from the Revolutionary

War marched on the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and it

was the local militia that were sympathetic to the pensioners. They

chased the Continental Congress across the river up into Trenton.

It was at that point they considered it a Federal city, they didn’t

want it to be under the control of any city. That’s what started

this. We missed by 2 days, the hearing today, the anniversary, the

221st anniversary of that, it was called the Philadelphia Mutiny.

Ralph, one of the interesting aspects you bring out that we have

to address is the fact that the District still has three electoral votes

in the Constitution. I was thinking we could build a condominium

in there, fill it up with our friends and we could control three electoral votes at that point. D.C. could be part of Maryland and they

could have voting representation and we could control the action

every 4 years. [Laughter.]

Mr. REGULA. I think that should be addressed.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Nothing smooth, nothing’s 100 percent

smooth.

Mr. REGULA. Alexandria, as I said, came from retrocession to Virginia.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s correct. There’s the precedent. And

as a matter of fact, Constitutionally it was never approved by the

courts. But I think by the doctrine of laches, it would stay today

if it were challenged. There are some Virginians who would like to

give it back. But I’m not sure if the city would want it. But we

don’t need to go there.

15

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The people voting, if what we’re talking

about becomes law, of course will then have the understanding that

their vote counts toward the electors in Maryland, and they actually have, they may have more influence on candidates rather than

less influence.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s right. Also, I note that from 1790

to 1800, Dana, the residents of the District of Columbia who lived

in Virginia voted with Virginia for Congress and in Maryland with

Maryland for Congress. So we have that precedent that’s consistent.

Ms. Norton, any questions?

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank both of my good friends for their

work on these two bills. I served with Mr. Rohrabacher on the old

D.C. Subcommittee, and with Mr. Regula when he was on the D.C.

Appropriations Subcommittee. These are Members, and among the

few Members, who know the District very well in all of its details,

because they have served on the committees, learned them and

both were of considerable service to our city.

As I will say, you of course have particularly in this last week

in the Congress a lot else to do in this House. But I am going to

make mention in my own opening statement for the gratitude I

think the District of Columbia residents owe you in coming forward

with bills. What we now have is a bipartisan consensus, there’s got

to be some approach. And here we’ve got three Republican bills, not

my bill alone, but three bills, and not bills that have been put in

politically, but bills by two Members who have thought deeply

about the District.

And I want it to be clear, from a Member who knows, that each

of these approaches has support in the District of Columbia. Residents of the District of Columbia have been in touch with me, and

even have come to meetings in my office. So the notion of leaping

about where District residents are is something I certainly am unwilling to do.

But the importance of these two bills is not that I have joined

these bills, I have not endorsed these bills. I am not a co-sponsor

of these new bills that have come in. But I went to the House floor

when Mr. Regula and Mr. Rohrabacher put their bills in, in order

to thank them before the full House for how they have advanced

the cause of voting rights. We will never get to voting rights unless

Republicans and Democrats sit down together and finally agree on

a bill we all can agree upon.

Therefore, the actions of these two Members who have particular

knowledge of the District of Columbia to step forward is to be

greeted, and I assure you will be greeted with great applause in

the District of Columbia. You have today in coming forward to testify here, having given your own bills already, materially and very

substantially advanced the cause of D.C. voting rights, and I want

to personally thank each of you for what you’ve done.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you.

Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I want to thank you both, two very well

respected senior Republican Members. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, when I was on the District

of Columbia Committee, Chairman Dellums was my chairman. And

16

of course, that’s when the Democratic Party controlled the House

of Representatives. Let me just note that Chairman Dellums was

very fair to me personally on that committee, and I think he handled himself in a very dignified way in that we all got our say. I’ve

been in some committees at times when I didn’t feel like I was fairly treated. But in that committee, it really was, he did a good job.

And what’s important here is that politics over the years have gotten in the way of solving this problem. And not just politics on one

side of the aisle, politics on both sides of the aisle, both parties

have been maneuvering on this issue.

Well, I think the approach that Mr. Regula and I have come up

with in both of our proposals wipes away that politics, wipes away

that problem and gives us a chance at both sides to come to a compromise that will end up giving the people of this city their rights

for representation. And so it’s about time we get on with it.

Mr. REGULA. I’d just like to comment on that. The important

thing for the young people of this community is to have access to

the finest education, as is the case throughout the Nation. I believe

that one of these approaches could enhance the educational opportunity prospectively for the people of this city.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well said. Thank you both for your time.

Thank you very much.

Before we get to our next panel, I’m going to read my opening

statement. Ms. Norton, we’ll go to yours, and I’ll allow other Members to make opening statements or include them in the record.

The District of Columbia is many things to many people. Home

to more than half a million people of diverse backgrounds, capital

of the free world, and a symbol of democracy. But perhaps most

fundamentally, it is a creature of the Constitution. The District’s

unique Constitutional status and historic evolution and the fact

that it has characteristics of a city and a State, in addition to its

Federal component, leaves us with one of the most profound democratic paradoxes of our time: how to reconcile the framer’s vision

for the Nation’s Capital with their aim to establish a republican

form of government in the new United States when the citizens of

the Federal city lacked the primary tool of democratic participation—representation in the national legislature.

For many years, I’ve acknowledged publicly that there’s an unacceptable contradiction between the democratic ideals on which this

country was founded and the District’s exclusion from true congressional representation. Let’s be real, how can you argue with a

straight face that D.C. should not have some direct congressional

representation? For more than two centuries, D.C. residents have

fought in 10 wars and paid billions of dollars in Federal taxes.

They have sacrificed and shed blood to help bring democratic freedoms to people in distant lands. But here at the symbolic apex of

democracy, they lack what is arguably the most fundamental right

of all.

For the past year and a half, my staff and I have undertaken an

intellectual and political journey to learn more about the interaction between the Constitution and the District. As we studied the

problem, the lack of direct congressional representation, we focused

on two prime requirements for any plan to be found acceptable.

First, it needed to be permissible under the Constitution. Second,

17

it needed to be politically achievable in the current political environment.

Today we want to discuss four legislative proposals for giving the

District direct representation in Congress, including my own. All of

these plans share one central characteristic. Instead of relying on

courts to find some latent Constitutional authority to force representation—which, to date, they have firmly declined to do—instead of proposing a drawn-out, dead on arrival Constitutional

amendment process, each requires Congress to take legislative action to remedy the situation, that’s what the plans before us today

do.

One of the plans we’ll hear about today requires Congress to

treat the District as a State and grant the District full representation in both the House and Senate. One would allow the people of

the District to vote with the people of the State of Maryland in

House and Senate elections. Another gives the State of Maryland

most of the District except for the central Federal core of the city.

Each of these proposals is commendable, recognizing the untenable justice of the current situation. Each reflects or illuminates

the Constitutional authority granted to Congress in the District

Clause, and each is worthy of careful study and debate.

I’m offering a fourth plan that I believe is not only Constitutionally viable but also politically feasible. Our plan is relatively

simple: treat the District as a congressional district for the purpose

of allowing the people of the District to elect a full, voting member

of the House of Representatives. Second, increase political palatability, increase the size of the House of Representatives by 2, to

437, until reapportionment for the 2012 election. My plan would

not affect the makeup of the Senate in any way, nor would it affect

the operation of the 23rd amendment that gives the District three

electoral votes in any way.

This plan is a reasonable effort to give the people of the District

fair and full representation in one House. I believe there is a sound

basis in the Constitution that Congress has the power under the

District Clause in Article I, Section 8, to provide for such representation. The District Clause itself confers extremely broad authority

over the District on Congress. Congress’ authority is ‘‘exclusive’’

and covers ‘‘all cases, whatsoever,’’ in the District.

Article I, Section 2 that establishes the House provides that

Members of the House are to be elected by the people of the several

States.’’ I believe this reference to the several States should not be

construed to preclude voting by the people of the District, but

under the authority of the District Clause to permit Congress to

allow it should Congress decide to do so. After all, at the time this

requirement was established, there was no District of Columbia,

only the people of the several States, which included people who

would become citizens of the District of Columbia.

This description of the House and the people who would vote for

House Members, when considered in conjunction with Congress’

broad authority under the District Clause, does not establish that

the framers intended to foreclose Congress’ authority to permit representation in the House of all the people of the States that would

comprise the Nation. But these considerations and others will be

18

addressed more fully by the analysis provided for the committee by

Viet Dinh.

By increasing the size of the House by two until reapportionment

for the 2012 election, we make this plan politically viable. Let’s be

blunt: I don’t feel it’s a sign of weakness in our system to have to

consider politics as part of the process. To ignore politics is to ignore the primary motivating force of governmental life up here. Political considerations are neither good nor bad, they’re simply there

and have to be dealt with.

In this situation, the current apportionment allows us to increase

the House in a balanced fashion, as we have done throughout the

Nation’s history. By adding two seats and reapportioning seats in

the House, it’s expected the other seat will fall to the next State

in line, which in this case would be Utah. It’s not unreasonable to

assume that a Republican would likely win this new seat. This is

the politically neutral approach. This is the way to take the partisan sting out of doing what is right.

And I was intrigued by Mr. Rohrabacher’s attitude and suggestion, Ms. Norton, that when we put the bill in, we redistrict Utah

as a part of this bill in a politically acceptable way. Maybe that’s

something we can look at as we move forward. These people are

thinking about this. They’re excited about this and they’re trying

to find a way around the problem. We haven’t seen that up here

for a long time on a compelling issue.

Finally, I want to point out that this sort of bill is only likely to

succeed during the middle years between reapportionment, at a

time when it’s impossible to determine accurately which States will

gain and which States will lose after the next census, in this case,

the 2010 census. We have a short period of maybe 3, 4 years where

we can do great good by giving the District full representation in

the House, and the States won’t game it, saying will they win or

lose by the District taking a 435th seat in the House away from

one State or another.

Who knows when this confluence of circumstances will occur

again? Will it take decades, will it take centuries? We may never

be able to pay so small a price to remove so large an injustice

again. Now is the time to act. Americans set the standards for democracy and democratic principles for the rest of the world. It’s our

duty and honor to set a sterling example. Failing to permit some

550,000 hard working, patriotic, tax paying residents of the Nation’s Capital to vote in Congress is so difficult to rationalize because it is, at its core, anti-democratic.

Will moving forward with any of the measures before us today

be easy? Not at all. But I have great faith in my colleagues and

their willingness to let reason prevail. We need to forge consensus

among Members with disparate views. Congress will ultimately

grant voting rights to the District of Columbia, because it’s really

no more complex than this: it’s the right thing to do.

We welcome today, and we’re pleased to hear from Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio and Representative Dana Rohrabacher.

We’re also honored in our next panel to have with us the Mayor

of Washington, DC, who has restored so much of this city, Anthony

Williams, and the Chairwoman of the Council, Linda Cropp, who

does such an able job there.

19

Finally, we’re honored to have a distinguished third panel that

I’ll introduce at the appropriate time to share their views on the

plans that have been offered. All of these witnesses have made significant sacrifices to join us today, and their presence is greatly appreciated.

I would now recognize Ms. Norton for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I begin by expressing my deep appreciation to Chairman Tom

Davis for the attention and commitment he has given to D.C. voting rights since coming to Congress. In his caucus, the chairman

has tried to achieve the return of the delegate vote in the committee of the whole by the majority. And now he has introduced his

own bill for fuller voting rights in the House.

Representative Ralph Regula, who previously served on the D.C.

Appropriations Subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 381, a bill for

full voting rights in the House and Senate. Representative Dana

Rohrabacher, who served on the old D.C. Subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 3709 for full voting rights in the House and the Senate.

District residents have consistently insisted upon equal rights in

Congress since 1801, when the 10-year transition of land donated

by Maryland and Virginia was completed. Congress took control of

the District of Columbia, and by refusing to act, stripped American

citizens living in the new capital of rights they had always enjoyed

in common with other citizens. The denial of now more than 200

years betrayed the intention of the Constitutional framers, who

were careful to leave these rights in place during the transitional

years.

My own efforts, joined by many in the House and Senate, are the

most recent of many attempts ever since to return to the original

intent of the framers. The two most important of these attempts for

the support they have received from Congress are the Statehood

bill, the New Columbia Statehood Act of 1993, and the current congressional Voting Rights bill.

In 1993, there was a historic 2 day debate on the Statehood bill

on the House floor. And in a final vote of the full House, almost

two-thirds of the Democrats and one Republican voted for the bill.

However, thereafter, the District became insolvent, and in order to

recover, turned over some State costs to the Federal Government,

making statehood impossible for now.

I then introduced the No Taxation Without Representation Act,

because whether or not the city carried all State costs, or qualified

to become a State, it contributes the second highest rate of taxes

to support our Government, and residents have fought and died in

every war, more than qualifying them for full voting rights in the

House and the Senate.

The significance of today’s hearing should not be lost, should not

be over-emphasized and should not be understated. None of the

bills before us has anything close to the necessary support in Congress, and all raise a plethora of questions to be answered. The

process we embark upon today is one of steps, not leaps. The Congress does not make great leaps. The importance of today’s hearing

is this: it represents the most important breakthrough for congressional voting rights in more than 30 years, because it marks the

first bipartisan support for D.C. congressional voting rights since

the Congress passed a voting rights amendment to give the District

of Columbia a House and two votes in the Senate.

Before us is not only my bill, the No Taxation Without Representation Act, but three other D.C. voting rights bills, filed by senior

Republicans who all enjoy great respect in the House. Considering

the recent partisan history of D.C. voting rights in the Congress,

27

with only a Democratic bill filed for years, the return of bipartisanship, even with sharply different bills, is a major step and an indispensable predicate to achieving these rights. Until now, we have

not had the consensus we have now achieved on the principle of

voting representation itself. When Members of both parties file bills

on the same subject, the underlying cause is substantially and undeniably advanced.

Some of the bills may not be as familiar as others to the general

public or to the press. But my constituents communicate regularly

with me on voting rights, and therefore I am quite aware that all

four approaches enjoy some support among D.C. residents. However, far greater exposure of all these approaches is necessary, because most residents, including most D.C. elected officials, have little more than surface knowledge of these bills, because they have

had to draw their views from a title or quick summary of a bill and

because there have been no hearings on these bills.

Today’s hearing is a good beginning to inform and educate residents and officials about what our options are. And I intend to hold

a town meeting to facilitate even deeper knowledge of all four approaches.

As immensely grateful as I am for these bills, I have not endorsed or co-sponsored any except my own. To do so at this time

would be premature. None of the sponsors suggest that these bills

are ripe, that residents are familiar with their contents or that

they do not raise fair questions that remain to be answered. D.C.

residents and elected officials are entitled to much more information that ranges from the Constitutional to the pragmatic. The

questions that may be raised about the No Taxation Without Representation Act are better known. But here is a sample of questions

about each of the three other bills. Is H.R. 381, the Retrocession

Bill, which requires Maryland to agree to the return of the District,

achievable politically or as a practical matter? Is H.R. 3709, which

treats D.C. residents as Maryland citizens for purposes of representation, Constitutional in light of the Constitutional requirement

that residents be, that members who represent a district be actual

residents of their State?

Does the House only bill continue to have one Democrat, one Republican symmetry that was the reason that it seemed politically

viable in the first place in light of the bitter redistricting battles

that recently emerged to reverse representation in several districts,

using unprecedented redistricting by the State in the middle of the

decade? To put it another way, in light of the Constitutional authority of the States alone to redistrict, without interference from

the Congress, is there a way Constitutionally to guarantee how individual members of any State legislature would vote on redistricting, and to lock in the political neutrality that is the only reason

a vote in the House only would be attractive?

I think it should be said that I have the most to gain perhaps

by winning a full House vote on my watch, a cause to which I have

devoted many waking hours. But I recognize that my primary obligation is to make sure that this option is what it appears Constitutionally and pragmatically, and to think through specifically and to

tell my constituents how such action would help D.C. residents

28

achieve the full representation in the Senate they deserve. This is

a task I am about at this very moment.

There is almost nothing I cannot do in the House, particularly

given my voting right in committee. The District’s fundamental empowerment is in the Senate. These bills are not ripe largely because there has not been an opportunity to explore the many questions they raise. Thus, Chairman Davis and I have agreed that the

best way to advance D.C. voting rights this year was with today’s

hearing to offer an opportunity to begin to look at them all. Not

surprisingly, I know of only a handful of people who are even generally familiar with these approaches, or the political realities that

dictate whether they are achievable. The reason of course is that

this is the first hearing to expose and explain them all, and we are

very grateful for this important beginning.

We believe this hearing is not only the appropriate way to begin.

A hearing on four separate bills for congressional voting rights is

in and of itself an important breakthrough in the struggle for full

representation. In opening this new and important chapter, I am

very grateful to Chairman Davis for his leadership, for his bill and

for this hearing. To my colleagues and Representatives Regula and

Rohrabacher for their bills and for their contributions to today’s

hearing, and to my good friends from the District who will be testifying today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Any other opening statements? Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.

First, I want to thank you, Chairman Davis, for your sincere commitment and long efforts to try and resolve this very important

issue. I want to just say that I fully support full voting rights for

the people of the District of Columbia, and I want to especially

thank Ms. Norton, who I know has committed all of her career to

trying to resolve this very, very important question. I think this

hearing is a very important step toward opening a renewed dialog

and conversation on this issue.

I support the proposal put forward by Ms. Norton. I think it’s the

most straightforward way for addressing this issue. I think it deals

with the principle of full voting rights for the people of the District

of Columbia, the most direct way providing voting rights in the

House and the Senate. But I do want to commend all the others

who have looked for solutions to this problem and this issue.

I would note that the proposals put forward by Mr. Regula and

Mr. Rohrabacher obviously have a direct impact on the State of

Maryland. To my knowledge, they have not received any commitment or endorsement from their former colleague and now the Governor of Maryland, Governor Ehrlich. I would note that my good

friend, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and I’m not going to

anticipate all of his testimony, but out of the four proposals, that

is one proposal that I think, of the four, suggests is the least workable of the four. Maybe there’s a way to resolve it, I don’t know.

But clearly, we need to ask the people of both Maryland and the

District of Columbia which of these approaches they prefer as we

move forward.

29

But again, I want to thank everybody who is looking for a way

to resolve this question in good faith for the efforts they’ve put forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall also

be brief.

Let me just first of all commend you for holding this hearing. I

also want to commend you and Delegate Norton for the tremendous

amount of time, energy and effort that you have put forward to try

and deal with an unresolved issue of longstanding. I have been

fully in favor of voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia since I was a child. I can remember reading history in

grammar school and wondering why people who lived in the District of Columbia did not have full voting rights.

I think I would be in total support of the proposal that has been

put forth by Delegate Norton, because what we’re talking about is

giving people their full right to empowerment. They didn’t make a

determination about how the area was carved up, where they lived.

That was decided a long, long time ago. And I think that we need

to come full circle now and extend to them the full benefit of being

a citizen of this great Nation.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman and yield back the balance of my

time.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I too want to join my colleagues in commending the

Chairman and Ms. Norton’s efforts and the efforts of other Members who have been on this issue for decades. I know that when

I was in the California State Senate, the issue came before us, and

there wasn’t a whole lot of support.

I want to state my position very clearly and very directly. I support full representation. Any American living in any area of our

country needs to have representation, voting representation in the

House and the Senate according to their numbers. The compromises keep the focus on voting rights. But I do not think that

the people who live and serve in the District of Columbia need to

be retroceded back to Maryland. No, I think that’s wrong. And I

think we can find a Constitutional way to do it.

So I support only Ms. Norton’s bill, unless there is some way to

agree that we would have amendments on it. But I really think in

today’s world, as we’re trying to spread democracy around the

globe, and impose it on other people who have a different way of

looking at government, we can only be the model. And I think

every American citizen should be represented proportionately in

Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

If there are no other opening statements, we’re going to go to our

distinguished second panel. We have the Mayor of the District of

Columbia and we have the Chairwoman of the City Council, Linda

Cropp. Will you rise with me and raise your right hands? It’s our

policy to swear you in before you testify.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

30

First of all, let me just say thank you both for the job you’re

doing. You’ve restored a lot of respect for the city, Mayor Williams,

over your tenure. We appreciate the job you’re doing, and we’re

here today in a historic hearing and eager to hear what you have

to say, both of you. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA; AND LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRWOMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mayor WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership

in bringing us all together on this historic occasion. Certainly I

want to thank our Congresswoman Norton for spearheading this

throughout her time both here in Congress and throughout her entire career, let alone her citizenship of our city.

Congresswoman Watson, thank you for being here and supporting this. You represent many of my family members out in L.A.,

and you’re a great example of how out of loss can come something

great. We all miss Congressman Dixon, but you’re doing a great job

as another friend of our city, and I thank you for that.

And my long time friend, Chris Van Hollen, thank you for your

steadfast support for our city.

This is a unique opportunity, and Council Chair and I represent

570,000 disenfranchised citizens of the United States. As we’ve

heard today, we’re citizens in every sense of the word, we die for

our country in war, we’re active in civic life, and yes, we pay taxes.

But this Nation denies us a full voice in this very body. And it’s

my firm conviction that our lack of representation should rise to

the level of personal outrage for District citizens and all Americans

who value equality and fairness.

So it’s with a sense of appreciation and pride that I sit before you

today to discuss four distinct efforts to end this injustice. It’s especially commendable that these bills have been introduced by both

Democrats and Republicans, including three senior and influential

members of the majority and the District’s own non-voting Congresswoman. That they provide a wide spectrum of alternatives for

moving toward representative democracy for our Nation’s Capital

is another indication that this issue is beginning to mature as a

slight that demands a remedy. And I credit the Members of Congress who have authored them for their efforts to put this at the

forefront of the push for human and democratic rights for District

citizens.

I would first like to commend Representative Regula and Representative Rohrabacher. Their bills offer opportunities for the District to achieve a full cohort of congressional representation. There

are variations on the theme of retrocession, although they do have

fundamental differences. One commonality of the bills is that the

District’s congressional representation would be calculated as if the

District were part of the State of Maryland. This approach could

bring full congressional representation to the District in an expedient fashion, but the approach requires much additional contemplation. Support among the people on both sides of the District line

would need to be carefully gauged and assessed. Admittedly, some

District citizens might support these proposals, since they provide

one version of a solution to non-representation.

31

However, I would be very reluctant to support any initiative that

has a potential to fragment the District’s political identity. The District is a unique political and social unit, and I’ve learned this both

through my personal experience and from reading all the various

histories of our city. It’s a unique political and social unit that cannot be commingled with the interests of Maryland or any other

State. I would imagine that Maryland residents and citizens would

also be divided, very divided on this issue. As honorable as these

intentions may be, it’s my belief that these goals are not workable

and do not provide as desirable a solution as an initiative that

would keep the District intact.

The bill introduced by you, Chairman Davis, would provide the

District with one voting Member in the House of Representatives.

Obviously this bill does not address the issue of Senate representation and does not provide a full solution to our disenfranchisement.

Nevertheless, it does move the issue forward, and I look forward

to working with the committee as it explores and attempts to resolve the outstanding Constitutional, legal, and yes, political issues

connected to this approach.

Congresswoman Norton’s bill provides, I think, the most comprehensive solution to our disenfranchisement, insofar as it provides representation for the District in both the House and the

Senate. Admittedly, this bill faces perhaps the steepest climb of the

four proposals. But as I’ve read histories of our city and certainly

the history of our country, the most ambitious options often require

the most work. I’m grateful also to Senator Joe Lieberman who

shepherded this bill through the Senate Governmental Affairs

Committee several years ago. We are deeply appreciative of that.

As I said before, each of these bills advance the cause of democracy in our city. We owe a debt of gratitude to the sponsors, as well

as a commitment to continue working together. I encourage the

Congress, as Mayor of this city, to hold other hearings and work

toward bipartisan support wherever possible. This hearing is the

beginning of what should be a spirited debate, both in this body

and across the District, on what solution should be pursued. The

bipartisan efforts here today are evidence that representation for

the District can be a voting rights issue and not a partisan one.

The United States should be a beacon around the world for the

virtues and the inclusiveness of democracy. Our city represents

that. I was particularly proud of being Mayor here today when

we’re having this bipartisan discussion of voting for the city. I was

proud of our city and the way we conducted the funeral services for

President Reagan. I got a lot of positive comments from people

across the country.

I was particularly proud a couple of weeks ago on Memorial Day

weekend, when I talked to a World War II veteran, I think he was

from Maine. He was talking about the night and day difference in

the city over the last 25 years, and how he had gone into one of

our neighborhoods, he was really impressed with the way the city

was coming back. We started talking about the lack of representation in the city. He was shocked that here in Washington, DC,

there was no representation for the citizens of this city.

I think many Americans who value this city and have pride in

this city would also be shocked at this denial of representation in,

32

as you said, Mr. Chairman, the apex of democracy in the world. I

applaud this committee for addressing this issue, and I look forward to working with you as Mayor of this city to advance this

great cause. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Williams follows:]

33

34

35

36

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Let me just also say, it’s important to note that under your leadership and Chairwoman Cropp’s and the Council, I know you all

don’t agree on everything, but you can see this city coming back.

And you have created a political atmosphere up here where we can

have an honest discussion about these issues, where the city’s reputation is now enhanced up here because of the way things are

going. We appreciate that and hope that these discussions over the

next couple of years will be fruitful and we can be productive in

bringing you some voting rights.

Chairman Cropp, thanks for being with us.

Ms. CROPP. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis and our Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congresswoman Watson

and Mr. Van Hollen. It’s a pleasure to be here with each and every

one of you. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very

important public hearing on the provisions of voting representation

in Congress for American citizens who live in the District of Columbia.

The good is that this hearing is being held today. The bad is that

in 2004, over 570,000 citizens in the District of Columbia who pay

$3 billion in Federal taxes are denied voting representation in Congress. The Council and the citizens of the District of Columbia very

much appreciate this opportunity to urge you and your colleagues

to use your power to bring to the Nation’s Capital the same democracy the United States demands of foreign governments. If democracy is good for foreign countries, is it not also good for the District

of Columbia and our citizens?

There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes granting the

citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation. Article I

Section 8 of the Constitution only provides for Congress’ authority

over the District as a Federal territory. That clause does not deny

the citizens of the Federal territory voting representation.

Throughout the world, other capitals model themselves after the

United States, except for one important matter. They recognize the

flaw in the United States model, that of disenfranchisement of a

large segment of their population. They know the importance of

granting the citizens of their Federal enclaves voting representation.

The right to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia, it continues to be unconscionable to citizens that they are

denied the basic rights held by every other citizen of the United

States, that is the Constitutional right to be represented, to have

a voice, to have a vote in the Congress of the United States. The

denial of this basic right to citizens who pay the second highest per

capita Federal income tax in this country, and who have lost more

residents in wars protecting the Nation than 20 other States, is unjust and should be rectified by Congress.

Article I Section 8 gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the

District of Columbia. We believe that this same broad jurisdiction

provides Congress with the Constitutional authority to enact a bill

to provide congressional voting rights to the District’s citizens. The

Congress and the Constitution treat the District as a State for numerous purposes; for example, housing, transportation, education.

37

Why not for the most precious and fundamental right in a free and

democratic society, the right to voting representation?

The Supreme Court, while sympathetic, has essentially stated

that it is Congress that has authority to remedy this problem. The

Council is committed to achieving full voting representation for its

citizens. The Council urges Congress to pass H.R. 1285, No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003, introduced by Congresswoman Norton, the District’s non-voting delegate to Congress, and

the Senate companion bill, S. 617, introduced by Senator Joe

Lieberman, which will grant the District’s citizens voting representation in the House and the Senate.

On behalf of the Council and the citizens of the District of Columbia, I would like to thank these two Members of Congress for

introducing legislation that would finally give District residents the

right of representation that all other citizens of the United States

have been granted. I have attached to my testimony the Council

resolution adopted in 2002 supporting these two bills.

The Council’s objective is to achieve full voting representation for

the citizens of the District. We recognize, however, that there may

be several ways to achieve this objective. Full voting representation

may be achieved in incremental steps, such as obtaining representation in one or two chambers first, then the other at a later time.

We would prefer it all to come at once.

The Council has recently adopted a resolution supporting such

an interim step. I have attached to my testimony the Council’s resolution adopted June 1, 2004, supporting the incremental approach

to achieve full voting representation, R. 15–565.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the legislation that you

have proposed that would grant full voting representation in the

House, and your comments in support of the Council’s resolution.

Full voting rights representation in the House would provide an interim first step in allowing the citizens of the District of Columbia

to have a voice in their Federal Government. Votes taken on the

House floor ultimately impact the legislation in the Senate, and

those will become law.

The Council looks forward to working with you and toward the

obtainment of representation in Congress. Again, let me be clear.

While the Council is willing to consider an interim step, our objective remains to obtain full voting representation for the citizens of

the District of Columbia. We believe that this is a right too long

denied.

The Council greatly appreciates the interest of other Members of

the Congress who have introduced or proposed legislation that

would provide some form of representation for our citizens. It’s reassuring to know that congressional Members of both parties understand the importance of and the need to correct this longstanding injustice.

Representative Regula, I want to thank him for his interest and

efforts on this very important issue for the citizens. His proposal

would cede the District back to the State of Maryland. While recognizing the origins of the land creating the District of Columbia,

I believe that the reunification of the two jurisdictions would

present many difficulties. The District has been separated from

Maryland since the early 1800’s. Since that time, institutions of

38

government, business and residential citizenship have been developed.

Also, cessation back into the State of Maryland would require redistricting that would ultimately change the political boundaries

known today as the District of Columbia and the separate counties

of Maryland. Representative Rohrabacher has introduced the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act. I want to thank Representative Rohrabacher for his understanding of this important issue and

his efforts in drafting the legislation. Again, while supporting that

and thanking him for introducing that, we think that there is another approach that would be better for the citizens of the District

of Columbia, and certainly the proposal is extremely well intended.

In order to determine the number of representatives from the

State of Maryland whose proposal would incorporate the population

of the District with the population of Maryland, the apportionment

of representatives and creation of more congressional districts

would initially be sort of hard pressed. However, I would like to

thank him for his interest in that.

We were joined earlier by young children who had come into the

chamber, and they had tee-shirts on, the Young D.C. Suffragettes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We start them early here in D.C. [Laughter.]

Ms. CROPP. That’s right, we start them early and often. We have

to because of the injustice here. But as I look at them, I can only

think that they represent thousands of other children in the District of Columbia. And quite frankly, I think they really represent,

Mr. Chairman, children in Virginia, Ms. Watson’s children in California, Mr. Van Hollen’s children in Maryland, children who we are

sending mixed messages to.

What we are saying to these children is, do as I say, but not as

I do. Because we say that we want democracy. We say that we are

sending our citizens around the world to fight for democracy. We

say to our children that the right to vote is important. We say to

our children that this country was founded on the fundamental

principle of no taxation without representation. We say to our children that democracy is important for every citizen in this country.

But we do something different.

We do to the District of Columbia and its citizens an injustice,

only because you have the power to do it. This hearing, Mr. Chairman, is about changing that injustice. We plead to the rest of the

congressional representatives to teach our children in this country

a very valuable lesson, that we mean what we say and we do it.

The power is in your hands.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cropp follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Cropp.

We’ve been joined by Representative Cannon from Utah. Chris,

thanks for joining us. Congratulations on your victory yesterday.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I have

a hearing where I am presenting a bill before the Corrections Committee in just a few minutes. Could I submit an opening statement

for the record?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, that will be put in.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon follows:]

53

54

55

56

Mr. CANNON. Thank you very much. I appreciate you holding

this hearing and your leadership on the issue. It’s a very significant issue for our committee and for the District of Columbia and

also for Utah. We appreciate that, and I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me start. Mayor Williams, Ms. Norton is obviously a very effective representative in this city, even without a vote. I can tell

you that, being here with her on the committee and everything

else. But you have no representation in the Senate, you have no

vote on the House floor. And as you look around the country and

deal with other mayors and other areas, the city is disadvantaged

to that extent, wouldn’t you say?

Mayor WILLIAMS. It clearly is. Just one example is in the health

care area. Medicaid is a big, big part of our budget. Health care is

a big, big part of our budget. The District right now is really, I

think, disadvantaged because the Medicaid formula is based on income as opposed to based on the incidence of property in your jurisdiction. We have the highest concentration of poverty in the United

States, but we don’t have a voice in the Congress in trying to reshape that formula and reshape that fundamental Federal approach to health policy.

This is one example of many. Transportation would be another

one.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And in the case of Medicaid, everybody’s

admitted they made a mistake in the formulas.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And haven’t been able to find it, and we’ve

all stood on our heads. I appreciate it, I think that’s important to

note.

Some who favor statehood for D.C., two Senators as well as a

House Member, say they can’t support a proposal that provides just

the House, that they don’t want half a loaf, that they believe it

ought to be everything or nothing. And yet, as you look at the history of voting rights in the city, it has been incremental. It started

with Presidential voting in 1960, it went to home rule, limited

home rule, the first appointed council.

How do you talk to those people and what do you say to those

people? I’d just try to say it’s been a gradual, incremental approach

through time and we’re heading in the right direction. But what do

you hear in the city on these issues?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I go by the saying, there’s an old saying, to

plan is human, to implement is divine. It’s easy to have a broad,

grand plan, and I share that plan. I believe that it is a fundamental injustice that we don’t have full representation in the Congress.

But we’re still looking, in the civil rights era, we’re still looking

for full economic empowerment, we’re still looking to vindicate civil

rights for all Americans. In other words, a step by step approach

to civil rights. We’re still looking for full vindication of voting rights

here in the Congress. It’s going to take a step by step approach

here. I support legislative autonomy, budget autonomy, a number

of measures, voting for a Congresswoman, a number of measures

that are not fully satisfactory or sufficient in themselves, but are

necessary milestones in getting us to our full destination.

57

So I reluctantly but at the same time aggressively support a step

by step approach, if that gets us to our destination.

Ms. CROPP. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add. Make no mistake,

there is no doubt that we would like to have it all. Full voting representation in the Senate and the House, we want it all.

The reality is, right now we probably won’t get it all. Our people

in the District of Columbia are starving. They are starving for democracy. We have an opportunity to get some vegetables and bread

while we’re starving, and we haven’t had anything to eat in decades. But we have an opportunity to get vegetables and some

bread.

We want that for our citizens to keep them alive so that they can

keep fighting to get the meat added to their dinner plate. That’s

the essence of it. We need to move forward so that we can stay

alive to fight the continued battle for full democracy.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. I was going to say,

my plan at least gives you a ‘‘stake’’ in the outcome, but I saw—

[laughter]—you mentioned, could you lay out more specifically

what concerns you have about the city going into Maryland and becoming—what problems does this present if the city were to ever

become a part of Maryland and be a full functioning city? Because

that’s one of the proposals.

Ms. CROPP. I think there are several problems on different front.

The District of Columbia for so long has now developed its own

identity. The State of Maryland also has its own identity. And that

is the basic problem that would happen with that.

In addition to that, I don’t think Maryland would necessarily

open its arms up to embrace the District, because it certainly

would change their political landscape tremendously. So many people have talked about politics being a reality, and that’s a very real

issue for Maryland, that their political landscape would change.

But beyond that, the District has its own identity and culture,

and we believe that we should have our own representatives.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. I certainly want to thank both Mayor Williams and

the Chair of our Council, Chairwoman Cropp, for what was really

very thoughtful testimony. I appreciate your support of my bill and

your support of the flexibility I have to have to operate in the

House of Representatives. Very tempting, if you all know Eleanor

Holmes Norton, I’ve been here for 14 years, to say, wow, I got a

House vote. But of course, the people of the District of Columbia

expect me to read between the lines, and that is what I’ve been

doing and will continue to do.

The flexibility I speak of is perhaps heralded by the way Chairman Davis himself has operated on his bill. I have worked with

Chairman Davis every step of the way and I’m going to continue

to do so. His initial bill, which I have to tell you, District residents

in large numbers put their hands up and said, we’re for commingled District residents with Maryland residents. But based on the

fact that it was a House vote, District residents may just say, I’m

for that, because that gets us there. That is not the way to operate

in the House of Representatives. Both of you have testified for example that you would not like to see that kind of commingling.

58

Now, the chairman was only operating from step one. He was

still looking at his bill. I didn’t jump up and say, oh, my goodness,

we couldn’t possibly support that. We are in no position to support

anything. We need to work with one another just as I am continuing to work with the chairman.

And just as by working with him, his initial bill was changed

substantially. It wasn’t changed substantially because of anything

I did, although we ourselves did our own study. The chairman was

continuing to work on the bill himself, and didn’t put a bill in until

just yesterday. And as with all legislation, he is of course still

working on that bill. There’s a lot of homework we’re still doing.

I want to assure everybody I’m doing homework on all these bills.

For example, there’s a lot of homework to be done in Utah. All

we know about Utah is that Utah is for another vote. Wouldn’t you

be for one? So everybody, the Democrat and the Republican from

Utah says yes, we’re for another vote and we’re certainly glad if

you get us another vote.

But the chairman has not had any opportunity to do any homework in Utah. He’s been working on his bill. So nobody knows what

the mechanics of Utah are, assuming that’s what we’re talking

about. I raise these issues, not because I believe that this bill is

not the way to proceed. On the contrary, everything I do up here

is incremental.

I have a bill that I am co-sponsor with the chairman for budget

autonomy that we hope to get out this very year which is not full

budget autonomy. But it very substantially moves us away from

where we are today and toward full budget autonomy. So I want

to be clear that I do not oppose incremental approaches. But I have

to have the flexibility to do what I do up here every day, and that

is to negotiate the best deal for the District of Columbia. And that

is what I am going to do.

I am going to work with each and every one of these Members,

including Members who have bills that I perhaps could not support

ever. I’m going to certainly continue to work with Chairman Davis,

who has always been open to changes. And I know the way the

House operates. If you continue to work with Members who agree

with you on the basic principle, you can ultimately get a bill that

will be acceptable to everybody.

We can’t do this by leaps and bounds, and we can’t do it without

knowing what is out there. And so I want everyone to understand

my position, which is certainly not one of opposing approaches that

edge up to voting rights. I do mean what I say about the Senate.

Because it is very hard for me to think of anything I can’t do in

the House except cast a vote on the House floor. That is a total insult to my constituents, a total and complete insult to my constituents.

Would that the votes were not already determined by the time

you get to the House floor. For most Democrats, a vote on the

House floor is a mere—well, we do not have a majority, for example. It doesn’t determine anything. So one of the things that I am

in the process of doing right now is not, it’s working on what many

residents want to hear, and that this is a way station. What in the

hell is that? They want to make sure it’s not a permanent station.

They want to know, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Linda Cropp, Tony

59

Williams, specifically tell us how you would make, you would use

this opportunity to in fact achieve full voting rights.

I believe that this is a question that can be answered, and I want

to invite members of the D.C. City Council, our Mayor to work with

me so that we can put this approach on the table, assuming we can

work out the considerable political difficulties raised in Utah and

even in this Congress, so that we can ask the questions that are

already beginning to be asked, and answer the questions that are

already beginning to be asked by residents.

In the meantime, I continue to, I am going to continue to work

with Chairman Davis specifically on his bill and to encourage him

on his approach and to see if we can perfect that approach, along

with the bill that I myself have introduced. I thank you both for

your work, because your work in the city has been very important

in opening the atmosphere here for Republicans and Democrats to

want to consider congressional voting rights.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Again, I want to thank the Chair. This debate, discussion and these bills are long overdue. It is my strong feeling

that the debate should have happened back when people got full

citizenship by being born in this country. Disenfranchisement of

any group cannot be justified, unless there has been a crime committed and they lose their rights. I don’t feel that the people of the

District of Columbia are full citizens because they are victimized by

the location in which they choose to live.

There is a fundamental issue here that should be debated. What

are the rights of American citizens? I mean, that’s the only thing.

I don’t think an area needs to be ceded back to another area to give

you as an American citizen the right to vote. If so, you shouldn’t

have to pay taxes here.

So I mean, we’re discussing something very fundamental here.

And to me, it’s really simple and it’s clear. I’m an ambassador,

former Ambassador, and I had to go around and represent the

United States in countries that didn’t even understand our language or understand our Government. They certainly didn’t understand what happened in November 2000. I had to tell them that

no, that’s not the way we operate.

So how do you go out as someone representing the United States

and say, a Democratic process guarantees you certain rights. But

should you live in a certain location, you are disenfranchised. What

kind of sense does that make, if it addresses the value and the

principles of democracy? There is no justification. And I’m different

from your representative, because I think that her way is the only

way. I don’t think there should be a compromise and I don’t think

it should be sequential. I don’t think you need half a loaf. I thought

we had debated that decades ago.

But by birthright, you should not be penalized by the site upon

which you chose to live. If you’re in the continental United States,

until your rights are taken away from you because you broke the

law, you should have full rights. So my question to the panel, do

you feel that there is a penalty placed on you because you chose

to live in the cradle of democracy, our Capital?

60

Ms. CROPP. There’s no doubt that there is a very severe penalty

placed on us. Ironically, someone who lives in one other State can

just decide to move the very next day. And they lose what rights

and privileges they had.

You know, you’re supposed to be able to move about this country

and have certain basic rights as you move. Isn’t it ironic that someone could move from California and in 1 day, 1 hour, 3 hour trip,

4 hour trip and all of a sudden they lose their rights and privileges

of having voting representation in the Congress of the United

States? There’s something wrong with that.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I think there clearly is a penalty by virtue of

where our citizens choose to live. It puts the city and it certainly

puts our leadership in a very untenable position, it’s a difficult position. And from the very origins of our city, 200 or so years ago,

there was a Mayor and a Council, they would all talk about voting

rights for the city. And at that time the Congress would threaten

to just pull the Federal Government out of town. They would tell

them, instead of talking about voting rights, why don’t you build

roads, then it wasn’t paving roads, it was like, take the trees off

the roads, light the streets, take care of basic business, instead of

sitting here complaining about voting rights.

This is not a new issue. This has been going on for decades and

decades and decades. And it’s still not right. It still hasn’t been

fixed.

Ms. WATERS. If I may just finish, Mr. Chairman, I just want to

say I watch every day your representative, Ms. Norton, involve herself in all issues of the committee’s province. And we all rush to

the floor to vote on budgetary items and so on, and has no voice

for you. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen wants to make a statement before he leaves.

Thanks for being here.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you, Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, for your testimony. And as

I understand both of your testimony, out of the four proposals that

are before us now, the two that involve Maryland, as I understand,

in your opinion are probably the most complicated, the most difficult to enact and at least at this point in time, the least desirable,

although obviously they involve a conversation with the people of

the District of Columbia and Maryland. Is that my understanding

of your positions?

Ms. CROPP. That’s correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. That leaves of course the proposal of

Chairman Davis and of course the legislation of Congresswoman

Norton. As I said, I strongly support the legislation put forward by

Congresswoman Norton, but I also understand that when you’re

trying to achieve a goal, sometimes you have to take steps along

the way.

So I look forward to working with Congresswoman Norton and

Chairman Davis, I think, as his proposal has also been put forth

in good faith. I want to work with her and all of you and the people

of the District of Columbia to see whether we can’t move forward

on this. I would very much like to see us get to the end game of

61

a full voting rights, as expressed in Congresswoman Norton’s proposal right away. But I look forward to working with her and all

of you to see if there isn’t some proposal that moves us in the direction just on the way to full voting rights.

I don’t know whether that’s possible. But I just want to say to

both the chairman and Ms. Norton, I look forward to working with

you to try and accomplish that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Shays.

Ms. SHAYS. Thank you. First I want to say that when I was elected, shortly after a member named Tom Davis came to Congress, I

wasn’t quite sure whether he represented Washington, DC, or

northern Virginia. [Laughter.]

Because he took such a great interest in Washington, DC, I was

very proud——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That doesn’t help me in northern Virginia,

I just wanted to let you know that. [Laughter.]

Mr. SHAYS. I was very proud that he did that, and I was very

proud he did it as a Republican. And I’m very proud of him now

for bringing this legislation forward. I would respond to Ms. Watson’s comment, because I agree with part of it, but I don’t agree

with all of it. I think it is absolutely clear that representation in

the House of Representatives needs to happen. And the best way

it can happen, we should do it. I wrestle with the whole issue of

Senatorial, whether a city-State of a half a million plus people

should have two Senators.

And we can get into an impassioned speech about that, but the

absurdity is looking at a place like California. I know California

has two representatives, but I don’t think it’s easy for someone to

have access to those two Senators from California. A little easier

if you come from a State like Delaware, or Connecticut. So we do

have that distortion, and that’s what it is.

My own view, it seems so clear to me, Virginia basically took

part of the 10 mile square and I think it’s so logical that the erst

of Washington should be part of Maryland. But that’s not going to

happen, for political reasons it’s not going to happen.

So I just want to applaud both of you for what I think your testimony is. You may agree ultimately that you need two Senators and

a representative. But you have an extraordinary representative,

Ms. Norton, who doesn’t have the legal rights that I have. Just

think what you could do when she has that capability, to be able

to stand on the floor to vote on any issue.

And to move the ball forward, to me, is absolutely essential. And

I would hope that Republicans and Democrats alike would want to

do that. Otherwise, I think we could be debating this 50 years from

now. Because the political reality is, it didn’t happen under a

Democratic President, it didn’t happen under a Republican President, it didn’t happen under a Democratic Congress, it didn’t happen under a Republican Congress. It’s going to take both parties

to get together and find a solution.

And it’s going to have to be a compromise. I’d like to know if I’ve

said anything that you find particularly objectionable in what I’ve

said, to either one of you.

62

Mayor WILLIAMS. First of all, Congressman, thank you for your

support for voting rights in the House and the general notion of

representative democracy.

I would just say, and I’m not expert, but it just seems that States

were recognized in the Union and given Senate representation on

the basis of fundamental principles of democracy, yes, with consideration of politics, yes, but also with due regard to their history

and their culture and their tradition. And Washington, whether we

like it or not, has now over 200 years developed a distinct culture

and experience and history that should be recognized. It isn’t just

a matter of, with deep, deep respect, in my mind it isn’t just a matter of politics.

Ms. CROPP. I want to thank you for your support and your understanding of receiving congressional representation. I’d like to talk

to you later on about Senate representation. And I understand the

differences.

But when you look at the District of Columbia and look at our

population and you compare it with several other States, and we

are a city-State at this point, but when you compare it with several

other States who also have Senate representation, you look at our

population, you look at our income, I think that we still, we too

should have that type of Senate representation.

When the country was developed, it wasn’t the House for the

population component of it, and my telling you about this is like

telling Noah about a flood. You know it all much better than I. But

the Senate was just to make sure that a State had, each State had

some type of equal representation, regardless of size or population.

So I would think that the District of Columbia would also fall

under that.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, but I would just say, and obviously Maryland

has to be a willing player in this. But in the end, you solve the

problem. There can be no argument that people in D.C. would not

have a voice in the Senate if they get to choose a Senator in the

State of Maryland. And that’s a fact. That’s a fact. They would get

to vote.

And so the argument that Ms. Watson makes to me is answered.

Ms. CROPP. Yes, but I’m not talking about the District going to

Maryland. I’m saying our own separate Senate.

Mr. SHAYS. I understand that. I’m talking about it going to

Maryland. But my point is, we do resolve the issue that Ms. Watson raises. You would be able to vote for both. But in the end, I

guess I would just conclude, because my light is red here, seize this

opportunity, seize it as a precious, precious opportunity. Don’t let

it get away.

Ms. CROPP. It’s our first step, and we extend our hands and join

with Members of Congress to please make this a reality.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I’m going to dismiss the panel, we have another panel to come

in. I know you have other things to do. Thank you very much for

being here. The committee will take a 2-minute recess as we move

to the next panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will hold the record open, I know we

couldn’t get every interested group who had comments before the

63

committee today to testify, but we will take testimony for the

record and submit into the record statements from other groups. I

think we’ll leave the record open for 10 days if they want to submit

them to the committee and make them part of this.

We now move to our third panel. It is a very distinguished panel

indeed. We have Wade Henderson, esq., executive director of the

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. We have the Honorable

Kenneth W. Starr, who’s a former solicitor general of the United

States, former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a partner in Kirkland and Ellis, and soon to be

dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law. Congratulations,

Judge Starr.

We have Ilir Zherka, the executive director of D.C. Vote. We have

Walter Smith, the executive director of the D.C. Appleseed Center

for Law and Justice. We have Betsy W. Werronen, who is the

chairwoman of the D.C. Republican Committee, and Ted Trabue,

who’s here on behalf of the Greater Washington Board of Trade.

Since we’re the major investigatory committee in Congress, we

swear everybody in. So if you’d rise with me and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. We’re going to start, Mr. Henderson, with you, and we’ll move on down the line. We have a button in front of you, it will turn, it will be green for 4 minutes, it

will be orange for 1 and then red. Your entire statements are without objection put into the record, so the entire statement is in the

record. To the extent you can stay within that 5 minutes, it helps

us in bringing the issues and we can move to questions.

You are a very important part of this, we appreciate your being

here. We had opportunities to hear from literally dozens of groups

and selected you to appear here before us today to answer questions. So we will start with you and move straight on down. Thank

you all very much.

STATEMENTS OF WADE HENDERSON, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS; KENNETH W. STARR, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES; FORMER JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT; ILIR ZHERKA,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. VOTE; WALTER SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND

JUSTICE, INC.; BETSY W. WERRONEN, CHAIRWOMAN, THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE; AND

TED TRABUE, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA AFFAIRS, PEPCO; GREATER WASHINGTON

BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to

the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

My name is Wade Henderson, and I am the executive director of

the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Leadership Conference is the Nation’s oldest, largest and most diverse coalition of

civil and human rights organizations. We strongly support efforts

64

to give citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the U.S. Congress. And indeed, voting rights for D.C. citizens is one of the compelling human and civil rights issues of our

time.

Now, at the outset of this hearing, I want to commend you, Mr.

Chairman, for your leadership on this important issue, which has

earned you well deserved respect on both sides of the political aisle

and all sides of the District line. I also want to thank Delegate

Norton for her longstanding and tireless effort to promote equal

rights for the residents of the District of Columbia.

The fact that there are now four house bills on the subject is a

significant and important development toward closing a gaping

hole in the fabric of American democracy. That the bills have been

introduced by Republicans and Democrats is a hopeful sign of the

return of bipartisanship that has characterized the passage of

every major civil rights law, including the 1978 amendment that

would have given the District full representation in both houses if

it had been ratified by the States.

This hearing and the debate about these bills could not be more

timely. Citizen soldiers from every State and the District of Columbia are fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them except for soldiers of the District of Columbia were represented when

Congress decided their fate in 2002, and when Congress decided

how much to spend on training, weapons, safety equipment and

medical systems, on which their lives would later depend, deciding

in effect how much their lives were worth in political terms.

We are only days away from transferring sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government, which will be responsible for holding free

elections by early next year. If and when those elections come, and

Iraqis are given a chance to elect their own leaders, they will enjoy

a right denied to hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. The leadership conference strongly believes that remedying the lack of voting rights for the District is the responsibility of Congress and

within Congress’ legislative power under Article I, Section 8 of the

Constitution. The Federal Appellate Court’s decision in Alexander

v. Daley, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001, agreed that it was

unjust to deny District residents congressional representation, and

made clear that the legislation by Congress was the appropriate

remedy.

It is deeply gratifying that we are here today to discuss how to

provide voting rights to the District, rather than whether to provide them. Now, initially, I want to turn to H.R. 1285, Delegate

Norton’s No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003. The

leadership conference has consistently supported this bill and its

predecessors as introduced in the House by Delegate Norton and in

the Senate by Senator Joe Lieberman.

Of the bills discussed today, the Norton bill is the simplest, fastest and most direct route to providing full voting representation in

Congress for residents of the District of Columbia. We believe that

it avoids many of the Constitutional problems that we will discuss

subsequently, so I want to reiterate endorsement of H.R. 1285.

Now, turning to the specific legislation that is before us today as

well, let me first address your bill, Mr. Chairman, the District of

Columbia Fairness in Representation Act [D.C. FAIR Act]. Without

65

question, the legislation would effect a positive change for the residents of the District by giving them some congressional representation. As such, it would be an improvement over the status quo. And

we commend the chairman for introducing it.

D.C. FAIR’s approach to creating voting rights for District residents is particularly creative. By simultaneously creating a second,

temporary congressional district, widely expected to go to Utah, the

legislation would likely have no immediate effect on the congressional balance of power between Republican and Democratic parties. One would hope that this would disarm those who shamelessly

oppose voting rights for District citizens for purely partisan political reasons. Now, while we appreciate that the bill is intended to

further the cause of voting rights by providing the District with a

voting Member of the House of Representatives, we must be clear

that it would not provide and equal rights for the residents of the

District, because it doesn’t include Senate representation.

We understand the chairman’s intent that the bill serve as a politically practical first step toward voting rights for the District,

however, we fear that others might use such a compromise to short

circuit efforts to provide full voting representation. Congressman

Rohrabacher’s District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act

would give District residents the right to vote in Federal elections

as citizens of Maryland. It is another creative approach to the problem, and worthy of serious consideration.

Of particular importance, the bill’s finding of fact, laying out a

case for congressional authority to provide voting representation for

District residents, is an important addition for any statute on this

subject. And we also encourage that the bill would give District

residents representation in both Houses. Now, perhaps intended as

a political tradeoff, the bill would go beyond congressional elections

and treat District residents as citizens of Maryland for the purpose

of Presidential elections. While we agree that Congress has full legislative authority to grant congressional representation to the District, we do not agree that it has the power to terminate the District’s electoral votes.

The plain language of the 23rd amendment grants electoral college participation to the District and specifically empowers Congress to enforce that grant, not terminate it. Representative Regula’s bill, the District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act, is perhaps the most drastic of the four proposals, but also the only one

with a clear statutory precedent. As the committee is aware, the

area west of the Potomac ceded to the Federal Government by

Commonwealth of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846. The

leadership conference agrees with the premise of H.R. 381, that defining a national capital service area that would be retained by the

Federal Government as the District of Columbia, all Constitutional

requirements for the District would be satisfied, leaving Congress

free to return the remainder of Washington to the State of Maryland.

Unfortunately, there is no indication at this time that the State

of Maryland or its citizens would accept the return of the District,

not that I would propose it, as a District resident. But without

question, the political and economic consequences of retrocession

would be dramatic and far-reaching for the city of Washington, the

66

State of Maryland and all the residents of both. We submit that

H.R. 381 is premature. Before it is given serious consideration in

Congress, funds should be appropriated for an in-depth study of the

economic and political consequences of retrocession, including a

survey of the residents of both Maryland and the District, to determine whether there is any support for retrocession in the city or

the State.

We are also concerned about the unintended consequences of all

three bills. Implementation of new congressional districts would require redrawing of congressional boundaries in Utah and/or Maryland. Now, we have already seen the political and legal chaos created by partisan-inspired, mid-decade redistricting schemes in

Texas and Colorado. We believe that the Texas plan is both unConstitutional and anti-democratic, and I’m deeply troubled by its potential effect on the voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities.

While clearly not intended to do so, a Federal statute requiring

redistricting, even to add a temporary House seat, would set a dangerous precedent that would surely be used as political and legal

fodder in future mid-decade redistricting. While it would not be our

first choice, if in Congress’ judgment there is no other way to pass

a bill creating voting representation for the District, we would recommend including protections against politically motivated redistricting sought by either political party. Congress could accomplish

this goal by specifically defining the new congressional district

boundaries and legislation creating the District, and by prohibiting

any mid-decade redistricting of congressional seats, other than the

initial post-census redistricting, unless specifically authorized by

Federal statute.

Absent this protection, we see no real way of going forward in

a significant way. I see my time has expired. I apologize for going

over. We think this is an important step. We commend you again

for taking the initiative to address these issues. Thank you for introducing your bill, and I think we’ve made clearly the positions of

the leadership conference on all four.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:]

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Judge Starr, thank you for being with us.

Judge STARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My comments go exclusively to the issue of the Constitutional

authority of the Congress to effect one or more changes. I will not

discuss, as I know others are, the policy, much less the political implications.

In my judgment, Congress does enjoy authority to create a seat

in the House of Representatives, fully voting seat. And the source

of authority I find in Article I, Section 8, the great powers clause

or provision of the Constitution, which then enumerates a number

of specific rights, particularly of relevance here, Clause 17, which

is worded quite broadly and quite majestically. I note that it precedes the grand necessary and proper clause, which has been authoritatively interpreted by Chief Justice John Marshall early in

the history of the Republic to grant enormous powers to the Congress of the United States.

The language is quite simple, yet very broad, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia. This is plenary power. But as Congress’ powers over the District are not limited to simply the powers that a State legislature

might possess over a State. But as emphasized by Federal courts

on numerous occasions, including the Supreme Court, the Seat of

Government clause is majestic.

In the words of the Supreme Court, ‘‘The object of the grant of

exclusive legislation over the District 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.’’ My structural point. The location

of the Seat of Government clause in a section of the Constitution

that confers broad powers on the Congress. The language I quoted

was from 1933, The O’Donoghue v. the United States.

Now, the Constitution does not speak to voting rights, and it certainly does not speak to the voting rights of those in the seat of

government. And in light of that, some textualists and indeed,

some courts, have insisted that Article I effectively disenfranchises

the District’s residents in congressional elections, barring an

amendment to the Constitution. In my view, that’s quite wrong.

Legislation to enfranchise the District’s residents presents an entirely and altogether different set of issues from those that courts

have addressed in calling into question the scope of congressional

power.

And while it’s true that the Constitution does not affirmatively

grant the right to vote in congressional elections, to District elections, it does grant Congress plenary power to govern the District’s

affairs. Thus, when we look at the entire cascade of cases over our

two centuries, the Judiciary has rightly shown considerable deference where Congress announces its considered judgment that the

District should be considered as a State for specific legislative purposes.

I cite too, Congress we now know may exercise its power to regulate commerce across the District’s borders, even though the Commerce Clause of Article I refers only to commerce among the several States. Congress may also, as we now know, bind the District

76

with a duly ratified treaty which allowed citizens of France to inherit property in the States of the Union, a decision by the Supreme Court in 1890.

An issue arose with respect to diversity jurisdiction, lawsuits between citizens of different States. And in 1949, the Supreme

Court’s decision in the Tidewater case upheld Congress’ determination that diversity jurisdiction should extend to citizens of the District of Columbia as an appropriate exercise of power under the

Seat of Government Clause. That holding confirms, I believe, what

the law has long been understood to say.

Moreover, and I set this out in my written testimony in brief

form, I believe fundamental principles of representative democracy

likewise support the extension of the franchise in this respect, and

I cite various cases including Powell v. McCormack and the U.S.

Term Limits case. In my judgment, Congress enjoys Constitutional

authority.

[The prepared statement of Judge Starr follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge Starr, thank you very much.

Mr. Zherka.

Mr. ZHERKA. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, members of

the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify at

this historic hearing on how we fulfill the promise of American democracy for people living in the Capital of the free world.

Senator Robert Dole once said the District of Columbia is not just

a plot of land full of big white buildings and people who have come

here temporarily to work for the Federal Government. Rather, it is

a home to almost three-quarters of a million people who should be

granted congressional representation, just as the citizens of our

States are.

Senator Dole and others on this committee and throughout our

history supported full voting representation in Congress for District

residents, because they understood that real people live here who

deserve to be treated like real Americans, people like Iliana Canefield, who is in the third grade, is a member of the Young Suffragists, and dreams of representing D.C. in the U.S. Senate. People

like James Davis, a native Washingtonian and recent high school

graduate, who does not understand why D.C. should only get a voting Member of the House.

People like Bruce Spiva, a partner at a law firm that handles

civil rights cases. As he fights for the rights of others, he himself

is denied the most fundamental civil right of a democracy, the right

to choose those who make our laws. People like Frank Rich, who

has lived his entire life in this great city, served this Nation in

World War II and Korea, to defend democracy, but still does not

enjoy the fruits of democracy here at home.

These people are just like the people in your districts. They play

by the rules, pay their taxes, serve our Nation in times of war, and

love this country. And yet we treat them like second class citizens,

and that is shameful.

This hearing offers hope, however, that things will change. For

this hearing is not about whether D.C. should have voting representation, but how to achieve that result. D.C. Vote strongly supports the No Taxation Without Representation bill, because that

bill leaves D.C. intact, treats D.C. like a State for purposes of representation, and provides equal representation in the House and

Senate without amending the Constitution.

Congress already treats Washington, DC, as we just heard, like

a State for purposes of Federal law and regulations. We think

that’s the right approach. But we also believe that for a bill to be

enacted, it must have bipartisan support. Unfortunately, none of

the bills we are considering today and talking about has such support thus far.

As the Congress considers how to provide, on a bipartisan basis

voting representation for D.C., we would like to offer two principles. First, be creative. Other countries with Federal cities have

solved this problem in different ways. In Australia, for example,

the two Senators representing the capital, Canberra, serve 3 year

terms rather than the 6-year term that Senators from the States

serve. Chairman Davis’ idea of adding two seats to the House is

certainly a creative approach and should be seriously considered by

all sides.

86

We believe that voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is important. We support efforts to achieve that result

and encourage others to do the same. That said, we believe that

Congress should follow a second principle: pass a bill that provides

representation in both chambers. This is a bicameral legislature,

and D.C.’s biggest disadvantage, as the Congresswoman said earlier, now is that it has absolutely no representation, voting or otherwise, in the Senate. That much change, and this Congress has

the power to change it now.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as the U.S. fights

wars and spends billions of dollars securing the rights of voting

representation for people living in Baghdad, Kabul and elsewhere,

let us also put an end to the shameful denial of voting representation for D.C. residents.

I commend you for holding this hearing and for your devotion to

ending this injustice. I look forward to working with you and the

Congress in the future, and to your questions today. Thank you

very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zherka follows:]

87

88

89

90

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Walter Smith. I have a terrible, terrible cold, so I’ll

be as brief as you probably want me to be.

Let me say at the beginning, I was one of the lawyers who

brought the lawsuit now almost 6 years ago, July 4, 1998, asking

a three judge Federal court to declare then that it was unConstitutional that citizens in the District do not now have full voting representation, and it was only by a two to one vote we didn’t get that

remedied immediately and on the spot.

But what a lot of people don’t realize is that although we lost

that case only by a two to one vote, far from saying that District

citizens should not have full voting representation, what that court

actually said was that it is unfair and inequitable and a serious

grievance that we do not have that voting right today, and it

passed the issue to the Congress. It is to your great credit, Chairman Davis, and to yours, Ms. Norton, that you are now addressing

that in the way the court invited you to do.

Let me make five quick points, please, about the issues that are

before you right now. The first is that in our view, there is no principled basis whatever, none, to continue to deny voting representation to citizens of the District. I don’t want to repeat any point anyone’s made before, but let me make one that no one has pointed

out. We see ourselves as the greatest democracy on Earth. We are

the only democracy on Earth that has a capital that denies democratic rights to the citizens of that capital. It is an international

disgrace that is so. And again, I am pleased to be part of an effort

to begin to remedy that situation.

My second point is that we fully support full voting representation for the citizens of the District. And for that reason, D.C.

Appleseed has long supported Ms. Norton’s bill.

My last three points are all legal points, and Congressman Davis,

you asked in the request that I look at these. As you know, they

are addressed in my testimony and in the memos that I attached

to it. But let me make three quick points.

First of all, we have written a number of memos, one several

years ago, some coming from the distinguished law form of Latham

and Watkins, pointing out what I hear Mr. Starr joining us in saying today, what Judge Starr has said, and I’m very pleased to hear

his analysis of the issue. The Congress, under the District Clause,

has the power to grant voting representation to citizens of the District. And I urge you to exercise that power soon.

We also think, and this is a separate point, that if in fact you

proceed on what people have been calling an interim basis, and we

like others support full voting representation, but if you proceed on

an interim basis, we do think included within the broad power

under the District Clause you have the authority to proceed by interim steps, whether it is granting voting representation in one

House or the other House or voting representation in one House

and then non-voting delegates in the other. That’s included within

the board power that you have to grant full voting representation.

My last two points have to do with the bills that talk about effectively granting us representation through Maryland. And as you

91

know from the memos we have attached, we have serious Constitutional concerns with those proposals, even though we applaud the

fact that those bills are here and represent an effort by other Members of Congress to find a bipartisan approach to at long last bring

us what we’re entitled to.

And let just quickly say two of the reasons we’re concerned about

the Maryland approach. First, and the most important one, and

Ms. Norton referred to this, under the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, only an inhabitant of any given State can represent that

State in the Congress of the United States. So that if you deemed

to treat us only as citizens of Maryland for purposes of voting, then

no one who lives in Washington, DC, can ever represent Washington, DC, in the Congress.

And that’s one of the good things that came out of the court case

that I participated in, because the court itself said that is so, and

said we’d be the only people in the country who have voting representation without any chance of being people who can actually

represent ourselves. You should not choose that route.

The other reason you shouldn’t choose that route is because we

do not think that Congress has the authority as explained in the

memo to deem citizens of one jurisdiction to be citizens of another

jurisdiction for voting purposes. That is not within the power of the

Congress.

We urge you to move forward as the remarks of all the people

here have indicated you should do. And again, we commend Chairman Davis for taking the lead in this effort.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. Werronen, thank you for being with us.

Ms. WERRONEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m Betsy Werronen, the chairwoman of the D.C. Republican

Party. Before I begin my testimony, I would just like to make a

brief aside. Our new headquarters here in the District is called the

Edward W. Brooke Leadership Center. And I think that it is very

fitting that today, when we all participate in this hearing, that

Senator Brooke is going to the White House to be presented the

Medal of Freedom by President Bush.

I’d like to say, Senator Brooke is a proud product of D.C. public

schools, of Howard University, but he had to go to Massachusetts

to be elected to the Senate.

Now, on behalf of the members of the D.C. Republican Committee, I speak in full support of voting rights for the people of the

District of Columbia in the Congress of the United States. Our Republican Party has a proud heritage in support of voting rights for

all Americans. We are proudly the party of Lincoln, and from Frederick Douglass, the former slave, abolitionist and suffrage advocate

to Everett Dirksen, who sent the first Home Rule bill to be reported to the House in over 75 years, Republicans have continued

to champion the right of all to express their most fundamental

democratic right, their vote.

The 1948 Republican platform at the insistence of our President’s

grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, contained a plank calling for

self-government and national suffrage for the Nation’s Capital. And

Republican party platforms from 1960 through 1976 supported

Home Rule and D.C. voting representation. I want to assure you

that the D.C. delegation to the Republican National Convention in

August will carry the fight for such a plank in this year’s Republican platform.

I’d like to submit for the record Nelson Rimensnyder, a congressional historian, who has done extensive work in this area, a paper

of his, Republicans and D.C. Voting Rights.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, that will be put into

the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

Ms. WERRONEN. Thank you.

I thought it was important to convey for the record the role of

the Republican Party in securing basic rights to the residents of

the District. But the right for American citizens to vote should not

be a Republican or a Democrat issue. I think the bipartisan spirit

that has been exemplified here today shows that on issues of importance to the residents of the District, we can and will work together. Having our Mayor, our Council and the local Republican

party united demonstrates how important this issue is to the people of the District, regardless of party.

Let me make several important points. I want to talk on principle first, and not really get into the specifics of the details of

achieving this. The residents of the District of Columbia are citizens of the United States. We are entitled under the Constitution

to the same rights and responsibilities as all other citizens.

District residents have uncomplainingly accepted our responsibilities, including the obligation to serve in the defense of our country

and the obligation to pay taxes, just like all other citizens. It is the

right thing to do. And today, there is simply no justification for not

granting this basic right.

Second, we recognize that there are several options for granting

District residents voting representation that they are entitled to.

But because the District of Columbia is a unique entity, set up by

our founding fathers as a Federal city, Congress can show creativity and practicality in implementing voting representation.

And as an important first step, we support fully the option of voting rights for a representative of the District in the House of Representatives. We believe this is the most achievable way to grant

our citizens their rights and honor the principles and spirit of the

Constitution. We urge you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, to

aggressively pursue the goal of full voting rights for a representative of the District to the U.S. House. We pledge to do all that we

can to help the Congress achieve it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Werronen follows:]

154

155

156

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Trabue, thank you. Last but not least.

Mr. TRABUE. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman

Norton and members of the committee. Thank you for having me

this afternoon.

For the record, my name is Ted Trabue, and I’m the regional vice

president for District of Columbia affairs at PEPCO, which is our

local electric provider. But I’m here today to speak on behalf of the

Greater Washington Board of Trade.

I find it kind of odd today to be in on this panel, because I think

I am the only native Washingtonian who has come before this committee today to speak. I’m a fourth generation Washingtonian, and

I am really happy to be a Washingtonian here—there’s another

one? Great. Glad to hear that there’s one other—to support particularly the Norton bill and the Davis proposal.

I’d like to go back a little bit, because we talked about some of

the history of the District, and I know there are a lot of interns

here in the room. My first internship was with the old House District Committee, under the chairmanship of the Honorable Charlie

Diggs. I remember some of the discussions that were going on over

25 years ago in that committee.

It saddens me that we are here over a quarter of a century later,

debating some of those very same issues. I just hope that by the

time that these young fellow native Washingtonians grow up that

we still won’t be in the midst of this debate. I am heartened today,

though, that this is not about the merits, it’s about the methodology. I think that everybody who has testified here today, and clearly as demonstrated by your leadership on this issue, you get it. You

understand. You very, very clearly understand it. We need to move

forward.

The Board of Trade is frustrated with the ongoing disenfranchisement of the District of Columbia. As the seat of our Nation’s

Government, our city has stood for over 200 years as one of the

world’s grandest and most enduring icons of democratic aspiration.

Over time, the laws passed here have validated and strengthened

the notion of equal protection and have guided our Nation’s defense

of human rights at home and abroad, and have served as a blueprint for other nations pursuing representative government.

As was noted earlier, like Canberra in Australia, Mexico City,

Brazilia, Ottawa up in Canada, were all modeled after our Nation’s

Capital. But what is unique to our circumstances is that we are

clearly denied the fundamental rights of American citizenship.

Let me speak to two of the bills that are not the table today,

H.R. 381, which talks about reunion with Maryland, and H.R.

3709, which talks about allowing District residents to vote in Maryland elections. While both bills have some historical and possibly

legal precedent, the Board of Trade finds both of them to be politically impractical. In essence, we would not like the Congress to

talk about turning the clock back 200 years in an effort to move

forward. We think that the plans that have been presented by Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis are very, very good

plans on moving forward and putting the Nation’s Capital on fair

ground with the rest of the 50 States in the United States.

157

Chairman Davis and Ms. Norton, I am conscious of the time and

your need to wrap up this hearing, so I will conclude my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trabue follows:]

158

159

160

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Judge Starr, let me start with you. I found your testimony very

powerful. What you’re saying, though, is that this is a legislative

remedy, not a judicial remedy. Because there have been a number

of suits under the clause that you discussed.

Judge STARR. That’s correct. It is Congress that enjoys the power

under Article I, again, the power is one of the specific enumerated

powers that has then been judicially interpreted to be very broad,

or as the Supreme Court has said, majestic in its scope, or plenary.

It’s Congress and not the judiciary that enjoys the power.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The fact that at the time the Constitution

was written, the District of Columbia was a part of two different

States at that point, it was created in 1790, the Constitution was

written, of course, and ratified prior to that. And then from 1790

to 1800, people who lived in the District were voting in Maryland

and Virginia for Congress for the House, because Senators were appointed at that point.

Does that add anything, or do you think the plenary power just

by itself is enough?

Judge STARR. I think the plenary power by itself is enough, but

I do believe that a court would be intrigued by that historical context; that is, that there was at the founding of the Republic enfranchisement, there was the ability to elect State legislators, for example, in addition to a Member of the House of Representatives. And

the State legislators, of course, then elected the Senate. So there

was full enfranchisement at that time, in terms of, obviously there

were other issues in terms of disqualifications on very tragic

grounds.

But those who were permitted to vote on the basis of residency

were able to vote fully and completely. What I think a court would

take into account, or it’s certainly logical for a court to take into

account, is that as a matter of history, the ratifiers of the Constitution, as well as the drafters, simply were not contemplating this

particular specific issue. But I think covered it by virtue, again, of

the breadth of Clause 17.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. There’s just no question that the founders

never envisioned this to be a city of over a half a million people

and that voting rights would be extended to other groups. It’s a

completely different world at this point.

Judge STARR. Completely different world. And that’s why, for example, in other areas, the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court in ways in which the framers might have found odd,

such as in freedom of speech. It is now widely agreed that freedom

of speech includes symbolic speech. Yet as great a Justice as Hugo

Black would say, no, it doesn’t go that far.

Now, what’s happened is we have a fuller and richer understanding of the meaning of ‘‘freedom of speech.’’ And I think so too when

we look even at structural arrangements in the Constitution, we

have a fuller and deeper understanding, as guided here very helpfully by Supreme Court decisions that have already addressed the

issue of, can the District for purposes of specific provisions in the

Constitution be a State. And the Supreme Court has said, yes, it

can.

161

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Previous Congresses have concluded that

a Constitutional amendment was required to provide voting representation in the District. This was kind of the assumption. But

the Congress is not bound by the conclusions of previous Congresses, are they?

Judge STARR. I would certainly hope not, and it certainly has

never been the law that the Congress of the United States, elected

by the people and who in turn take an oath to uphold the Constitution are somehow bound by a possibly, if not completely erroneous

view of what the Constitution means. So there should be no freezein or lock-in effect at all, in my judgment.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Trabue, I’m curious to know if the

Board of Trade sees representation as a business issue.

Mr. TRABUE. We do see it as a business issue. Very clearly, as

you might recall, a number of years ago when we were working on

the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, that was clearly an issue

where you had the three jurisdictions, Maryland, Virginia and the

District of Columbia, having to come together, because all three of

those jurisdictions were going to have to deal with the funding on

that bridge, and therefore then have to go to Transportation Committee to get authorization for that funding.

There’s a very clear example where we would have been

strengthened in our numbers if Congresswoman Norton or if the

District had had a vote at the table. Clearly, business, transportation is a huge issue for us, and it’s clearly a business issue.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I’m going to recognize Ms. Norton, she’s

got a bill on the floor, she’s got to go. She can speak on the floor,

as you know, she can put amendments on, she just can’t vote on

her bill. But she’s going to go talk. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a bill

that’s coming up that I expect to be passed, recognizing the 40th

anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which I chaired, and thus I would

like to speak to this bill.

I’m going to quickly ask some questions right down the line, if

I can quickly go down the line. Mr. Henderson first, very thoughtful testimony and probing some of the legal issues as well. I noticed

that you said at page 5 that Congress could, might as a way to

avoid political unfairness actually itself define the new congressional district boundaries in the legislation. Of course, this is redistricting.

I wonder if you’d had an opportunity, or if anyone at the Leadership Council has had an opportunity to look closely at that as a

Constitutional matter. Redistricting must be done with a State.

Congress has power to say how many districts. Within a State, how

that is redistricted as a Constitutional matter is jealously guarded

by the States. One wonders if one could—I mean, I’d be very interested in that, since that obviously is one of the issues I have raised.

One wonders if you have yet given that to a bunch of Constitutional lawyers to look at, or whether you would agree to do so.

Mr. HENDERSON. We certainly have agreed to do so, and we will

be seeking additional advice on the interpretation of what Congress’ authority would permit under these circumstances.

162

But I think you correctly note that we observe the complications

caused by a redistricting solution appended to any bill seeking to

provide full voting representation, or even partial voting representation for District citizens. Our concern of course is that redistricting tends to be, in most jurisdictions, a political question.

Obviously Congress sought to avoid those issues with respect to

some of the particular and unique problems associated with minority voters. And the Voting Rights Act anniversary is, I think, one

of the seminal events of civil rights that we note. That anniversary

comes up next year, the Civil Rights Act anniversary is of course

occurring now. It’s only fitting that these issues are subject to discussion.

But I think the Constitutional questions raised by the redistricting aspect of other bills that are under consideration indeed require

further explanation, which is one of the cautions that we’ve cited.

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that caution in your own testimony.

Nothing is guarded more zealously within States than their right

to redistrict. The reason I would like that explored is I wonder if

Congress would ever allow a precedent whereby Congress said

that, what the redistricting would be in a given State, or whether

we could ever get that through. I raise this, because there have

been all these assumptions about pragmatic. We ought to decide

what we can get through here, and a whole bunch of people could

line up and say, or, could they. And that’s my question. Could they

then line up and say, you’re creating a precedent for Congress redistricting, and that is a no-no, at least it has been for most of our

history. It would be very important, because I think that would

help clear away one of the issues that has been raised.

Mr. Starr, I very much appreciate your testimony. As you are

perhaps aware, your testimony helps the chairman’s bill, it helps

my bill as well, because you talk about the plenary power of Congress. That is something that we have thought does exist.

I wonder if proceeding on the way Congress has decided that the

District should be considered a State, for virtually every purpose,

is it your view that Congress could have denied, if it would like,

considering the District for some purposes, or could consider the

District a State for some purposes and not other purposes? Is this

entirely a plenary power of the Congress of the United States, with

no controls whatsoever from the Constitution itself? Or is the Congress simply interpreting what it thinks the Constitution meant

when it set up a District of Columbia, that it meant for the District

of Columbia to be treated as a State for these purposes, and it’s

simply pronouncing that, and the judiciary is following what the

Congress has in fact pronounced flowing from the Constitution

itself?

Judge STARR. I would say, Congresswoman Norton, that the Congress is exercising its own judgment, reflecting upon the State of

the law as well as the development and evolution of the District

of Columbia, and is responding to that in a way that, in its virtually unfettered judgment, it is entitled to under the provision of

the Constitution that I think empowers it to make these judgments.

But it’s a judgment call, as opposed to a mandate of the Constitution as I see it, to treat the District in a particular manner.

163

In other words, the power is vested in Congress to come to a judgment at the national legislature as how to treat the District, as

most of the Constitution, driving it in one particular direction. But

a huge caveat, and that is, I do not believe that plenary power is

so unfettered that the Congress could violate other provisions of

the Constitution.

Ms. NORTON. Such as statehood, for example. I’m trying to find

the limits of this power. If in fact they can go down the line and

they have virtually gone down the line and defined us as a State

for every purpose except voting rights, you’re saying, so go to the

next step and define the District as a State for voting rights. Is

that what you’re saying?

Judge STARR. I think that’s right, that Congress can in fact move

and say, we’re going to define voting rights the District as a matter

of power, as a State, entitled to the full prerogatives of the State.

Now, I do not, I think an argument that will be mounted the other

way, if I may, and that is the 23rd amendment, of course, ratified

in 1961, which is used as an argument to the effect that Congress

does not enjoy the power, because of the sense that there needed

to be, and Mr. Henderson spoke to this, a Constitutional amendment with respect to representation as it were in the electoral college.

Now, why is that? I think the judgment was that the election of

the President is one thing that has truly, may I say, national significance, in a way that is as important as the election of any single Member of the House of Representatives to the Nation as a

whole, still the degree of importance obviously to the particular jurisdiction is extremely high. So I think as a prudential matter, the

determination was made that with respect to an issue as grand as

the election of the President of the United States, there should be

no doubt, let’s have a Constitutional amendment. That was a judgment call. I don’t think it binds you.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I’d like to say to Ms.

Werronen how much I appreciate the work you have done in the

District for congressional voting rights, and how principled you’ve

been, in fact, harking as you said in your testimony to where Republicans in our city and Republicans nationally had long been. We

were extremely disappointed that in the 2000 Republican National

Convention that the party actually removed its longstanding support for congressional voting rights.

Now, you say that you will carry a plank, I wish you would tell

us whether you are working on language for such a plank and

whether you believe, given the fact that they actually extracted voting rights, something they had always been for, what you think are

the chances of reinserting voting rights as it was before into your

platform?

Ms. WERRONEN. I will in August be, as a delegate, be a member

of the platform committee. Our full D.C. Republican Committee

just passed its own local platform, and that indeed contains a

plank on voting rights.

What we hope to do is to work with the White House and to work

with the platform committee on language that affects the District

of Columbia.

164

Ms. NORTON. We would love to have for the record what the local

party plank would be, if you would be so kind as to submit your

plank for the record.

Ms. WERRONEN. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

165

166

167

168

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate your testimony, Walter

Smith, especially given your encyclopedic knowledge of all of the

Constitutional issues involved. You indicate that you would, that

Appleseed would support the approach of one House vote only, but

only if we would support—let me just quote it. We would support

that approach only if those were in fact steps toward ultimate full

voting representation.

One of the, I have raised earlier that I am literally in the process

of trying to think through those steps. Because there’s been a lot

of lip service, almost no analytical thinking about, let’s see how

this would help us get to the next step. See, I think it is possible

to think through that issue. What is dangerous is the notion that

you don’t even have to think about it somehow, if you get there

you’re going to get to the next step.

What I’d like to know is if you have begun to think through the

issue of how getting one House, something that would be, something I would devoutly desire on my watch, would in fact help us

to get to the next House where frankly, all that the District needs

now resides, since most of what it needs here it can get.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we have thought about it, Ms. Norton. And one

of the arguments in favor, if this is how it plays out, and if you

end up supporting it, is that once you have the vote in one House,

it gives you a platform upon which to argue, a higher platform to

argue for completion of the journey, rather than doing it, as someone said before, all in one leap or one bound.

But a lot of it depends, as you’ve pointed out more than once

here this morning, in the political give and take that is going to

have to occur as you build a bipartisan consensus support for one

approach or the other.

Ms. NORTON. I would like to invite you, Mr. Smith, and

Appleseed, to help me as you have in the past to think through

those steps. Because I think they can be thought through. Virtually

everyone at the table has been helpful in thinking through such

steps before, and I think they would advance the House only proposal considerably.

I’d like to ask you, Mr. Zherka, about ground breaking work that

D.C. Vote did about voting rights and see if there has been any followup on that. I was astounded to discover that D.C. voting, that

most Americans, even most college educated Americans, did not

know that the District did not have voting rights. I wonder if D.C.

Vote has any indication of whether there’s been any improvement

in at least the knowledge of the District’s voteless status since your

poll of some years ago?

Mr. ZHERKA. We’re actually working, thank you, Congresswoman, we’re working very closely with some local foundations to

put together a proposal and a grant to achieve that goal, to poll nationally to find out if knowledge of this problem has increased. A

number of years ago there was a national poll, in 1998, that

showed that a majority of Americans didn’t even know that the

District was disenfranchised. We need to go back and figure out if

that’s changed. I suspect that it may have changed a little bit, but

probably not much.

There’s a lot of education that needs to happen. We are trying

to educate people as much as we can. We’re a small organization,

169

but we’re working together with the Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights and other groups to put together public service announcement campaign. We’d like to have, from the chairman and

from this Congress, really the freedom to give the District the freedom to spend its own money, to lobby on this issue, to educate on

this issue, and to do the work that’s necessary to support this

movement, to support measures that are being talked about up

here.

So we want to urge you, Congresswoman, and the chairman, to

as you’re thinking about this issue, also think about the lobby prohibition rider in the appropriations bill and free up the District to

engage this question and educate people.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I must say, I think we ought

to be able to get a small grant to do this. We need to know whether

or not anybody knows this except us. We really can’t move very

much in Congress unless we get some feedback from Americans

who are astounded when they learn this. And if they don’t know

it, there will be no pressure out there. So I very much appreciate

the work you’ve done in that regard.

Finally, Mr. Trabue, I wonder if you’d tell us how you operate

when you have matters involving the District of Columbia that

need, the predicate for my question is, you obviously are from the

private sector. Let me just say how much we appreciate that because the Board of Trade is regional, it has nevertheless come forward and supported D.C. voting rights. That kind of reach is very

important to us.

You represent many issues the way a business, and represent

businesses in the District of Columbia, in the same way that your

corollary organizations would represent businesses in Maryland

and Virginia, let’s say. What do you do if in fact you have a piece

of legislation that is vital, involves a District of Columbia business

matter, you have me here, how do you get that through the Senate?

Tell us the processes you use.

Mr. TRABUE. Congresswoman Norton, let me give you a closer to

home example. I work for PEPCO, as you know, and we have a

number of issues that are of very great importance to us on the

Federal level, particularly energy policy, because that directly affects our business. Although we are headquartered here in the District of Columbia, we are a Fortune 300 company. We don’t have

two Senators with whom we can directly correspond and help us

on some of these Federal matters, or matters that may come before

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

We work through national trade associations at great expense,

mind you, to the company, to the residents and businesses here in

the District of Columbia, but we have to work through national

trade associations to try to make sure that some of our views are

heard and hopefully incorporated in legislation that is moving before the Senate. So we are working at a great disadvantage. I take

my company as an example, but there are a myriad of others here

in the city who I’m sure have very similar problems and constraints.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

170

Ms. NORTON. I apologize for running out early to go to the floor.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and

the Ranking Member Norton for bringing this important issue forward.

In the interest of time, I have one question for the entire panel,

and we can start with Mr. Henderson and go down the table. Let

me preface this by saying that as a young, as a freshman member

of the Missouri Legislature in the mid-1980’s, I sponsored an

amendment to a resolution that would ratify the D.C. Voting

Rights Amendments, statehood amendment.

Of course, as we all know, only 16 out of 38 States ratified that

amendment. Almost 20 years fast forward, in your opinion, should

we continue to pursue the initiative of full statehood rights for the

District of Columbia, or do you think in a practical manner there

should be some fallback position, or should we continue to go for

two U.S. Senators as well as a voting Member in the House? And

how practical do you think that is, 20 years into the future?

Mr. HENDERSON. It’s a challenging question, Mr. Clay. First of

all, let me thank you for your years of support and leadership on

the issue of full voting representation for D.C. citizens. As a native

D.C. citizen myself, I think the issue of voting representation for

the citizens of Washington is, as I noted earlier, one of the paramount human and civil rights issues of our time.

I think the aspirations of D.C. citizens to be represented in both

Houses of Congress, to have full voting representation, a meaningful right to participate in the debates of our time, and an ability

to have an impact on the decisions that affect their lives are really

one of the controlling factors of citizenship in our country as a

whole. And I note at the real anomaly of having voting rights denied District residents while seeking to provide that for citizens of

every other part of the world. It is quite likely that the citizens of

Baghdad will have full voting representation, while the citizens of

the District of Columbia will struggle to achieve that.

Having said that, it is my view that those aspirations can’t be

squelched by political considerations that are designed to short circuit the full voting aspirations of D.C. residents. I appreciate the

interim steps that are being taken here. I appreciate the legislation

that is being proposed. I think Chairman Davis deserves true commendation for having led on this issue in the way that he’s chosen

to do it.

But I think in the final analysis, the full voting representation

of D.C. residents cannot be short-circuited by other political considerations. I will leave to others the question of what form that representation takes, but it is most important in my view that it be

provided pursuant to the Constitutional requirement of citizenship

in the United States.

My last point is this. As a D.C. resident, I support the notion of

statehood for the District of Columbia. I think it’s an important

consideration. That’s a personal view. But having said that, I think

the issue of voting representation in the full measure can be stated

in a number of ways, and I’ve stated my view on that.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response, Mr. Henderson. Mr.

Starr.

171

Judge STARR. Congressman, that’s an ultimate prudential judgment that you and others will have to make, and I’m ill equipped

to provide guidance no that. I do want to just share with you the

preamble to the Constitution, because we hear at lot and understandably about individual rights and individual liberties. But it’s

individual rights and individual liberties within a Federal republic,

that is we do not vote as a nation, we vote as inhabitants of a particular State, and the Constitution is filled with that kind of structural language.

And it begins at the very outset. It talks about the people of the

United States, but in order to form a more perfect union, and of

course that’s a union of States. So I would simply say that the Constitution reflects a seat of government, a national seat of government and without, I hope, introducing into the world of guidance

and advice, I would simply say that prudence might suggest that

it makes sense to lift up the value of individual liberty in terms

of the right to vote, without doing that which might be viewed as

enormous structural damage to our union, that is, seeking to in effect cerate a state without going through the entire Constitutional

process.

So you will have your own experience by virtue of the amendment process, and that will guide and inform your judgment as to

whether something short of an amendment is wise at this particular time.

Mr. CLAY. You don’t think we’re locked in with 100 U.S. Senators, do you? In the last 45 years, we added Alaska and Hawaii,

and then added to the numbers in the Senate.

Judge STARR. No, that’s exactly right. As I said earlier, in response to a different question, I think there is no lock-in effect

here. And again, my simple point today has been that Congress

does enjoy very broad powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

And that I think is an interesting and creative way to now think

about the issue of individual voting rights within the district.

Mr. CLAY. All right. Thank you.

Mr. ZHERKA. Congressman, to answer our question, I think clearly District residents want and deserve representation in the Congress and also control over their own lives, particularly their local

laws. One of the reasons representation is important is because of

the consistent and unwarranted interference of Congress in local

matters.

So as we look at representation, we’re looking at different options

to achieve representation. I think as we look at issues of local control, there are certainly different ways to achieve that as well.

Statehood has been one way that would certainly achieve both, but

the Congress is also looking at budget autonomy, and other issues

that deal at the local control issue.

But certainly District residents deserve control over their local

affairs, as well as representation in the House and Senate.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Clay, I think the ultimate goal has to

be full representation for citizens of the District. And I think what

we’re doing today is a step toward achieving that goal. As Mr. Henderson said, it isn’t clear exactly what the details are going to be.

172

But as long as there is a bipartisan commitment to getting there,

I think we are going to get there.

But the sea change, I think that you’re hearing here today, between now and back in the early 1980’s, when we were seeking to

get a Constitutional amendment, is I think there is a powerful argument available, and Judge Starr has made it today, that we do

not need a Constitutional amendment to get there. This can be accomplished by simple legislation. And that I believe is what the

Congress ought to be about.

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Werronen, if you would respond. My time is getting short.

Ms. WERRONEN. Congressman, we are very proud of our status

as a Federal city, and it is unique and we support at this time as

a first step full voting rights in the House of Representatives.

Mr. TRABUE. Thank you. On behalf of the Board of Trade, I

would say that the Board of Trade does support full voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia. Like many

of the panelists before us, we think this is a good first step toward

achieving that goal.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. I thank the panel for their responses.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Henderson, let me just note, you supported the 23rd amendment, and yet that wasn’t the ultimate goal, correct?

Mr. HENDERSON. Correct, Mr. Chairman. And again——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You supported the non-voting delegate,

and yet that wasn’t the ultimate goal?

Mr. HENDERSON. Supported the non-voting delegate and I think

you can point to other points along the journey that we have made

as a city with some shared State responsibilities. Again, some of

this may be determined incrementally. We have certainly supported that in the past.

And yet each stop along the way, we have reaffirmed our complete commitment for full voting rights. I think your bill today certainly precipitates a conversation about the importance of full voting rights, while at the same time making a step in the right direction on the issue of voting representation in a practical way that

deserves consideration.

So I think that the sea change that Walter Smith and others on

this panel, the fact that you have been able to achieve a bipartisan,

non-partisan approach to the important civil and human rights

issue of full voting representation shouldn’t be denied. I think the

conversation that will proceed from this point forward is one about

how we construct the legislative vehicle necessary to get the support, the 218 votes needed in the House, to get this thing enacted.

That’s a particular political question. Obviously you are in a better

position to evaluate it than we. But I think it’s an important step.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. And I would just add, I think

if the House can move through the Senate, where Senator Hatch

chairs the appropriate committee in the Senate, from Utah, is

something that would also take into consideration at this point.

Voltaire once said that he may disagree with what you say, but

he would fight to the death to defend your right to say it. A lot on

our side probably aren’t going to like the representation the District gets the first time out. But I think I would fight to the death

173

to say this is a basic right that belongs to the citizens of the District as it belongs to all American citizens.

And as I said, we’re fighting around the globe for this for people.

We ought to bring it to our Nation’s Capital. And any way we can

get it done, incrementally or whatever, we want to continue to look

at it. We want to continue to work with all of you as we develop

a plan. I’m not sure it will go necessarily in this Congress, because

we have some issues in the background that may take a little time,

but not a lot of time to resolve.

But what we are reaching is a consensus on both sides that this

is a human right that needs to be addressed. You have all added

a lot to the record today. I appreciate everyone taking their time.

The record will remain open for 10 days to other groups who

weren’t able to participate in the hearing to submit statements.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay, copies of H.R.

1285, H.R. 381, H.R. 3709, and H.R. 4640, and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

Æ