49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–593 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAIR AND EQUAL HOUSE 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2006 

JULY 24, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, from the Committee on Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5388] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 5388) to provide for the treatment of the District of 

Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation 

in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 13 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 14 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 15 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 16 

Statement of Oversight Findings/Recommendations of Committee .................... 16 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 16 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 16 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 16 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 16 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 16 

Budget Authority/Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ........................... 17 

Changes In Existing Law Made By The Bill As Reported ................................... 19 

Additional Materials ................................................................................................ 33 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
2 

1Kenneth R. Bowling, The Creation of Washington, D.C. 30–34 (1991), cited in Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 50 n. 25 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 531 U.S. 940 (2000). 2Stephen J. Markman, Statehood for the District of Columbia: Is It Constitutional? Is It Wise? 

Is It Necessary? 48 (1988); see also Adams, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 50 n. 25 (quoting The Federalist 

No. 43) (James Madison) (‘‘The gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary 

residence of the Government, would be . . . too great a public pledge to be left in the hands 

of a single State’’); id. at 76 (Oberdorfer, J., dissenting in part) (‘‘What would be the consequence 

if the seat of the government of the United States, with all the archives of America, was in the 

power of any one particular state? Would not this be most unsafe and humiliating?’’ (quoting 

James Iredell, Remarks at the Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention (July 30, 1788), 

in 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 

as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 219–20 (Jonathan Elliot 

ed., 2d ed. 1907), reprinted in 3 The Founders’ Constitution 225 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph 

Lerner eds., 1987))); Lawrence M. Frankel, Comment, National Representation for the District 

of Columbia: A Legislative Solution, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1659, 1684 (1991); Peter Raven-Hansen, 

Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia: A Constitutional Analysis, 12 Harv. 

J. on Legis. 167, 171 (1975) (‘‘How could the general government be guarded from the undue 

influence of particular states, or from insults, without such exclusive power? If it were at the 

pleasure of a particular state to control the sessions and deliberations of Congress, would they 

be secure from insults, or the influence of such state?’’ (quoting James Madison in 3 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 433 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed. 

1907)); Raven-Hansen, 12 Harv. J. on Legis. at 170 (having the national and a state capital in 

the same place would give ‘‘a provincial tincture to your national deliberations.’’ (quoting George 

Mason in James Madison, the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the 

Constitution of the United States of America 332 (Gaillard Hund & James B. Scott eds., 1920)). 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5388, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting 

Rights Act of 2006, was introduced by Representative Tom Davis 

and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton in a bipartisan effort to give 

citizens of the District of Columbia direct representation in the 

House of Representatives. The legislation has two main features. 

First, it treats the District as a congressional district for the purpose of granting full House representation. Second, it increases the 

size of the House by two members. In increasing the size of the 

House, the bill follows the historic House tradition of increasing 

representation in a non-partisan manner. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Efforts have been made to resolve the historic conundrum of status of the citizens living in the District since the earliest days of 

the nation’s history. The need for a federal district became obvious 

in 1783 when a group of disbanded soldiers gathered in Philadelphia to protest the Commonwealth’s refusal to pay back wages. 

This event was viewed as a threat to Congressional delegates. Congress called upon the Governor of Pennsylvania for protection from 

the mob. The Governor refused to act forcing Congress to adjourn 

and reconvene in New Jersey.1 The incident underscored the need 

that ‘‘the federal government be independent of the states, and for 

no one state be given more than an equal share of influence over 

it. . . .’’ 2 According to James Madison, without a permanent national capital, not only the public authority might be insulted and 

its proceedings be interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of 

the members of 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 influVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
3 

3The Federalist No. 43, at 289 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 

4 Act of July 16, 1790, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130; see also Act of Mar. 3, 1791, ch. 27, 1 Stat. 214. 

The land given by Virginia was subsequently retroceded by act of Congress (and upon the consent of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the citizens residing in such area) in 1846; See Act 

of July 9, 1846, ch. 35, 9 Stat. 35. 5See Act of July 16, 1790, ch. 28, § 6, 1 Stat. 130; see also Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F. Supp. 

295, 297 (D.D.C. 1966). 6 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. 7 Common Sense Justice for Nation’s Capital: An Examination of Proposals to Give D.C. Residents Direct Representation: Hearing on H.R. 5388 Before the H. Comm. On Government Reform, 108th Cong. 4–5 (2004) (Statement of the Honorable Kenneth W. Starr, Former Solicitor 

General of the United States, Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit) (quoting O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 539–40 (1993); Neil v. District of 

Columbia, 110 F.2d 246, 250–51 (D.C. Cir. 1940)). 

ence, equally dishonorable to the Government and dissatisfactory 

to the other members of the confederacy.3

The Constitution through Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 authorized the creation of an autonomous, permanent federal district to 

serve as the seat of the federal government. This clause was effectuated in 1790, when Congress accepted land that Maryland and 

Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital.4

Ten years later, on the first Monday of December 1800, jurisdiction 

over the District was vested in the federal government.5 Since 

then, District residents have not had direct representation in Congress because the Constitution did not explicitly provide for such 

representation. 

The District was created for the specific purpose of protecting the 

federal government from interruption by undue influence from or 

dependence upon any particular State government. Although some 

in the federal government debated the right to vote for the District 

residents, no evidence has been found to suggest that the lack of 

suffrage for citizens living in the federal district was considered an 

important component of this goal. It was important that the federal 

district be under the direct control of the federal government with 

no powers reserved to it as a political jurisdiction. 

To find the solution to this challenge, Article I, Section 8, Clause 

17 represents one of the most sweeping and expansive grants of 

federal authority found in the Constitution. It allows Congress ‘‘[t]o 

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....’’ 6

Judge Kenneth W. Starr stated in testimony before this Committee: 

As emphasized by the federal courts on numerous occasions, the Seat of Government Clause is majestic in its 

scope. In the words of the Supreme Court, ‘‘[t]he object of 

the grant of exclusive legislation over the [D]istrict was, 

therefore, national in the highest sense. . . . In the same 

article which granted the powers of exclusive jurisdiction 

. . . are conferred all the other great powers which make 

the nation.’’ And my predecessors on the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals once held that Congress can ‘‘provide for 

the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may 

deem conducive to that end.’’ 7


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
4 

8 Act of July 16, 1790, ch. 28, § 1, 1 Stat. 130. 9 An Act to Cede to Congress a District of Ten Miles Square in This State for the Seat of the 

Government of the United States, 1788 Md. Acts ch. 46, reprinted in 1 D.C. Code Ann. 34 (2001) 

(hereinafter ‘‘Maryland Cession’’); 28 An Act for the Cession of Ten Miles Square, or any Lesser 

Quantity of Territory Within This State, to the United States, in Congress Assembled, for the 

Permanent Seat of the General Government, 13 Va. Stat. at Large, ch. 32, reprinted in 1 D.C. 

Code Ann. 33 (2001) (hereinafter ‘‘Virginia Cession’’). 10 Adams, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 58, 73, 79 & n. 20; Raven-Hansen, supra note 2, at 174. 11See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 260–61 (1901); Reily v. Lamar, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 344, 

356 (1805); Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F. Supp. 295, 297 (D.D.C. 1966). 12 Indeed, even after the formal assumption of federal responsibility in December 1800, Congress enacted further legislation providing that Maryland and Virginia law ‘‘shall be and continue in force’’ in the areas of the District ceded by that state. Act of Feb. 27, 1801, ch. 15, § 1, 

2 Stat. 103. 13Petition to Congress, ‘‘Memorial of Sundry Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia,’’ January 26, 1801. 

On July 16, 1790, Congress passed ‘‘An Act for establishing the 

temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United 

States.’’ This legislation explicitly acknowledged that the ‘‘operation 

of the laws’’ of Maryland and Virginia would continue until the acceptance of the District by the federal government and the time 

when Congress would ‘‘otherwise by law provide.’’ 8

The legislatures of both Maryland and Virginia provided that 

their respective laws would continue in force in the territories they 

had ceded until Congress both accepted the cessions and provided 

for the government of the District.9 The laws of Maryland and Virginia thus remained in force for the next decade and District residents continued to be represented by and vote for Maryland and 

Virginia congressmen during this period.10

From of 1790–1800, District residents were able to vote in Congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia not because they 

were citizens of those states since the cession had ended their political link with those states.11 Rather, their voting rights derived 

from Congressional action under the District Clause recognizing 

and ratifying the ceding states’ laws as the applicable law for the 

now-federal territory until further legislation.12 Therefore, it was 

not the cessions themselves but the federal assumption of authority 

in 1800 that deprived District residents of representation in Congress. 

In the subsequent 216 years, various efforts have been made to 

extend voting representation to District residents. As early as 1801, 

the citizens of the town of Alexandria petitioned Congress to create 

a functioning municipal government within the District and provide its citizens representation in the House of Representatives.13

This effort has been repeatedly documented. However, two efforts 

in particular deserve mention here. The first attempt was a Constitutional amendment. On August 22, 1978, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment passed both houses 

with overwhelming bipartisan support. The amendment would 

have given District residents voting representation in the House 

and the Senate. Supporters of the amendment were given seven 

years to ratify the amendment in the 38 states required. Only 16 

states ratified the measure before it expired in 1985. 

The second endeavor sought to gain representation through a 

lawsuit brought under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. During the 1990s, District residents brought a series of legal 

challenges essentially claiming that the Constitution required that 

District citizens be granted voting representation. The Supreme 

Court found that the Constitution contains no provisions providing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
5 

14 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000), aff’d 531 U.S. 940 (2000). 15 Id. at 47. 16 Id. at 72. 17 Id. at 40 (emphasis added). 

for or guaranteeing congressional voting representation to District 

residents. The Supreme Court, in Alexander v. Daley, affirmed the 

holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, finding that the Constitution does not require Congress to provide residents of District representation in the House 

of Representatives.14 In Alexander, the plaintiffs argued that under 

Article I, and because the Supreme Court had interpreted the term 

‘‘State’’ to include the District, the District was required to be 

treated as a State for the purposes of representation. However, the 

Court rejected this theory holding that the Constitution does not 

treat the District as a State in order to provide for representation 

in the House of Representatives.15

Although the Court rejected the reasoning by the plaintiffs, it did 

not find that Congress was prohibited by any provision of the Constitution to extend voting rights to District residents through legislative means. Instead, it held that it was not the job of the judiciary to confer such franchise. The Court stated: 

Like our predecessors, we are not blind to the inequity 

of the situation plaintiffs seek to change. But longstanding 

judicial precedent, as well as the Constitution’s text and 

history, persuade us that this court lacks authority to 

grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. If they are to obtain 

it, they must plead their cause in other venues.16

While the Court did not specify ‘‘other venues’’ in which plaintiffs 

may proceed, it expressly stated that counsel for the House of Representatives had earlier acknowledged Congress’s authority to extend the vote to District residents legislatively. The Court said, 

House Counsel ‘‘assert[ed] that because Article I of the Constitution limits voting to residents of the fifty states, only congressional 

legislation or constitutional amendment can remedy plaintiffs’ exclusion from the franchise.’’ 17

Throughout the nation’s history, many Americans have agreed 

that the present political status of District residents is untenable. 

Even before the District was created James Madison addressed 

concerns about the political status of the new citizens: 

The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. 

And it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent 

of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide 

in compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens 

inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducement 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
6 

18The Federalist No. 43, at 289 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 19President Andrew Jackson, Third Annual Message, December 6, 1831. 20President William Henry Harrison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1841. 21President Richard Nixon, Special Message to the Congress on the District of Columbia, 

(1969), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=2022. 22 James N. Rimensnyder, ‘‘Letter to President George W. Bush,’’ April 2, 2002. (At the time 

this report was written 2nd Lt. Rimensnyder was serving in Ramadi, Iraq with the 1rst Armored Division). 23Spc. Marcus Gray, Spc. Emory Kosh, and Spc. Isaac Lewis, ‘‘Letter to Speaker Dennis 

Hastert,’’ January 3, 2005. 

adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection 

seems to obviated.18

Historically, President Andrew Jackson made the point that no 

articulable value to the federal district is gained from denying the 

people of the District some direct representation: 

It was doubtless wise in the framers of our Constitution 

to place the people of this District under the jurisdiction 

of the General Government. But to accomplish the objects 

they had in view, it is not necessary that this people 

should be deprived of all the privileges of self-government 

. . . I earnestly recommend the extension to them of every 

political right which their interests require and which may 

be compatible with the Constitution.19

Some years later, William Henry Harrison properly laid out the 

argument for the rights of citizens: 

The people of the District of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when the Constitution 

was formed, no words used in that instrument could have 

been intended to deprive them of that character. If there 

is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so 

emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make nor the United States accept 

a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects . . . 

of their former fellow-citizens.20

More recently, President Nixon said, ‘‘It should offend the democratic sense of this nation that the 850,000 citizens of its Capital, 

comprising a population larger than 11 of its states, have no voice 

in the Congress.’’ 21

Citizens serving in the United States military have engaged in 

the fight for District representation while they fight for democracy 

overseas. In 2002, then West Point Cadet James Rimensnyder 

wrote President George W. Bush making the point, ‘‘Today, we are 

the only citizens of the United States, excluding felons, who pay 

federal taxes and serve in the Armed Forces, but are denied representation in Congress.’’ 22 In 2005, Specialist Marcus Gray, Specialist Emory Kosh, and Specialist Isaac Lewis wrote to Speaker of 

the House Dennis Hastert that, ‘‘The elections in Iraq and Afghanistan remind us of our obligation to seek the same rights here in 

our country for ourselves and for all citizens.23

Taken as a collective whole, these comments and efforts suggest 

that the lack of basic representation for District residents is neither insignificant nor irrelevant. It is one of the largest remaining 

gaps in our constitutional system of government. If the advancement of the cause of democracy around the world is viewed as a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
7 

24 Craig Timberg, Davis Backs Expanding House for D.C. Seat, Washington Post, June 27, 

2003, at B01. 25 U.S Const. art. I, §8, cl. 17. 

worthy national goal, of the political status of the citizens of the 

District should be resolved if at all possible. 

DEVELOPMENT OF H.R. 5388 

Early in his tenure as chairman for the House Committee on 

Government Reform, Chairman Davis made clear he intended to 

seek a new, radically different, approach to solving the representation problem faced by District residents. In July of 2003, Chairman 

Davis told the Washington Post, ‘‘It’s hard to make a straight-faced 

argument that the capital of the free world shouldn’t have a vote 

in Congress.’’ 24 This position was a long held view for the Chairman, but the effort to find a way to give the District some representation was born out of a unique political opportunity which 

arose after the 2000 Census and apportionment process. 

The State of Utah was denied a new congressional district by 

less than a thousand citizens. This caused considerable outrage in 

Utah. Utah citizens and officials believed that this figure was miscalculated since many thousands of Utahns were currently serving 

as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 

in other states or countries. A lawsuit followed the apportionment 

which Utah ultimately lost before the U.S. Supreme Court. In spite 

of this defeat, the citizens of Utah remain convinced that they deserved a fourth congressional seat. This presented a unique historical opportunity. 

Drawing from past history, Chairman Davis took notice of the 

fact that the United States had traditionally increased representation in Congress in a politically balanced way. This tradition began 

with the Missouri Compromise and more recently the inclusion of 

Hawaii and Alaska as states. Given the diametrically opposite political environments in Utah and the District of Columbia, Chairman Davis recognized that this could be a singular time in American history to partially solve the lack of direct representation for 

District residents. 

While the idea may seem unusual, the legislation reflects a 

unique solution for a unique jurisdiction. In developing the legislation, two major questions need to be addressed. Does Congress 

have the authority to do such a thing? Can Congress mandate the 

creation of an at-large seat for a state? 

CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

In looking at the scope of Congressional authority, it quickly became obvious that Congress has an extraordinary power under the 

exclusive jurisdiction granted in the District Clause which states, 

‘‘Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in 

all Cases whatsoever, over such District....’’ 25 In testimony before the Committee Judge Kenneth Starr stated, ‘‘Congress’s powers over the District are not simply limited to those powers that a 

State legislature might have over a State. As emphasized by the 

federal courts on numerous occasions, the Seat of Government 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
8 

26 Common Sense Justice for Nation’s Capital: An Examination of Proposals to Give D.C. Residents Direct Representation: Hearing on H.R. 5388 Before the H. Comm. On Government Reform, 108th Cong. 2 (2004) (Statement of the Honorable Kenneth W. Starr, Former Solicitor 

General of the United States, Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit) (quoting O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 539–40 (1993); Neil v. District of 

Columbia, 110 F.2d 246, 250–51 (D.C. Cir. 1940)). 27 Id. at 4. 28Memorandum from Viet D. Dinh and Adam H. Charnes on ‘‘The Authority of Congress to 

Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House 

of Representatives,’’ to Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. 6 

(November 2004) (on file with the Committee). 29 Id. at 6. 30 Id. at 11. 31 Id at 11–12. 32 Id. at 14. 33Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141, 147 (1889). 

Clause is majestic in its scope.’’ 26 Judge Starr testified that ‘‘it has 

been held by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that 

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

District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it 

may deem conducive to that end.’ ’’ 27

In support of this proposition, the Committee sought a legal opinion from Professor Viet Dinh, noted Georgetown law professor and 

former Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General John 

Ashcroft. Professor Dinh’s opinion states Congress’s broad legislative authority extends to the granting of Congressional voting 

rights for District residents. The opinion refers to the text of the 

Constitution, judicial decisions, and similar Congressional actions 

to support this proposal. 

The construction of the Constitution suggests the limited powers 

granted Congress in relation to the states do not apply to the District. ‘‘The District Clause contains no such counterbalancing restraints because its authorization of ‘exclusive Legislation in all 

Cases whatsoever’ explicitly recognizes that there is no competing 

state sovereign authority.’’ 28 These facts lead Professor Dinh to 

conclude, ‘‘[i]n few, if any, other areas does the Constitution grant 

any broader authority to Congress to legislate.’’ 29

Professor Dinh also noted that case law dating from the early 

days of the Republic demonstrates that Congressional legislation is 

the appropriate mechanism for granting national representation to 

District residents. Chief Justice Marshall in Hepburn v. Ellzey recognized that Congress and not the courts can treat the District as 

a state.30 Also, Justice Jackson in National Mutual Insurance Co. 

of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co., relying on 

Hepburn, held that although the District is not defined as a ‘‘state’’ for the purpose of Article III, other provisions of the Constitution 

do not prohibit Congress from considering the District as a state.31

More recently, in Adams v. Clinton, a district court held that Congress, and not the courts, is equipped to remedy District residents’ need for direct representation.32

Professor Dinh also noted the courts have recognized Congressional authority outside the District Clause to regulate District affairs and afford them everyday protections most American citizens 

take for granted. The Supreme Court has held that the Commerce 

Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce across the District’s borders.33 Also, the Court held that the people of the District 

are afforded the right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment, 

regardless of the fact that the text of the Amendment maintains 

that ‘‘in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
9 

34 Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 548 (1888); see also Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 

1, 5 (1899) (‘‘It is beyond doubt, at the present day, that the provisions of the Constitution of 

the United States securing the right of trial by jury, whether in civil or in criminal cases, are 

applicable to the District of Columbia.’’). 35 Act of July 16, 1790, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130. 36Pub. L. 99–410, 100 Stat. 924 (1986), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff et. seq. (2003). 37 Establishing Congress: The Removal to Washington, D.C., and the Election of 1800, 39–41 

(Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon eds., 2005). 

to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and 

district wherein the crime shall have been committed....’’ 34

Interestingly, Professor Dinh’s research revealed two previous 

times that Congress has granted Congressional representation to 

persons who are not citizens of States. In its initial acceptance of 

the ceded lands from Maryland and Virginia the Congress exercised its authority to give the district’s representation by allowing 

its citizens to vote with ceding states until the Federal Government 

accepted the District in 1800.35 District citizens’ voting rights derived from Congressional action under the District Clause recognizing and ratifying the ceding states’ law as the applicable law for 

the now-federal territory until further legislation. 

Also, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 

Act 36 allows American citizens to vote by absentee ballot in ‘‘the 

last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the 

United States.’’ The overseas voter need not be a citizen of the 

state where voting occurs. Indeed, the voter need not have an 

abode in that state, pay taxes in that state, or even intend to return to that state. Based on the construction of the Constitution 

itself, prior established case law and prior legislative activity it is 

clear that Congress can, if it chooses to do so, grant the citizens 

of the District some representation in the House of Representatives. 

Therefore, it is evident that the remedy for the representation of 

District residents rests with the Congress and not the courts. In 

this case, Congress has the legislative power to provide District 

residents some measure of direct representation in the House of 

Representatives. 

In spite of the unusual nature of this solution, the Committee believes action is warranted because the District, unlike a state, owes 

its existence to the Constitution.37 This jurisdiction is unlike any 

other political jurisdiction in our system. The people living in this 

federal enclave are American citizens. But it is equally without 

doubt that they are not citizens of a State or a territory. Before the 

Constitution was enacted this type of American citizenship did not 

exist. This unique nature suggests that a unique solution may be 

available to the Congress. 

Congress’s authority to treat the District as a state for representation purposes is not constrained by the use of the word ‘‘states,’’

which is mentioned five times in Article I. The framers attempted 

to create in the House of Representatives the most representative 

body possible. Hence, the phrase people of the several states should 

not be read narrowly to mean state citizens, but not other citizens 

of the nation. Instead, it should be read broadly to mean all the 

people in the Union. 

The framers’ use of the word ‘‘state’’ refers to the particular types 

of political jurisdiction that the Constitution intended to unite into 

a Union. The framers took no notice of the fact that the ConstituVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
10 

38The Federalist No. 43, at 288–98 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 39 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1. 40 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 2. 41 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. 42 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. 43 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 4. 44 U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. 45 In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 119 (1970), Justice Black wrote, ‘‘The breadth of power 

granted to Congress to make or alter election regulations in national elections, including the 

qualifications of voters, is demonstrated by the fact that the Framers of the Constitution and 

the state legislatures which ratified it intended to grant to Congress the power to lay out or 

alter the boundaries of the congressional districts. Surely no voter qualification was more important to the Framers than the geographical qualification embodied in the concept of congressional 

districts.’’ In Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 383–384, the Court held that ‘‘the power of Congress over [the election of Senators and Representatives] is paramount. It may be exercised as 

and when Congress sees fit to exercise it.’’ 46 2 U.S.C. § 2c (1967). 47 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c). 

tion, once ratified, would create a wholly new type of political jurisdiction which would exist separately but alongside states in the 

new Union. It is important to recall that, at the time these phrases 

were written, the residents of what would later become the District 

of Columbia were the people of the several states, and, as reflected 

in James Madison’s views described above, no one intended or envisioned that these people would be deprived of their rights without 

recourse when the land was ceded to the new federal enclave.38

In describing who shall be eligible to vote for a Representative, 

Section 2 states ‘‘the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous Branch of the 

State Legislature.’’ 39 Clause 2 of this section states a representative must be ‘‘an Inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.’’ 40 When discussing how the new legislative body should be 

formed, Clause 3 declares ‘‘Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States.’’ 41 This clause also lays out that 

each State shall have at least one representative.42 Finally, Clause 

4 establishes what should happen when a vacancy occurs in ‘‘the 

Representation from any State.’’ 43 In each instance where the 

words ‘‘state’’ or ‘‘states’’ is used, the primary and plain meaning 

of the phrases is not one that limits representation to certain citizens. Instead, the obvious meaning is that everyone eligible to elect 

some representative in any political jurisdiction joining this Union 

should be eligible to elect representation to the Nation’s House of 

Representatives. 

MANDATING AN AT-LARGE SEAT

Finally, the question is whether Congress has the authority to 

mandate a state to adopt an ‘‘at-large’’ Congressional district for a 

new House seat. Generally, the Constitution grants Congress broad 

authority to regulate national elections, stating, ‘‘The Times, Place 

and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives 

shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the 

Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, 

except as to the Places of chusing Senators.’’ 44 The Supreme Court 

has repeatedly affirmed this broad authority.45

Current federal law appears to conflict regarding ‘‘at-large’’ congressional representation: Under 2 U.S.C. § 2c, Representatives 

must run from single-member districts, rather than running ‘‘atlarge’’ 46; under 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) Congress may provide for ‘‘at-large’’

representation if a state failed to redistrict after a census.47 NothVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
11 

48 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 124 S. Ct. 1769, 1775 (2004). 49See Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United 

States, 170–173 (Washington: GPO, 1907). 50 Id. 51 Id. 52 Id. at 182. 53 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2:§ 618. 

ing in the present legislation, however, is intended to overturn or 

influence these two statutes’ relationship. Instead, this legislation 

draws upon Congress’s above-mentioned, broad authority to regulate congressional elections. As Justice Scalia wrote in Vieth v. 

Jubelirer, ‘‘Article I, § 4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permits Congress 

to ‘make or alter’ those districts if it wished.’’ 48

Throughout its history Congress has wielded this broad authority, even in the face of a contradicting statute. For example, in 

1843, statutory language proclaimed that no district shall elect 

more than one Representative. However, three states elected their 

delegations ‘‘at-large.’’ 49 After the delegations were seated, the 

House directed the Committee of Elections ‘‘to examine and report 

upon the certificates of elections, or the credentials of the Members 

returned to serve in this House.’’ 50 The Committee’s report found 

the 1842 law unconstitutional. Later, however, the House adopted 

a resolution declaring the ‘‘at-large’’ Representatives ‘‘duly elected,’’ omitting any mention of the 1842 law.51 In 1861, California elected 

three Representatives at large, and they too were seated.52 In both 

these instances, Congress explicitly blessed the states’ ‘‘at-large’’ elections. 

Moreover, it is an open question as to whether the founders intended Representatives to be elected through the districting process. Prior to 1842, members of Congress were elected ‘‘at-large’’ unless state law or practice provided otherwise. According to Justice 

Story, ‘‘it is observable, that the inhabitancy required is within the 

state, and not within any particular district of the state, in which 

the member is chosen.’’ 53 The current districting process is not a 

function of the founders’ explicit intent, but rather a later, more 

modern Congressional mandate. 

Having resolved these major questions the Committee proceeded 

to take up the resulting bill. One major overarching fact has guided 

the entire process. The current situation is the result of an historic 

collateral effect and the pressing politics of the day. No one intended or envisioned that District citizens would be deprived of 

their rights without recourse. The solution embodied in H.R. 5388 

is unusual, creative, and without precedent. Ironically, it is these 

very characteristics that make the bill as unique as the problem 

itself. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

This bill was originally introduced on June 22, 2004 as the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act. This bill temporarily increased the size of Congress by two members. One seat 

was designated for the District of Columbia and the other seat 

would go to the next state in line under the apportionment formula 

(Utah). The bill made no reference to how the newly apportioned 

Utah seat would be districted. On June 23, 2004 the Committee on 

Government Reform held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Common Sense JusVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
12 

54Memorandum from Viet D. Dinh and Adam H. Charnes on ‘‘The Authority of Congress to 

Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House 

of Representatives,’’ to Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. 6 

(November 2004) (on file with the Committee). 

tice for the Nation’s Capital, An Examination of Proposals to Give 

D.C. Residents Direct Representation.’’ Testifying at the hearing 

were: the Honorable Ralph Regula, Member of Congress, State of 

Ohio; the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Member of Congress, 

State of California; the Honorable Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, 

District of Columbia; the Honorable Linda W. Cropp, Chairman, 

Council of the District of Columbia; Mr. Wade Henderson, Esquire, 

Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; the 

Honorable Kenneth W. Starr, Former Solicitor General of the 

United States, Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit; Mr. Ilir Zherka, Executive Director, DC Vote; 

Mr. Walter Smith, Executive Director, The DC Appleseed Center 

for Law and Justice, Ms. Betsy W. Werronen, Chairman, District 

of Columbia Republican Committee; Mr. Ted Trabue on behalf of 

the Greater Washington Board of Trade. Testimony focused on the 

effects of not having direct representation in the federal enclave. 

Judge Starr testified on the constitutional ramifications of the legislation and Congress’s authority to enact a legislative solution. 

On June 23, 2004 the Committee approved a contract for The 

Honorable Viet Dinh to answer the question as to whether Congress had the authority to give the District a seat in the House of 

Representatives. On September 13, 2004 the Committee on Government Reform received Professor Dinh’s report which studied the 

legal challenges to the legislation. Professor Dinh reported ‘‘allowing Congress to exercise such a power under the authority granted 

to it by the District Clause would remove a political disability with 

no constitutional rationale, give the District, which is akin to a 

state in virtually all important respects, its proportionate influence 

in national affairs, and correct the historical accident by which District residents have been denied the right to vote in national elections.’’ 54

In the 109th Congress this bill was re-introduced as on May 3, 

2005 as H.R. 2043 by the same name. On May 16th, 2006 Chairman Davis, with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Representative 

Henry Waxman and Representative Christopher Shays introduced 

the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act 

of 2006. This new legislation contained two major changes from the 

two prior bills. First, the legislation made the increase in the size 

of Congress permanent. Second, the legislation mandated that new 

seat created in Utah would be an at-large seat until the 2010 reapportionment. 

On May 18, 2006, the Committee met in open session and voted 

favorably to report the bill, H.R. 5388. At that markup, the question was raised regarding how this bill affects the number of electors granted to Utah for the 2008 presidential election. It is the 

Committee’s intention for this bill to be political neutral on the 

Electoral College issue. But we must also respect the bounds of the 

Constitution. Members will continue to work together to try to resolve this issue before the bill gets to the House floor. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
13 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short Title: This section would provide a short title to 

the bill as the ‘‘District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting 

Rights Act of 2006.’’

Section 2. Findings: This section takes notice of the fact that the 

citizens of the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It also notes 

that District citizens have served in every war since the War of 

Independence. It notes that District citizens pay federal taxes. Finally, this section notes that the nation is founded on principles of 

one person one vote and government by the consent of the governed. 

Section 3. Treatment of District of Columbia as Congressional 

District: This section would establish that the District of Columbia 

shall be considered a Congressional District for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. It would make conforming amendments at various places in the U.S. Code where the 

current language mentions Congressional Districts and adds ‘‘the 

District of Columbia.’’ The section also would establish that the 

amendments made by this section shall apply in the 110th Congress and each succeeding Congress. 

Section 4. Permanent Increase in the Membership of Representatives: This section would provide that, effective January 3, 2007, 

the size of Congress shall be increased by two members. One seat 

would be designated for the District of Columbia and the other seat 

would go to the next state in line under the apportionment formula 

(Utah). The section also states that the new seat established in 

Utah shall be an at-large seat. This at-large seat shall exist until 

all congressional seats are reapportioned for the 2012 election. 

Section 5. Repeal of Office of District of Columbia Delegate: The 

section would repeal the Office of the District of Columbia Delegate, and it would make conforming changes in the U.S. Code by 

striking the term ‘‘Delegate’’ or Delegate of the District of Columbia.’’ The section would make these changes effective during the 

elections of 2006 and any succeeding year. 

Section 6. Repeal of Office of Statehood Representative: This section would end the Office of Statehood Representative, but would 

leave intact the Office of Statehood Senator. This section also 

would make other conforming amendments throughout the District 

of Columbia Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979. The 

changes made by this section would become effective during the 

elections of 2006 and any succeeding year. 

Section 7. Nonseverability of Provisions: This section will ensure 

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

be vacated. Political neutrality is the linchpin of the entire legislative effort. Any result that would grant a seat to the District and 

not Utah or vice versa is counter to Congresses intent. Therefore 

no section of this legislation should be effective without the entire 

bill being ruled effective. No section of the bill should be subject to 

injunction without the entire bill being subject to the same injunction. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

There were no amendments offered. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
14 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 18, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill, H.R. 5388, on a rollcall vote. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
15 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here HR593.001
16 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 5388. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, and, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power to enact 

this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

3128. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
17 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 3128 

from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 26, 2006. 

Hon. TOM DAVIS, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5388, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006. 

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

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

federal costs) and Sarah Puro (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5388—District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting 

Rights Act of 2006 

Summary: H.R. 5388 would expand the number of Members in 

the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 beginning with the 

110th Congress (i.e., in 2007). The legislation would provide the 

District of Columbia with one Representative and add one new atlarge Member. Under H.R. 5388, the new at-large seat would initially be assigned to the state of Utah and then would be reallocated based on the next Congressional apportionment based on the 

2010 census. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 

spending by about $200,000 in 2007 and by about $2.5 million over 

the 2007–2015 period. In addition, implementing the bill would 

have discretionary costs of $1 million of 2007 and about $7 million 

over the 2007–2011 period, assuming the availability of the appropriated funds. 

H.R. 5388 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

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

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

threshold established in UMRA ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates 

as defined in UMRA. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5388 is shown in the following table. The costs 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
18 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Representative Salary and Benefits: 

Estimated Budget Authority * * * * * * * * * * 

Estimated Outlays ................ * * * * * * * * * * 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Representative’s Office and Administrative Expenses: 

Estimated Authorization 

Level ................................. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Estimated Outlays ................ 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Note: * = less than $500,000 

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

will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2007 and that spending 

will follow historical patterns for Congressional office spending. 

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

new Member would represent the District of Columbia and the 

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

the next apportionment based on the 2010 census. The District of 

Columbia currently has a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives; establishing voting representation for the conversion 

from delegate to Representative would not add significant costs 

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

Direct spending 

Enacting H.R. 5388 would increase direct spending for the salary 

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

estimates that the increase in direct spending for the Congressional 

salary and benefits would be about $2.5 million over the 2007–2015 

period. That estimate assumes that the current Congressional salary of $162,100 would be adjusted for inflation. With benefits, the 

2007 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 2007 and about $7 million over the 

2007–2011 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

5388 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA 

because it would temporarily preempt laws in the state of Utah 

that govern the election of Members of the House of Representatives. The bill would require the state to elect an additional Member of the House using a statewide election. The state may derive 

benefits from having an additional Member of the House of Representatives. However, Utah could incur some costs to hold a special election in 2006 or 2007 and would incur small marginal costs 

to elect the additional Member through the 2010 election cycle. 

CBO estimates that these costs would not be significant and would 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
19 

not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($64 million in 

2006, adjusted annually for inflation.) 

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford and 

Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 

Sarah Puro. Impact on the Private-Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

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

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

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

SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1929 

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

provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress. 

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

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

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

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

and the number of Representatives to which each State would be 

entitled under an apportionment of øthe then existing number of 

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

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

Member. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

SECTION 3 OF TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE 

NUMBER OF ELECTORS

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

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

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

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

be according to the then existing apportionment of Senators and 

Representatives. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
20 

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE B—Army 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution 

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

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

to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District 

of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE C—Navy and Marine Corps 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 6954. Midshipmen: number 

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

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

limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
21 

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

Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of 

Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

§ 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission 

(a) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE D—Air Force 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—TRAINING 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution 

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

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

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

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District 

of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

Virgin Islands, if nominated from one of those places. 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
22 

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 

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), 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
23 

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), 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
24 

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’’.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 29—ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 594. Intimidation of voters 

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he 

may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to 

vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, 

Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the 

House of Representatives, øDelegate from the District of Columbia, 

or Resident Commissioner¿ Delegates or Commissioners from the 

Territories and possessions, at any election held solely or in part for 

the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this 

title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

§ 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, 

State, or Territorial Governments 

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position 

by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or 

by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, 

or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or 

agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any 

corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United 

States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nominaVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
25 

tion or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice 

President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of 

the House of Representatives, øDelegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner¿ or Delegate or Resident Commissioner from any Territory or Possession, shall be fined under 

this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any 

officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in 

part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District 

of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; 

or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 11 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

SEC. 11. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Whoever knowingly or willfully give false information as to 

his name, address, or period of residence in the voting district for 

the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his 

false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay 

or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall 

be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five 

years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or 

in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the 

office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of 

the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of 

Representatives, øDelegate from the District of Columbia¿ or Delegates or Commissioners from the territories or possessions, Guam, 

or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 1—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT 

DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—STATEHOOD 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
26 

PART A—CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INITIATIVE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART I—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

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

of constitution; rejection of constitution; election 

of Senator and Representative. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

of candidates for the øoffices of Senator and Representative¿ office 

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

shall be held at the next regularly scheduled primary and general 

elections following certification by the District of Columbia Board 

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

that the proposed constitution is approved by the electors at the 

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

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

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

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

and general elections shall follow the same electoral procedures as 

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

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

Senators elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 

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

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

and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senators øand 1 United States Representative¿; and 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

604.08. 

(f) øA Representative or¿ Senator: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
27 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

bequests. A øRepresentative or¿ Senator shall establish a District 

of Columbia statehood fund in 1 or more financial institutions in 

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

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

in annual Congressional appropriations. A øRepresentative or¿ 

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

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

Columbia. 

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

expenses necessary to support the purposes and operations of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) The recordkeeping requirements of subchapter I of Chapter 

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

under paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

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

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

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

necessary to support the purposes and operation of the public office 

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

donated to an organization operating in the District of Columbia as 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

union. 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
28 

§ 1—125. Statehood Commission. 

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

members appointed in the following manner: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

and 

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

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

Councilmember whose purview the Statehood Commission 

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

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

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

until appointments or reappointments are confirmed. Appointments 

or reappointments shall be made immediately after August 26, 

1994, in the following manner: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—127. Appropriations. 

There is authorized to be appropriated from the General Fund of 

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

admission of the proposed new state into the union. 

* * * * * * * 

PART B—HONORARIA LIMITATIONS 

§ 1—131. Application of honoraria limitations. 

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

shall apply to a Senator øor Representative¿ elected pursuant to 

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

is supported by public revenues. 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM 

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

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

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

District of Columbia shall apply to persons who are candidates or 

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

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
29 

CHAPTER 10. ELECTIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I. REGULATION OF ELECTIONS 

§ 1—1001.01. Election of electors. 

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

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

Columbia, the Mayor and the following officials of political parties 

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

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1—1001.02. Definitions. 

For the purposes of this subchapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

of Representatives from the District of Columbia.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

District of Columbia,¿ the Representative in the Congress, 

United States Senator øand Representative¿, and advisory 

neighborhood commissioners of the District of Columbia. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

arrangement of ballot. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
30 

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

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

nominated for any such office by a petition: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

Such person shall be nominated by petition: 

(A) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

may be counted which have been made on such petition more 

than 123 days before the date of such election. 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

year. 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

leaving no person elected pursuant to this subchapter to serve the 

remainder of the unexpired term of office, the successor or succesVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:33 Jul 27, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR593P1.XXX HR593P1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
31 

sors to serve the remainder of the term shall be chosen pursuant 

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

successor shall have the qualifications required by this subchapter 

for the office. 

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

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

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

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

vacancy is certified by the Board unless the Board determines that 

the vacancy could be filled more practicably in a special election 

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

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

which the special election would otherwise have been held under 

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

the Board certifies his or her election. 

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

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

the Mayor shall appoint a successor to complete the remainder of 

the term of office.¿ 

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

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

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

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

of office. 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a)(1) * * * 

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

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

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

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

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

shall not be charged to any candidate. 

* * * * * * * 

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

multiple nominations; candidacy of officeholder for 

another office restricted. 

(a) * * * 

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

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

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
32 

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

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

1001.05, either resign from the office that person currently holds 

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

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

been elected. 

* * * * * * * 

§1—1001.17. Recall process. 

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

elected officers of the District of Columbia except øthe Delegate to 

the Congress from the District of Columbia¿ the Representative in 

the Congress. 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARING
33 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 HR593.002
34 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 HR593.003
35 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 HR593.004
36 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 HR593.005
37 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 HR593.006
38 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 HR593.007
39 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 HR593.008
40 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 HR593.009
41 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 HR593.010
42 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 HR593.011
43 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 HR593.012
44 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 HR593.013
45 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 HR593.014
46 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 HR593.015
47 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 HR593.016
48 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 HR593.017
49 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 HR593.018
50 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 HR593.019
51 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 HR593.020
52 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 HR593.021
53 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 HR593.022
54 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 HR593.023
55 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 HR593.024
56 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 HR593.025
57 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 HR593.026
58 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 HR593.027
59 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 HR593.028
60 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 HR593.029
61 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 HR593.030
62 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 HR593.031
63 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 HR593.032
64 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 HR593.033