Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-01-29
Duel Voting in Home Rule

The provision of the AucnlnclOSS noine
rule bill which permits dual voting prlVl-
leees has provoked unusual interest unoer
this unique arrangement we would nave
at least three classes of voters, as follows:
Cd Washingtonians who live here, pay
taxes here and would be permitted to vote
In local but not national elections
90 State residents, for the most part
Government employees, who live here Tor
year or more but pay no direct local taxes
They would have vote in local elections
here as we'll as vote in State and national
elections
90 Those who earn their living IN
Washington and who, as owners OF unln-
corporated businesses pay corporation
income taxes and perhaps real estate taxes
in the District but whose residence IN
Maryland or Virginia would disquallfy
them as local voters.
The intent of the Auchincloss subcom-
mittee in it's provision for dual voting is
perfectly sound. Because of the apportion-
ment of Offices law, which parcels out
Federal jobs on a State basis, many FED
eral employees are unwilling to sacrifice
State residence or to give up the voting
rights which State residence confers. But
many of these people are in effect lifelong
residents of Washington. 1t is undoubtedly
true that they would normally constitute
a desirable element in any electorate
There might never be any important
clash of interests between the three classes
of citizenship mentioned above. Yet the
existing discrimination against Washing
of ho
tax, case in which Congress has.
relieved resident Government employees
maintaining State domicile from sharing
the local tax burden, suggests possibilities
inherent in such division of interests.
A State government taxes the income
derived within the State Some of the pro-
posed city councils legislative powers have
been likened to those of State. city
council, at any rate would be apt to favor
the principle of taxing locally derived
incomes with no exemptions other than
the usual reciprocal credit arrangements
with the States. Such a proposition, as
demonstrated in the past, would conflict
with the interests of State residents living
in Washington, including members OF
Congress and the Virginians and Mary
landers who earn their living here but live
lust across the District line.
Who would exercise, in such conflict
of interests, the balance Of power? Not
the majority of local voters, but the Con-
gress in which some of them have able
representatives of their own. 1t is in Con-
gress that the ultimate decision must lie.
And Congress has always refused to
approve a local income tax drawn along
the lines of State income taxes. The
pressure for exemption by those who have
the voting power is too great Under the
dual voting arrangements, we would have
an unusually large percentage of the local
electorate owing no taxpaying allegiance
to the local government but casting their
votes in favor of various forms of spending.
Such possibilities are not mentioned in
hostility to the dual voting provision of
the home rule bill, but as illustrative OF
the curiously complex problem of bene-
fetal home rule in community of citizens
whose national voting rights, as Ameri-
cans, are determined by whether they
happen to be bona f1de residents OF the
Capital of the United States.