The House of Representatives recently decided not to consider H.R. 157 during the current Congress, a bill that would have provided the District of Columbia with an official voting member in the House of Representatives. The Senate passed the bill by a 61-37 margin, but only after approving an amendment that would have scrapped D.C.’s current firearm regulations.

D.C. residents should have a voting member in Congress; after all, they are citizens of the United States and eligible to vote in presidential elections. Also, unlike Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Marina Islands, D.C.’s residents are physically located in the United States. However, this legislation shows blatant disregard for the Constitution and should not have even been considered.

Article I section 2 clearly defines the composition of the House: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Simply put, D.C. is not a state. D.C. has not met the constitutional requirements for statehood, and is currently not recognized as such.

This fact matters little to congressional Democrats, who insist that the Constitution is not the appropriate yardstick for measuring this bill. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s current non-voting delegate to the House, admitted that she believes most congressmen do not consider the constitutionality of bills when voting. This sentiment is not uncommon amongst the Democratic caucus. “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this,” said Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), when asked if he considered the constitutionality of the new health care bill.

Recognizing they cannot win their argument on the merits, the Democrats attempted to pass this legislation by also providing Utah with an additional congressional seat, which would almost certainly elect a Republican. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) may have supported this compromise because many Utahns believe they were undercounted in the 2000 Census because census workers could not count Mormons on missions overseas. But this new district would provide only temporary value to Utah because the state is projected to gain an additional House seat in the current census.

The option of “retrocession” remains. Under this proposal, D.C. residents would become citizens of Maryland (or Virginia), and would receive representation from Maryland’s congressional and senatorial delegation. However, some politicians have observed that this would require either a constitutional amendment compelling Maryland or Virginia to repossess D.C. It is also unlikely that either of these states actually want to govern D.C., considering its high crime rate (although the Maryland or Virginia Democratic parties may relish the prospect of 250,000 reliable Democratic votes).

In an ideal world, D.C. would have appropriate representation in Congress. A constitutional amendment providing it with or an approved statehood application would be the most direct ways to achieve this goal. But considering the difficulty in passing the preceding proposals and the fact that the unconstitutional legislation has stalled, D.C. residents will just have to wait. Or move to Maryland or Virginia.

Related Articles:

1. Eagle Spotlight: Bill Arnold Bill Arnold has been a difference maker...