" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

110–123 

Calendar No. 257 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING 

RIGHTS ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1257 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A VOTING SEAT AND 

THE STATE OF UTAH AN ADDITIONAL SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

DEBORAH P. PARKINSON, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMY L. HALL, Minority Professional Staff Member 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Calendar No. 257 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–123 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 

2007 

JUNE 28, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1257] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1257) to provide the District of 

Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat 

in the House of Representatives, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that 

the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

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

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 5 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 7 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 10 

VIII. Additional Views ............................................................................................ 22 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 1257 is to provide the District of Columbia 

with full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 

bill permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives from 

435 to 437 seats. The two-seat increase will provide a voting representative to the District of Columbia and a fourth seat to the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

1 Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia: 

Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th 

Cong. (2007) (testimony of Viet D. Dinh). 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia: 

Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th 

Cong. (2007) (testimony of Adrian M. Fenty). 6KRC Research, Survey conducted for DC Vote, U.S. Public Opinion on DC Voting Rights 

(January 2005). 7 Id. 

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

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

State of Utah, the next state in line to receive an additional seat 

based on the 2000 census. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

BACKGROUND

The citizens of the District of Columbia have lived without a voting representative in Congress since the federal government established the District as the nation’s capital on land ceded by Maryland and Virginia over 200 years ago.1 Although the land was 

ceded to the federal government in 1790, the District of Columbia 

was not officially established by Congress for another ten years.2

Between 1790 and 1800, residents of what would become the District were allowed through legislation to continue to vote in congressional elections in their former states.3 Congress then passed 

the Organic Act of 1801 severing District residents’ ties with Maryland and Virginia, thereby eliminating District residents’ representation in Congress.4

Today, District residents, who number close to 600,000, are still 

disenfranchised. These American citizens pay federal income taxes, 

serve in the military, and fulfill all other obligations of citizenship. 

Arguably, DC residents are more impacted by the federal government than the rest of the nation. The District has the second highest tax obligation per capita in the country;5 the District, unlike 

every other U.S. city, must receive the approval of Congress to 

spend locally generated tax dollars; and many District residents 

work for the federal government, meaning that their benefits and 

salary are directly impacted by the decisions of Congress. Moreover, DC has been the target of terrorist attack because it is the 

home of the U.S. government. Yet District residents do not have a 

vote in determining tax levels, defense and homeland security policy, or decisions impacting the federal workforce. 

Most Americans disapprove of the denial of voting rights to residents of the nation’s capital. In 2005, an independent research firm 

found that 82 percent of Americans support equal voting rights in 

Congress for the District of Columbia.6 The results of the poll were 

consistent across the country regardless of age, geography, religion, 

or political affiliation.7

Moreover, the denial of voting representation to the District is a 

blemish on the United States’ reputation in the international community. The United States is the only democracy in the world that 

denies voting representation to the residents of its nation’s capital.8

This inconsistency was criticized by the Organization of American 

States in 1993 when it issued a report finding that the United 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

9 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Report 

Number 98/03, Case 11.204 (December 2003). 10 United Nations Human Rights Commission, International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (September 2006) at 11–12. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Change in the 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas With the 

Largest Numeric Gain: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (April 2007). 12 Id. 13Sheryll D. Cahsin, Viet D. Dinh, and 23 other legal scholars, Letter to the U.S. House of 

Representatives on the Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights Legislation (included in the May 

15, 2007 hearing record) (March 2007). 14 U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 8, cl. 17. 15 U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. 16Peter Raven-Hansen, Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia: A Constitutional Analysis, 12 Harv. J. on Legis.167, 172 (1975). 17 U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. 

States was in violation of international human rights law.9 The 

United Nations Human Rights Commission followed suit in 2006 

by admonishing the U.S. for violating the International Covenant 

on Civil and Political Rights.10

S. 1257 would correct this injustice by providing the District with 

one voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives beginning 

with the 111th Congress. 

The legislation would also give Utah, the next state in line to receive an additional representative based on the 2000 census, a 

fourth seat in the House. Utah missed a fourth seat by less than 

1,000 people in the year 2000 even though Utah officials argued 

that close to 10,000 missionaries were excluded from that count. 

Moreover, Utah’s population has grown substantially since that 

time. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington County in 

Southern Utah is the nation’s fastest-growing metro area.11 The 

county’s population has grown by over 40 percent since 2000, and 

the growth statistics from around the state are equally impressive.12 Based on its current population, Utah deserves a fourth seat 

in the House. 

CONGRESS’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Though some disagree, many constitutional scholars believe that 

providing the District with a House representative through legislation is clearly constitutional. In May 2007, 25 widely respected 

legal scholars wrote to Congress affirming that ‘‘Congress has the 

power through ‘simple’ legislation to provide voting representation 

in Congress for DC residents.’’ 13 This authority lies within Article 

I, Section 8 of the Constitution (‘‘the District Clause’’), which gives 

Congress authority to ‘‘exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 

whatsoever’’ regarding the District of Columbia.14

Those who argue that Congress does not have the authority to 

legislatively create a House seat for DC reference Article I, Section 

2 of the Constitution, which states that the House ‘‘shall be composed of members chosen * * * by the people of the several 

states.’’ 15 However, the District did not exist when these words 

were ratified, and they cannot be read in isolation.16

Courts have repeatedly upheld Congress’s broad use of the District Clause to apply to the District constitutional provisions that 

on their face are limited to states. Article I, Section 2, for example, 

says that ‘‘direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 

states.’’ 17 In 1820, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress, exercising its legislative authority over the District, could 

impose direct federal taxes on District residents. Chief Justice John 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

18Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317, 320 (1820). 19 U.S. CONST., Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 20 Hepburn, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) at 453 (1805). 21 Nat’l Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 600 (1949). 22 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 23District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (1973). 24P.L. 96–170. 25 Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia: 

Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th 

Cong. (2007) (testimony of Viet D. Dinh). 26 Nat’l Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 592 (1949). 

Marshall wrote that ‘‘certainly the Constitution does not consider 

[the District’s] want of a representative in Congress as exempting 

it from equal taxation.’’ 18 If the word ‘‘states’’ did not prevent Congress from imposing taxes on District residents then, how can it 

prevent Congress from granting representation to District residents 

now? 

Article III grants the federal courts jurisdiction over controversies ‘‘between citizens of different states.’’ 19 Noting that it would 

be ‘‘extraordinary’’ for courts to be open to citizens of states but not 

citizens of the District,20 the Supreme Court unanimously held that 

Congress could correct this anomaly, and later upheld Congress’ decision to do so by legislation.21 If the word ‘‘states’’ did not prevent Congress from granting access to the judicial branch then, 

how can it prevent Congress from granting access to the legislative 

branch today? 

Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and equal protection applied only to states.22 The Supreme 

Court held in 1973 that while the Fourteenth Amendment itself 

does not apply to the District, Congress could extend the same protections by legislation under the District Clause.23 Congress did 

just that.24 If the word ‘‘state’’ did not prevent Congress from allowing District residents to sue for violation of constitutional 

rights, how can it prevent Congress from granting District residents a full voice in that same Congress? 

In 2000, after determining that the District does not have a ‘‘judicially cognizable’’ right to congressional representation, the Supreme Court affirmed that the District may pursue that goal in 

‘‘other venues,’’ suggesting that such authority could be granted 

legislatively.25

Two centuries of political and judicial precedent support 

Congress’s authority to legislatively extend House representation to 

the District under the District Clause. The Committee believes this 

authority, which the Supreme Court described as ‘‘plenary in every 

respect,’’ 26 allows Congress to live up to the principles this nation 

was founded upon, and provide representation in the U.S. House 

of Representatives to the District of Columbia. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1257 was introduced by Chairman Lieberman, Senator Hatch, 

and Senator Bennett on May 1, 2007, and was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The bill 

was later cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Landrieu, Leahy, Kennedy, Obama, Mikulski, Kerry, Feingold, McCaskill, Pryor, Carper, 

Levin, and Sanders. 

The Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Equal Representation in 

Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia,’’ on 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

May 15, 2007. Testimony was received from: Senator Orrin G. 

Hatch; Representative Tom Davis; Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton; Mayor Adrian Fenty, District of Columbia; Jack Kemp, former 

Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; 

Wade Henderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law, 

Georgetown University Law Center; and Jonathan R. Turley, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. 

The Committee on the Judiciary held a subsequent hearing entitled, ‘‘Ending Taxation without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257,’’ on May 23, 2007. Testimony was received 

from: Representative Chris Cannon; Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton; Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General; John P. Elwood, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; Patricia Wald, former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit; Jonathan Turley, Professor of 

Law, George Washington University Law School; Charles J. 

Ogletree, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Kenneth R. 

Thomas, Congressional Research Service; and Richard P. Bress, 

Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP. 

On June 13, 2007, the Committee considered S. 1257. 

The Committee adopted two amendments offered by Senator Collins and cosponsored by Senators Coleman and Voinovich. The first 

added a provision to the bill stating that the District shall not be 

considered a state for the purposes of Senate representation. This 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

Senators present were Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, 

Obama, McCaskill, Tester, Collins, Stevens, Voinovich, Coleman, 

and Warner. 

The second amendment required expedited consideration of any 

constitutional challenge to the legislation. The amendment was 

adopted by a vote of 15–1. 

Yeas: Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, Obama, Tester, Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, and Warner. Yeas by proxy: Carper, 

Pryor, McCaskill, Domenici, and Sununu. Nays: Stevens. Senator 

Coburn was not present and provided no instructions. 

By a vote of 9–1, the Committee ordered the bill as amended favorably reported to the full Senate. 

Yeas: Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, Obama, Tester, Collins, Voinovich, and Coleman. Nays: Warner. Yeas by proxy: Carper, Pryor, McCaskill. Nays by proxy: Stevens, Coburn, Domenici, 

and Sununu. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 2. Treatment of District of Columbia as a Congressional 

District 

This section requires that the District of Columbia be treated as 

a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House 

of Representatives. House representation will apply to the District 

in the same way as to a state, except that the District may not receive more than one member under reapportionment of members. 

The section further clarifies that the District may not be treated 

as a state for purposes of Senate representation. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

Section 3. Increase in membership of House of Representatives 

This section requires a permanent increase in the number of 

members in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437, effective 

with the 111th Congress and each succeeding Congress. One of the 

new members will be elected from the District of Columbia and the 

other from the state next in line to receive an additional seat, 

based on the 2000 census. The President is required to transmit a 

revised statement of reapportionment to Congress within 30 days 

of the enactment of this Act. The Clerk of the House of Representatives is then required to submit a report to the Speaker within 15 

days of receiving the revised statement of apportionment naming 

Utah as the state receiving an additional seat (in addition to the 

District). 

Section 4. Effective date; Timing of elections 

This section states that the new members from the District of 

Columbia and Utah may not be seated until the 111th Congress. 

In order for both members to be seated, the additional representative from Utah must be elected according to a redistricting plan enacted by the State of Utah. The Committee is aware that Utah 

signed a new redistricting plan into law on December 6, 2006, and 

encourages the state to use that plan. This plan will stay in effect 

for the 111th and 112th Congresses. 

Section 5. Conforming amendments 

This section repeals the Office of the District of Columbia Delegate and the Office of the Statehood Representative. This section 

also contains a number of conforming amendments to the District 

of Columbia Election Code and the law governing appointments to 

the military academies to reflect the repeal of the DC delegate and 

the establishment of a voting representative for the District. 

Section 6. Nonseverability of provisions 

If any provision in this bill is determined to be invalid, the entire 

bill will be deemed invalid and have no effect of law. 

Section 7. Judicial review 

If a legal challenge is brought to any provision in this bill, the 

judicial review shall be expedited to the greatest possible extent. 

The legal action will be heard by a 3-judge court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and any appeal must be 

made directly to the Supreme Court. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that there are no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on State, local, or tribal 

governments. The legislation contains no other regulatory impact. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
7 

VI. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

JUNE 15, 2007. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1257—District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 

Summary: S. 1257 would expand the number of Members in the 

House of Representatives from 435 to 437 beginning with the 111th 

Congress. The legislation would provide the District of Columbia 

with one permanent Representative and add one additional new 

Member. Under S. 1257, the seat would initially be assigned to the 

state of Utah and then would be reallocated based on the next Congressional apportionment following the 2010 census. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 

spending by about $200,000 in 2009 and by about $2 million over 

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

have discretionary costs of about $1 million in 2009 and about $7 

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

appropriated funds. 

S. 1257 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1257 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2008– 2012 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

New Representative’s Salary and Benefits: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................. 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 Estimated Outlays ................................................. 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

New Representative’s Office and Administrative Expenses: 

Estimated Authorization Level .............................. 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 Estimated Outlays ................................................. 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
9 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted this year and that spending will follow historical 

patterns for Congressional office spending, beginning in 2009. 

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

new representatives would take office on the same day beginning 

with the 111th Congress. One new Member would represent the 

District of Columbia and the other would be a Representative for 

the state of Utah until the next apportionment based on the 2010 

census. The District of Columbia currently has a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives. S. 1257 would establish voting representation for the conversion of the District’s delegate to 

Representative and would not add significant costs since the position is already funded with the same salary and administrative 

support as other Representatives. 

Direct spending 

Enacting S. 1257 would increase direct spending for the salary 

and associated benefits for the new representative, beginning with 

a new Member from the state of Utah until the next apportionment 

based on the 2010 census. CBO estimates that the increase in direct spending for the Congressional salary and benefits would be 

about $2 million over the 2008–2017 period. That estimate assumes 

that the current Congressional salary of $165,200 would be adjusted for inflation. With benefits, the 2008 cost would be about 

$200,000. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

Based on the current administrative and expense allowances 

available for Members and other typical Congressional office costs, 

CBO estimates that the addition of a new Member would cost 

about $1 million in fiscal year 2009 and about $7 million over the 

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

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1257 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On March 16, 2007, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting 

Rights Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the House Committee 

on the Judiciary on March 15, 2007, and the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform on March 13, 2007. The three 

pieces of legislation are similar in that they all expand the number 

of Members in the House of Representatives. Under H.R. 1433, the 

new Members would take office during the 110th Congress. Under 

the Senate bill, membership in the House of Representatives would 

be expanding beginning with the 111th Congress. The cost estimates reflect that difference. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on 

the private-sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
10 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1929 

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

provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress. 

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

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

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

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

and the number of Representatives to which each State would be 

entitled under an apportionment of øthe then existing number of 

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

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

Member. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

SECTION 3 OF TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE 

NUMBER OF ELECTORS 

SEC. 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number of 

Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by 

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

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

case of the District of Columbia); except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been made after any enumeration, at 

the time of choosing electors, the number of electors shall be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives. 

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Army 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
11 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4342. CADETS: APPOINTMENT; NUMBERS, TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION 

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

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

to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6954. MIDSHIPMEN: NUMBER 

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

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

limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(5) Five from the District of Columbia, nominated by the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6958. MIDSHIPMEN: QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION 

(a) * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
12 

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Air Force 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution. 

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

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

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

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE ACT 

TITLE II—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SHORT TITLE 

SEC. 201. THIS TITLE MAY BE CITED AS THE ‘DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DELEGATE ACT’. 

øDELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES¿ 

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

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

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
13 

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

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

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

Delegate shall be elected to serve during each Congress.¿ 

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

of Representatives from the District of Columbia unless on the date 

of his election—¿ 

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

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

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

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

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

date.¿ 

He shall forfeit his office upon failure to maintain the qualifications required by this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

øOTHER PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA¿ 

øSEC. 204. (a) The provisions of law which appear in—¿ 

ø(1) section 25 (relating to oath of office),¿ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

newspapers),¿ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annotated or Federal Code Annotated),¿ 

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

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

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

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

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
14 

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

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

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

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

Columbia), and¿ 

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

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

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

with respect to a Representative. The Federal Corrupt Practices 

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

they apply with respect to a Representative. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code is amended by inserting ‘the Delegate from the District of 

Columbia,’ immediately after ‘Member of Congress,’.¿ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columbia and’ immediately after ‘includes’.¿ 

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

(1) by striking out ‘or’ immediately after ‘Senate,’, and (2) by striking out ‘Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and possessions’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘Delegate from the District of 

Columbia, or Resident Commissioner’.¿ 

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

by striking out ‘or Delegate or Resident Commissioner from any 

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

the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner’.¿ 

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

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

thereof ‘Delegate from the District of Columbia’.¿ 

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
15 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 1—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II—Statehood 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INITIATIVE 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart I—General 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—123. CALL OF CONVENTION; DUTIES OF CONVENTION; ADOPTION OF CONSTITUTION; REJECTION OF CONSTITUTION; 

ELECTION OF SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

of candidates for the øoffices of Senator and Representative¿ office 

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

shall be held at the next regularly scheduled primary and general 

elections following certification by the District of Columbia Board 

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

that the proposed constitution is approved by the electors at the 

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

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

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

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

and general elections shall follow the same electoral procedures as 

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

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

Senators elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 

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

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

and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes 

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

replace øa Representative or¿ a Senator whose term is about to exVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:50 Jul 04, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR123.XXX SR123

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
16 

pire shall be held in September and in November respectively, of 

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

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

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

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

(A) Conduct elections to fill the positions of 2 United States Senators øand 1 United States Representative¿; and 

* * * * * * * 

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

and subscribe to the oath or affirmation of office provided for in 1– 604.08. 

(f) A øRepresentative or¿ Senator: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

bequests. A øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall establish a District 

of Columbia statehood fund in 1 or more financial institutions in 

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

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

in annual Congressional appropriations. A øRepresentative or¿ 

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

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

Columbia. 

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

expenses necessary to support the purposes and operations of the 

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

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

Columbia, as provided in Sec. 1–204.03 and 1–611.09. 

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

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

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

(4) The recordkeeping requirements of subchapter I of Chapter 

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

under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

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

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

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

necessary to support the purposes and operation of the public office 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
17 

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

donated to an organization operating in the District of Columbia as 

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

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

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

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

(d) of this section, shall be subject to recall pursuant to Sec. 1– 1001.18, during the period of the øRepresentative’s or¿ Senator’s 

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

union. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—125. STATEHOOD COMMISSION. 

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

members appointed in the following manner: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

and 

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

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

Councilmember whose purview the Statehood Commission 

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

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

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

until appointments or reappointments are confirmed. Appointments 

or reappointments shall be made immediately after August 26, 

1994, in the following manner: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—127. APPROPRIATIONS. 

There is authorized to be appropriated from the General Fund of 

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

admission of the proposed new state into the union. 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—HONORARIA LIMITATIONS 

SEC. 1—131. APPLICATION OF HONORARIA LIMITATIONS. 

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

shall apply to a Senator øor Representative¿ elected pursuant to 1–

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

supported by public revenues. 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
18 

PART C—CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM 

SEC. 1—135. APPLICATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT. 

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

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

District of Columbia shall apply to persons who are candidates or 

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

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 10. ELECTIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter I. Regulation of Elections 

SEC. 1—1001.01. ELECTION OF ELECTORS. 

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

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

Columbia, the Mayor and the following officials of political parties 

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

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—1001.02. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purposes of this subchapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

Representatives from the District of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

District of Columbia, United States Senator and Representative,¿ the Representative in the Congress, United States Senator, and advisory neighborhood commissioners of the District 

of Columbia. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—1001.08. QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES AND ELECTORS; 

NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF øDELEGATE¿ REPRESENTATIVE, MAYOR, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND MEMBERS OF BOARD OF EDUCATION; PETITION 

REQUIREMENTS; ARRANGEMENT OF BALLOT. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
19 

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

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

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

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

and 1–1001.10(d), have been elected by the registered qualified 

electors of the District as such candidate by the next preceding primary election. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

nominated for any such office by a petition: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

Such person shall be nominated by petition: 

(A) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

signed by duly registered voters equal in number to 11⁄2 per 

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

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

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

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

may be counted which have been made on such petition more 

than 123 days before the date of such election. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1—1001.10. DATES FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS; VOTES CAST FOR 

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT COUNTED AS VOTES 

FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS; VOTING HOURS; TIE 

VOTES; FILLING VACANCY WHERE ELECTED OFFICIAL 

DIES, RESIGNS, OR BECOMES UNABLE TO SERVE. 

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
20 

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

year. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

leaving no person elected pursuant to this subchapter to serve the 

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

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

successor shall have the qualifications required by this subchapter 

for the office. 

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

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

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

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

vacancy is certified by the Board unless the Board determines that 

the vacancy could be filled more practicably in a special election 

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

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

which the special election would otherwise have been held under 

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

the Board certifies his or her election. ø(B) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Delegate on or after May 1 of the last 

year of the Delegate’s term of office, the Mayor shall appoint a successor to complete the remainder of the term of office.¿ 

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

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

this subsection, the Mayor shall appoint, with the advice and consent of the Council, a successor to complete the remainder of the 

term of office. 

* * * * * * * 

1—1001.11. RECOUNT; JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTION. 

(a)(1) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

shall not be charged to any candidate. 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
21 

1—1001.15. CANDIDACY FOR MORE THAN 1 OFFICE PROHIBITED; MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS; CANDIDACY OF OFFICEHOLDER 

FOR ANOTHER OFFICE RESTRICTED. 

(a) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

1–1001.05, either resign from the office that person currently holds 

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

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

been elected. 

* * * * * * * 

1—1001.17. RECALL PROCESS. 

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

elected officers of the District of Columbia except øthe Delegate to 

the Congress from the District of Columbia¿ the Representative in 

the Congress. 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(22) 

1Turley, Jonathan, statement for the record for the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House 

of Representatives, ‘‘Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1433, the ‘District of Columbia House Voting 

Rights Act of 2007,’’ March 14, 2007, pg. 4. 

VIII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS COBURN AND STEVENS 

The lack of Congressional representation for American citizens 

living in the District of Columbia is a grave injustice. However, the 

oath we swear upon taking office is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not justice. Happily, the two rarely diverge. However, our 

Framers wisely foresaw the possibility of such divergence and provided a remedy. When all constitutional options are exhausted in 

pursuit of justice, the one remaining remedy is the constitutional 

amendment process. 

We believe that there are constitutional options to remedy the injustice faced by District residents, but S. 1257 is not one of them. 

If the American people, in their wisdom, deem that the plainly constitutional options of admitting new States into the union, or of 

States voluntarily redrawing their borders are not desirable, then 

the Constitutional amendment process is the exclusive remaining 

remedy. 

Supporters of S. 1257 claim it is constitutional, but can only support their claim with a broad interpretation of the text, supplemented by a handful of Supreme Court opinions. In his letter to 

William Johnson of June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson provided us 

guidance with the following: ‘‘Laws are made for men of ordinary 

understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary 

rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in 

metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.’’

The simple rules of statutory interpretation, rather than Jefferson’s ‘‘metaphysical subtleties,’’ leave us no choice but to conclude 

that the bill is unconstitutional. These rules include first examining the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution before relying on an interpretation of another, and interpreting the parts that 

are unclear by those parts that are clear. 

We hope to demonstrate in these minority views that both an 

historical and a textual analysis of the Constitution will not support the approach taken by S. 1257. Further, we hope to demonstrate that the approach taken by supporters of the bill can 

produce at best only a tenuous constitutional foundation, and at 

worst a reason for Congress to embark upon, in the words of Professor Jonathan Turley, ‘‘the most premeditated unconstitutional 

act by Congress in decades.’’ 1 Either conclusion should prevent 

Congress, bound by our oath of office, from passing this bill. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
23 

2Footnote 1, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress RL 33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals, April 23, 2007, pg. 

CRS–1. 3 Congress passed the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, during the First Congress, second session. Text of the act can be found here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId-llsl- 

&fileNamellsl001.db&rec.Num-253 

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

In looking at history, it is clear that representation in government is at the heart of the American identity and that voting is 

one of the nation’s most sacred rights. It is puzzling, then, why the 

Framers of the Constitution didn’t choose to be more explicit regarding whether voting rights were intended for the residents of 

the District of Columbia. Yet, though the Constitution isn’t as clear 

as some might want it to be, the Framers were not silent on the 

issue and have left us with sufficient evidence to conclude that this 

bill is unconstitutional. 

Claim: The Federal District was not designed to be different than 

a State 

Supporters of the bill argue that the Framers, with the ideals of 

the Revolutionary War fresh on their minds, obviously intended to 

provide residents of the District full voting rights like other citizens. Its omission, they claim, was simply an oversight of the Constitutional Convention. But, a closer look at the circumstances surrounding the creation of the federal district plainly refutes this 

claim. 

The idea of an independent federal district is said to have arisen 

in 1783 after an incident involving the Continental Congress in 

Philadelphia, and a mob of disgruntled soldiers.2 The soldiers 

claimed they had gone unpaid and, under threat of violence, forced 

Congress to meet and address their grievance. Congress sought 

protection from the Pennsylvania state militia, but was denied. 

Left without any protection, Congress convened under duress and 

addressed the matter. Realizing that the situation could happen 

again, the Framers recognized that the seat of government should 

not be dependent on the good graces and protection of any one 

State. 

Though the notion of protecting the federal government from the 

States is in many ways outdated and in modern times reversed, the 

Framers were concerned about preserving the government’s independence. To ensure its independence, they not only carved out 

land for the District that was not located in any State, but designed it to be governed equally by all States through Congress. 

Additionally, the Framers wanted to protect the States from any 

unnecessary burdens. For example, housing the District within any 

single state would have, on the one hand, put a large financial burden on that state to maintain the capital, while on the other hand 

would have unfairly given that state the benefits of capital improvements paid for by the other States. The decision was eventually made to cede land from Maryland and Virginia to form a small 

district of ten square miles to ensure that the land belonged to no 

state.3

James Madison reinforced this point on January 23, 1788, in 

writing Federalist no. 43 on the topic of a federal district: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
24 

The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the 

seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is 

a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I 

might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. 

Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted 

and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the 

State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally 

dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the 

other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has 

the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government 

would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the 

hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to 

abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every 

jealousy of an opposite nature. 

While this would answer the question of independence for the nation’s capital, it raised another question of what to do with the residents of Maryland and Virginia living in the land to be ceded to 

create the new federal district. These citizens had full voting rights 

as citizens of Maryland and Virginia, but those rights would be relinquished under the new plan. 

Claim: The Founders forgot to address congressional representation 

for district residents 

Supporters of S. 1257 today claim that the Framers inadvertently forgot to address congressional representation for these citizens because there were other pressing issues to consider at the 

time. Further still, the Constitution was a relatively new document 

and all of its implications were not yet well understood, particularly the issue of representation for citizens living in the newly 

formed federal district. Therefore, they believe that the Framers 

did not feel a pressing need to consider the question, but that if 

they had they certainly never intended to exclude residents from 

voting. 

The historical record, however, refutes this claim. In fact, there 

is solid evidence that the Framers had given this issue more than 

just a passing glance. Following the passage of the Residence Act 

in 1790, which designated the future site of Washington, D.C., residents of those areas retained their right to vote for representatives 

in Congress, but they were simply not allowed to vote as district 

residents. The Framers approached the issue by deferring to the 

State-based structure of the Union and allowed each former resident of Maryland and Virginia to vote in their home state. This 

was no small technicality; they believed it was the only acceptable 

means to allow these residents to vote in a manner consistent with 

the Constitution. 

Madison hints at this in a further reading of Federalist no. 43, 

by assuming that the state governments in Maryland and Virginia 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
25 

would make adequate provision for their residents living in those 

lands, including the matter of representation. 

And as [the land to create a federal district] is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding 

it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for 

the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as 

the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest 

to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have 

had their voice in the election of the government which is 

to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature 

for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of 

course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part 

of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the 

whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. 

This voting system changed with the passage of the Organic Act 

in 1801, which provided for governance of the federal district. Because the bill did not specifically address voting rights for district 

residents, it effectively nullified the previous arrangement. That 

voting rights weren’t immediately restored to district residents 

after the passage of the Organic Act through other legislation is 

significant. It demonstrates that such rights were not automatically granted to district residents by the Constitution and that 

Congress would not or could not act legislatively in this area. 

Although some may point to this example and claim that if district residents were taken away by legislation (Organic Act) then 

voting rights can be given through legislation today. The flaw in 

this argument is that it fails to see the decidedly state-centered 

way in which the Framers handled the matter in contrast to the 

means being considered by S. 1257. The prior arrangement only allowed district residents to vote when they were still considered 

residents of their former home states. Above all else, what this example clearly shows is that these issues were in the minds of the 

Framers when they drafted the Constitution and were not, as some 

claim, an afterthought. 

Claim: No one anticipated the district becoming a large city with 

many citizens 

Another dubious claim made by supporters of S. 1257 is that 

hardly anyone, including the Framers themselves, anticipated the 

federal district becoming a large city home to large numbers of citizens seeking the right to vote. After all, there were barely 8,000 

citizens living in the District at the time of its inception. They believe that if the Framers knew that larger numbers of people would 

be impacted by the creation of the District, then voting rights 

would have been granted. This point is easily refuted by looking at 

the original plan for the city, as commissioned by the federal government itself. As early as 1791, nine years before the federal government began its operations in Washington, D.C., Pierre-Charles 

L’Enfant completed a commission by President George Washington 

to design the city, and his design was anything but small. 

L’Enfant’s design envisioned the federal district to be a large, thrivVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:50 Jul 04, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR123.XXX SR123

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
26 

4Library of Congress sources, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jul16.html 5Statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and can be found online at: http:// 

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html 6 A picture of L’Enfant’s design for the City of Washington can be seen on the website of the 

Library of Congress, and can be found here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/us.capitol/ 

twtynine.jpg 7This excerpt was taken from the ‘‘Journal of an Excursion to the United States of North 

America in the Summer of 1794,’’ by Henry Wansey. It was reprinted in pg. 10. Text of the book 

can also be found at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lhbcb&fileName=03201.// 

1hbcb03201.db&recNum=9&itemLink=r?ammem/ 

lhbcbbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(1hbcb+03201))&linkText=0 

ing city with as many as 800,000 residents 4—a size that is not 

matched today.5 Even a cursory glance at L’Enfant’s earliest plans 

show that the intended design for the federal district is largely 

similar to today’s design.6

Furthermore, the following journal entry was written by Henry 

Wansey in 1794, only three years after L’Enfant’s plans for the district were finalized. This first-hand account clearly shows that the 

expectation existed even then that the city of Washington would 

become a great city. 

[A friend] has often been to the new federal city of 

Washington; has no doubt it must be very considerable in 

a few years, if the government is not overturned, for nothing less can prevent it. Mercantile men will principally settle in the South-East corner on the East River. . . . The 

government will make it a principal object to improve this 

place, and all its regulations respecting its future grandeur 

are already planned, suitable to a great and growing empire. . . . Many houses are already built, and a very handsome hotel, which cost in the erection more than thirty 

thousand dollars . . . It is now apportioned into one thousand two hundred and thirty-six lots, for building, (which 

are for sale). Each lot contains ground for building three 

or four houses.7

It stretches the bounds of one’s imagination, in light of this evidence, to assume that the Framers and the Congress simply forgot 

to consider the voting rights of citizens in a city as large as the District would become. Even if they had, it was not long before citizens 

of the District began seeking such rights, reminding them of their 

‘‘mistake.’’ In 1801, following the passage of the Organic Act, a 

group of District residents petitioned Congress for the right to vote. 

Tellingly, though, voting rights were not given to residents of the 

District, despite the fact that the Congress of that time was made 

up of many Framers of the Constitution. That residents were denied representation then does not necessarily mean they should be 

so denied today. However, this record does provide strong evidence 

that the Framers intended, whatever their reasons, that the District’s residents would not have the same automatic rights to Congressional representation as residents of the several States. 

Claim: The Framers did not intentionally exclude residents from 

voting for congressional representation 

Supporters of S. 1257 believe, despite the fact that District residents were never given congressional representation, that these 

rights were not withheld on purpose. This claim is contradicted by 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
27 

8 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 55 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 940 (2000) citing to Chief 

Justice Marshall’s opinion in Loughborough v. Blake 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820). Interestingly 

enough, the supporters of S. 1257 repeatedly cite to Loughborough as a case that supports their 

position since the Supreme Court ultimately did uphold federal taxation of District residents in 

the case. 9See the website of DC Vote at: http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/ 

dcvrarepublicanquotespdf.pdf 10Footnote 1, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress RL33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals, April 23, 2007, 

pg. CRS–3. 11The following points were outlined by Richard P. Bress in responses to questions for the 

records in Ending Taxation Without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257: Hearing 

on S. 1257 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. *29 (2007). Mr. Bress identified 

Continued 

examining the opinion of a prominent Framer soon after the Constitution’s ratification. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, 

former commander in the Revolutionary War, said the following in 

1820 indicating strongly that voting rights were far from an afterthought: 

‘‘[The District has] relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its 

legitimate government. Although in theory it might be 

more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a 

representative from the district, certainly the Constitution 

does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.’’ 8

Clearly, Chief Justice Marshall, like us today, was uncomfortable 

with the distinct divergence in this case between justice and the 

Constitution, but barring a Constitutional amendment, he considered himself bound to the Constitution, whatever its perceived 

flaws. Prior to his appointment on the Supreme Court, William 

Rehnquist confirmed Marshall’s opinion that the District did not 

have a legislative option for obtaining a vote, despite his own personal opinion that district residents should be given representation 

in Congress. Serving then as an assistant Attorney General in the 

U.S. Department of Justice in 1970, Rehnquist said: ‘‘The need for 

an amendment [providing representation for the District] at this 

late date in our history is too self-evident for further elaboration; 

continued denial of voting representation from the District of Columbia can no longer be justified.’’ 9

Claim: Congress has always had the constitutional power to address 

this matter through legislation 

The historical record of those who have previously attempted to 

address voting rights for the District itself testifies that nothing 

less than a change in the Constitution would be necessary. Since 

1888, no fewer than 150 constitutional amendments have been attempted to resolve the matter.10 Had a legislative option been 

available under the Constitution, surely a serious attempt would 

have been made prior to today to pass such a bill in Congress rather than go through the arduous task of passing a constitutional 

amendment—yet the supporters behind each of these efforts knew 

that it was an amendment, not a bill, that should be attempted. 

Of those in Congress that did try to address the matter, the issue 

primarily revolved around allowing the election of a non-voting delegate to Congress.11 No attempt has been made prior to S. 1257 to 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
28 

the previous attempts by Congress to address the matter of congressional voting rights for the 

District of Columbia and categorized them in one of two ways: (1) legislation to examine the 

notion of voting rights for residents, and (2) allowing for a non-voting delegate. Such attempts 

were made: Dec. 30, 1819, Rep. Kent (MD); March 20, 1819, Sen. Johnson (KY); Feb. 13, 1824, 

Rep. Ross (OH); April 26, 1830, Rep. Powers; Dec. 21, 1831, Rep. Carson (NC); March 9, 1836; 

March 28, 1838, Sen Norvell (MI); January 28, 1845. No such attempts were made to legislatively expand the House of Representatives and provide for full voting representation for residents of the federal district. 12This point is made in full recognition of the fact that legislation was introduced in recent 

Congresses to address the matter of congressional representation through either (1) retrocession, 

(2) semi-retrocession, or (3) granting full membership to the House of Representatives. None of 

this legislation passed the Congress or was presented to the President for signature. Such legislation included in the 109th Congress: H.R. 190, H.R. 398, H.R. 5388, S. 195; in the 108th Congress: H.R. 1285, H.R. 3709, S. 617; and in the 107th: S. 3054. 

try and provide House representation through the legislative process. It is significant that until the consideration of S. 1257 by the 

110th Congress that all previous Congresses, without exception, 

understood that the Constitution prevented them from passing 

such a bill.12

The 150 constitutional amendment attempts have taken various 

forms and each one has failed to pass, with the exception of what 

became the 23rd Amendment. The 23rd Amendment provides District residents with the right to vote in Presidential elections. 

Other amendment attempts would have provided the District with 

one member of the House of Representatives and two Senators, 

while still others would have allowed for some combination of voting for the President as well as for representation in the House of 

Representatives and the Senate. 

While the merits of those proposals are not the subject of this 

discussion, they were seen to have failed by many because of their 

implications for Statehood for the federal district. No serious attempt has ever been made to pass a Constitutional amendment 

providing simply for representation in the House of Representatives. Until this is attempted, there is no historical evidence to 

demonstrate how such an amendment might fare. That the amendment process is difficult, though, does not grant Congress the luxury of circumventing the Constitutional process for the sake of political expediency. 

Conclusion: The historical record demonstrates that S. 1257 is unconstitutional 

The historical record is far from silent on the matter of congressional voting rights for residents of the federal district. In our view, 

the weight of evidence supports the notion that the original intent 

of the Framers, as well as the interpretation of 109 consecutive 

Congresses, was to preclude the residents of the District from being 

represented in the House of Representatives. Though the Framers 

believed at the time that such an arrangement did not run counter 

to our republican form of government, we have now come to believe 

differently. 

It is our view that though the reasons for creating a federal enclave without explicitly-provided voting rights for its residents may 

have seemed reasonable at the time, the reasons no longer hold the 

same appeal. And though it may be past time to alter the House 

of Representatives and allow a vote for the District in the House, 

Congress is constrained to act only in a Constitutional manner. We 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
29 

do not believe this to be the case with the approach taken by S. 

1257. 

CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Textual analysis 

As stated earlier, any effort to analyze the meaning of a specific 

constitutional provision must begin with the text itself. Supporters 

of the bill assert that the best place to begin this discussion is with 

the Federal Enclave Clause, at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. However, since the bill’s main effect is to change the composition of the 

House of Representatives, the proper place to begin is with the 

House Composition Clause found at Article I, Section 2: 

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people 

of the several states, and the electors in each state shall 

have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most 

numerous branch of the state legislature. 

It is clear that the term ‘‘state’’ is used numerous times in this 

provision, as it is throughout the Constitution. It is also clear from 

the records of the Framers during the Constitutional Convention 

that they chose their words carefully when drafting the text. Nowhere does the context suggest that the term ‘‘state’’ could be interpreted to mean anything other than what it straightforwardly implies. Since the federal district is not a state, the plain reading of 

the text clearly precludes the District of Columbia from being considered a state for the purposes of choosing members for the House 

of Representatives. 

A basic rule of statutory interpretation is that when a reader is 

interpreting a statute, or in this case the Constitution, the statute 

should be read with the plainest reading in context; if no ambiguity 

appears, the search into the meaning of the word is complete. As 

the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘‘When the words of a statute are 

unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry 

is complete.’ ‘‘Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 

(1992). In the absence of any ambiguity in the term ‘‘state’’ in Article I, Section 2, Congress should not look to other places, such as 

the history of the District or in the Federal Enclave Clause, to attempt to justify the constitutionality of S. 1257. 

Some supporters of this legislation argue that because the 

Founders placed such a premium on direct voting for representation as well as on government powers being derived from the consent of the governed, the Founders could not have possibly meant 

to exclude district residents from congressional representation simply because the District is not a state. However, they have no evidence in the text of the Constitution to suggest the Framers intended to treat the District like a state under Article I, Section 2. 

In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction. A Representative of the District would not even meet the qualifications set out 

in Article I, Section 2, the Qualifications Clause: 

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have 

attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven 

years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
30 

when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he 

shall be chosen. (Emphasis added) 

Supporters of S. 1257 misguidedly draw support for their position 

from certain U.S. Supreme Court and other federal court cases that 

extend to the District, as an entity or its citizens, other rights 

found in the Constitution. Nevertheless, supporters of the bill cannot refute the fact that the text of Article I, Section 2, leaves no 

open door to treat the District as a state for House representation 

short of actual statehood or Constitutional amendment. 

In fact, the provision of the Constitution that supporters rely on 

most, the Federal Enclave Clause, directly contradicts any notion 

that the federal district should be considered a state for purposes 

of House representation. 

The Federal Enclave Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 

states Congress’ rights regarding the federal district: 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, 

over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, 

by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United 

States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in 

which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. 

(Emphasis added). 

The Federal Enclave Clause itself shows that the District is different than ‘‘states’’ in the Constitution. By using both the term 

‘‘District’’ and ‘‘states’’ in the same sentence, the language shows 

most clearly that the Framers had two distinct concepts in mind 

regarding what was a state and what was the District. To construe 

this provision to define the word ‘‘state’’ in such a way as to include 

the federal district is to render the words meaningless. 

Finally, supporters of S. 1257 wrongly believe that Congress’

complete power over the District gives Congress the power to alter 

even the makeup of the House of Representatives. In so doing, they 

create the perverse problem by which one provision of the Constitution is used to cancel out the meaning of another provision. In 

other words, supporters have interpreted Congress’ constitutional 

powers over the District to be so broad that they can use them even 

to overcome that provision which explains the makeup of the House 

of Representatives. 

The text of the Federal Enclave Clause states that Congress has 

‘‘exclusive’’ power ‘‘in all cases whatsoever, over such District.’’

Nothing in the phrase ‘‘over such District’’ or the related context allows an interpretation in which Congress could change the makeup 

of Congress. Quite the opposite as the text grants to Congress a 

custodial and operational power of control over the District. Thus, 

the plain reading of this provision demonstrates that Congress’

power within the District itself is nearly unlimited, but that power 

does not extend beyong the District’s borders. In fact, if the power 

given to Congress in this provision is as broad as supporters of S. 

1257 claim it is, there would be no limits to how Congress could 

use this power. Nothing could stop Congress from adding addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:50 Jul 04, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR123.XXX SR123

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
31 

tional seats to the House for the District as well as representatives 

in the Senate. 

The full context of the Federal Enclave Clause shows that the 

power granted to Congress over the District is the exact same 

power as that granted to Congress to erect ‘‘forts, magazines, etc.’’ Thus, the supporters of S. 1257 are forced to argue that the power 

of Congress to purchase land for the military is the exact same 

broad, sweeping and ‘‘plenary’’ power to grant membership in the 

House of Representatives. Therefore, in light of this context, these 

provisions merely grant Congress control over operational matters 

related to the governance, both administrative and political, of the 

District just as it is for forts, needful buildings and arsenals. One 

would need to stretch the rules of interpretation beyond reason to 

interpret this provision in such a way as to grant Congress power 

to alter other more plainly drafted sections of the Constitution such 

as those that determine membership in the House of Representatives and the qualifications of its members. 

The 23rd amendment 

Passage of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution is illustrative of why S. 1257 falls short of the Constitution. Before its 

passage in 1960, and subsequent ratification, District residents 

could not vote in Presidential elections by virtue of the fact that 

the District is not a state. Congress remedied this situation not 

through legislation, but rather by amending the Constitution. 

The 23rd Amendment reads: 

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as 

the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President 

and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators 

and Representatives in Congress to which the District 

would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more 

than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to 

those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, 

for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall 

meet in the District and perform such duties as provided 

by the twelfth article of amendment. 

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 

article by appropriate legislation. (Emphasis added) 

The language clearly establishes that D.C. is not a state and that 

its electors are only for Presidential elections. The House Report 

accompanying the passage of the Amendment in 1960 clearly states 

that the Amendment would not change the status or powers of the 

District: 

[This] . . . amendment would change the Constitution 

only to the minimum extent necessary to give the District 

appropriate participation in national elections. It would 

not make the District of Columbia a State. It would not 

give the District of Columbia any other attributes of a State 

or change the constitutional powers of the Congress to legislate with respect to the District of Columbia and to prescribe its form of government. . . . It would, however, perVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:50 Jul 04, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR123.XXX SR123

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
32 

13 Report of the U.S. House of Representatives, 86th Congress, 2d Session, May 31, 1960, p.3. 14 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 940 (2000). 15 Id at p. 66–69, and 71–72. 

petuate recognition of the unique status of the District as 

the seat of Federal Government under the exclusive legislative control of Congress. 13 (Emphasis added.) 

The House Report recognizes two important points. First, the 

District is not a state and the 23rd Amendment does nothing to 

make it a state. Second, the House Report affirms the understanding that Congress’ power in the District Clause is one of operational control. 

The example of the 23rd Amendment illustrates clearly that 

when Congress wanted to give residents of the federal district the 

right to vote for the President, they didn’t see fit to do so through 

legislation. They knew then what is still true today—that such 

rights can only be conferred on citizens through a change in the 

Constitution through the amendment process. 

Legal analysis 

Supporters of S. 1257 also stake their claim for the bill’s constitutionality on a selection of U.S. Supreme Court and federal 

court cases in which Congress has treated the federal district’s residents the same as residents of states. Examples include imposing 

federal taxation on D.C. residents, allowing diversity jurisdiction to 

apply to D.C. residents, giving D.C. residents rights to trial by jury 

and subjecting D.C. to the interstate commerce regulations. Federal 

courts have allowed Congress to treat D.C. as if it were a state in 

each instance in order to uphold the Congressional action. Proponents believe that based on this line of cases, future courts will 

hold that granting House representation to D.C. is also a legitimate 

act of Congress’ power under the Federal Enclaves Clause. However, there is no direct legal precedent for S. 1257, thus it will be 

a case of first impression for federal courts to review. 

In fact, the case law may point in the opposite direction, as in 

Adams v. Clinton. 14 In 2000, the federal District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that D.C. residents suffered no Constitutional harm when the District of Columbia was excluded from the 

apportionment of Congressional districts for House representation. 

Lois Adams and other District citizens brought their case against 

President Clinton and the Secretary of Commerce because the Administration did not include D.C. when they transmitted their postcensus apportionment results to the House Clerk. The District 

Court, sitting as a special three-judge trial panel, rejected Adams’

claim 2–1 holding that the District could not be treated as a state 

for purpose of House apportionment and that denial of House representation was not a violation of the Equal Protection or Republican form of Government Guarantee clauses. 15 The U.S. Supreme 

Court affirmed the holding without an opinion, demonstrating that 

the Constitution does not provide representation in Congress for 

residents of the District. 

The Adams opinion reveals that the understanding of those at 

the time that District residents would lose their right to vote once 

Virginia and Maryland ceded their lands. This would be for no 

other reason than that they no longer lived in a state. One ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:50 Jul 04, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR123.XXX SR123

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
33 

16 Id at p. 52. 17 Id at p. 53. 18 Id at p. 62. 19 Id. 

gressman, Rep. Bird, remarked that the blame for D.C. residents 

losing their voting rights was not ‘‘to the men who made the act 

of cession, not to those who accepted it,’’ but ‘‘to the men who 

framed the Constitutional provision, who peculiarly set apart this 

as a District’’ under the federal government. 16

In fact, one of the early proponents of D.C. voting rights advocated the same position. The Adams opinion recounts that Augustus Woodward, a prominent lawyer in the District and prote ́ge ́’ of 

Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1801 decrying the violation of ‘‘an original principle of republicanism’’ by passage of the Organic Act. He 

later said that passage of a Constitutional amendment was ‘‘the exclusive and only remedy.’’ 17

The Adams opinion likewise debunked the notion that Congress 

actively stripped District residents of their right to vote when it 

passed the Organic Act, officially creating the District. The Adams 

opinion dismissed such theory finding that: 

Thus, it was not the Organic Act or any other cessionrelated legislation that excluded District residents from 

the franchise, something we agree could not have been done 

by legislation alone. 18 (Emphasis added, citing a previous 

Supreme Court case holding that an individual’s Constitutionally protected right to vote could not be denied by a 

vote of the state legislature.) 

Instead the Adams opinion concludes that the loss of voting 

rights for District residents came because their residency status 

had changed from a resident of a ‘‘state’’ to resident of the District. 

The citizens were now residents a non-state, and therefore prevented from representation in Congress. 

Rather, exclusion was the consequence of the completion 

of the cession transaction-which transformed the territory 

from being part of a state, whose residents were entitled 

to vote under Article I, to being part of the seat of government, whose residents were not. Although Congress exercise of jurisdiction over the District through passage of the 

Organic Act was the last step in that process, it was a step 

expressly contemplated by the Constitution.19

Thus, the Adams opinion points back to the plain meaning of Article I, Section 2, as the determinative Constitutional provision for 

considering D.C. voting rights in Congress. until D.C. residents 

achieve status of residents of a state or until the Constitution is 

amended, the residents are barred from Congressional representation by the very language of the Constitution itself. 

Conclusion 

Because the Constitution clearly designed the House of Representatives to be composed of representatives of States, we believe 

that S. 1257 is not constitutional. Unfortunately, this leaves us 

with no other option but to oppose the bill and file these dissenting 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
34 

20Testimony of Professor Jonathan Turley before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Taxation without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257’’ May 16, 

2007, p. 13–14 citing Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 

§§419–26, at 298–302 (2d ed. 1851). 

views. There is no question, though, that the objectives of S. 1257 

are noble and worthy of Congressional attention, if not prompt action. However, Congress must resist the temptation to achieve a 

worthy policy objective by illegitimate means. This is especially 

true in this case due to the ready availability of better, and more 

clearly constitutional means, namely amending the Constitution. 

In closing, we relay this commentary provided to this Committee 

by Professor Jonathan Turley when testifying regarding this issue: 

In his famous commentaries on the Constitution, Justice 

Story warned against the use of the interpretation to avoid 

unpopular limitations in our constitutional system: 

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, 

keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which these 

powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we 

mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that 

should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution. . . . On the 

other hand, a rule of equal importance is, not to enlarge 

the construction of a given power beyond the fair scope of 

its terms, merely because the restriction is inconvenient, 

impolitic, or even mischievous. If it be mischievous, the 

power of redressing the evil lies with the people by an exercise of the power of amendment.’’20

TOM COBURN. 

TED STEVENS. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS