Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the 50 U.S. states. The Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. As the federal capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in Congress. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".
The District's lack of voting representation in Congress has been an issue since the capital's founding. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation, including legislation and constitutional amendments, returning the district to Maryland, and making it into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges, and there has been no change in the district's representation in Congress.
In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest outside the building where the Continental Congress was meeting. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Despite requests from Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and so Congress was forced to adjourn to New Jersey abruptly. This led to the widespread belief that Congress needed control over the national capital. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No.43, "Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy." This belief resulted in the creation of a national capital, separate from any state, by the Constitution's District Clause.[1]
[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.
There were some reasons why voting rights for the District were not addressed. It was effectively agreed at an early stage that the capital was to be in the South, and Northerners would have bitterly opposed any clause that would give the South even more voting power. Moreover, given the capital's planned location, many delegates assumed its permanent residents would primarily consist of slaves unable to vote in any case. They also expected the federal government would only operate on a part-time basis and assumed that those who were chosen to serve in federal office and those whose occupations would require them to spend time in the district would come mainly from the upper echelons of society and would therefore have the means to maintain residency (and voting rights) in their home states.[citation needed]
In 1788, the land on which the District is formed was ceded by Maryland. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act placing the District on the Potomac River between the Anacostia and Conococheague Creek with the exact location chosen by President George Washington. His selection was announced on January 24, 1791, and the Residence Act was amended to include land that Virginia had ceded in 1790. That land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially move to the new federal capital until the first Monday in December 1800. During that time, the District was governed by a combination of a federally appointed Board of Commissioners, the state legislatures, and locally elected governments.[2]
On February 27, 1801, only a few months after moving to the District, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal District under its sole authority as permitted by the District Clause, making Congress the supreme source of all local laws. Since the District of Columbia ceased being part of any state and was not a state itself, the District's residents lost voting representation in Congress, the Electoral College, and in the Constitutional amendment process – consequences that did not go without protest.[3] In January 1801, a meeting of District citizens was held which resulted in a statement to Congress noting that as a result of the impending Organic Act "we shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation."[2] The following year, the Board of Commissioners was abolished, the City of Washington was incorporated, and a local government consisting of a locally elected 12-member council and a mayor appointed by the president was put in place.[2]
In 1812, the District was given more significant home rule when the mayor became an elected official, chosen from among the group of 12 elected council members and 8 aldermen, and in 1820 the mayor became directly elected. Minor modifications were made over the years, but in 1871 the District government was again dramatically modified, getting a government more similar to that of the territories. Under this new government, the governor of the District was again appointed by the president, as were all members of one house of the District legislature.
The Congress abolished the territorial government in 1874 and replaced it with a presidentially appointed council, which by 1878 was considered the District's permanent government.[2] It was later decided that this congressional act constituted the District's constitution, making the District the only territory that had not been allowed to write its own constitution.[2]
By the 1930s, the District of Columbia was administered by House committees that had little regard for the concerns of the local population; the representative Ross A. Collins from Mississippi cut spending on local funds for welfare and education, stating that "my constituents wouldn't stand for spending money on niggers".[4]
In the 1950s, as part of the more prominent Civil Rights Movement, interest emerged in giving the District full representation. As a compromise, the Twenty-third Amendment was adopted in 1961, granting the District some votes in the Electoral College in measure to their population, but no more than the smallest state. The Districts' residents have exercised this right since the presidential election of 1964.
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 devolved certain Congressional powers over the District to a local government administered by an elected mayor, currently Muriel Bowser, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn any of the District's laws.[5] Each of the District's eight wards elects a single member of the council, and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.[6]
In 1978, Congress submitted the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to the states for ratification. It would have given the District full congressional representation, full participation in presidential elections, and the authority of a state regarding amending the Constitution.[7]
In 1980, District voters approved the call of a constitutional convention to draft a proposed state constitution,[8] just as U.S. territories had done before their admission as states. The proposed state constitution was ratified by District voters in 1982 for a new state to be called "New Columbia", but Congress has not granted statehood to the District.[9] Pursuant to that proposed state constitution, the District still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, consisting of two shadow senators and a shadow representative, to lobby the Congress to grant statehood. The Congress does not officially recognize these positions. Additionally, until May 2008, the Congress prohibited the District from spending any funds on lobbying for voting representation or statehood.[10]
On December 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States concluded that the United States is violating the District of Columbia's rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by denying District of Columbia citizens an adequate opportunity to participate in the Congress. The Commission reiterated the following recommendation to the United States: "Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature".[11]
A 2005 poll paid for by the advocacy group D.C. Vote, but conducted by the non-partisan polling firm KRC Research, found that 82% of 1,007 adults believed that D.C. should have full congressional voting representation.[12] A 2007 Washington Post poll of 788 adults found that 61% of those adults supported granting the District "a full voting" representative.[13]
Arguments for and against
There are arguments both for and against giving the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress.
Consent of the governed
Advocates of voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as citizens living in the United States, the District's estimated 672,228 residents[14] should have the same right to determine how they are governed as citizens of a state. At least as early as 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:
VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.
VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.[15]
Justice Hugo Black described the right to vote as fundamental in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376U.S.1(1964). He wrote, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."[16]
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home state's Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the world. If a U.S. citizen were to move to the District, that person would lose the ability to vote for a member of Congress. U.S. citizens who have permanently left the United States are still permitted to vote absentee for the Congress in the state where they last held residency. Scholars have argued that if U.S. citizens who are residents of other countries are allowed to vote in federal elections, then Congress can extend the same rights to residents of the nation's capital.[16][17]
Constitutional provisions
The primary objection to legislative proposals to grant the District voting rights is that some Constitution provisions suggest that such an action would be unconstitutional.[18] How the House of Representatives is to be composed is described in Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers[.]
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
In addition, the Seventeenth Amendment correspondingly describes the election of "two Senators from each State". Those who believe D.C. voting rights legislation would be unconstitutional point out that the District of Columbia is not a U.S. state.[19] Advocates of voting rights legislation claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the District Clause), which grants Congress "exclusive" legislative authority over the District, allows the Congress to pass legislation that would grant D.C. voting representation in the Congress.[16] The Twenty-third Amendment says the District is entitled to:
A number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State[.]
Since this amendment's adoption in 1961, the District has had three electoral votes in each presidential election.[20]
Tax arguments
Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes.[21] In fiscal year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita.[22] This situation has given rise to the use of the phrase "End Taxation Without Representation" by those in favor of granting D.C. voting representation in the Congress. The slogan currently appears on the city's vehicle license plates. The issue of taxation without representation in the District of Columbia is not new. For example, in Loughborough v. Blake18U.S.317(1820), the Supreme Court said:
The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to submit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no common feelings; and permitting the representatives of the American people, under the restrictions of our constitution, to tax a part of the society...which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the district, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the district, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby the more secure; and certainly the constitution does not consider their want of a representative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation.[23]
In 1971, Susan Breakefield sued to recover three years of income taxes she paid to the District of Columbia because she said she was a victim of taxation without representation.[24] Breakefield lost her case before both the District of Columbia Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[24]
Opponents of D.C. voting rights point out that Congress appropriates money directly to the D.C. government to help offset some of the city's costs.[25] However, proponents of a tax-centric view against D.C. representation do not apply the same logic to the 32 states that received more money from the federal government in 2005 than they paid in taxes.[26] Additionally, the federal government is exempt from paying city property taxes and the Congress prohibits the District from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who work in the city. Limiting these revenue sources strain the local government's finances.[25] Like the 50 states, D.C. receives federal grants for assistance programs such as Medicare, accounting for approximately 26% of the city's total revenue. Congress also appropriates money to the District's government to help offset some of the city's security costs; these funds totaled $38million in 2007, approximately 0.5% of the District's budget.[27] In addition to those funds, the U.S. government provides other services. For example, the federal government operates the District's court system, which had a budget of $272million in 2008.[28] Additionally, all federal law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Park Police, have jurisdiction in the city and help provide security.[29] In total, the federal government provided about 33% of the District's general revenue.[30] On average, federal funds formed about 30% of the states' general revenues in 2007.[31]
Political considerations
Opponents of D.C. voting rights have also contended that the District is too small to warrant representation in the House and Senate. However, sponsors of voting rights legislation point out that both Wyoming and Vermont have a smaller population than the District of Columbia.[32]
In modern times, all elections held in the district have been overwhelmingly won by the Democratic Party. The Democrats' support of increased D.C. representation in Congress and the Republicans' opposition to it have been alleged to be purely for self-serving reasons.[33][34][35]
Advocates for D.C. voting rights have proposed several competing reforms to increase the District's representation in Congress. These proposals generally involve either treating D.C. more like a state or allowing Maryland to take back the land it ceded to form the District.
Legislation
Several bills have been introduced in Congress to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in one or both houses of Congress.
The constitutional argument about whether Congress can provide the District of Columbia with a voting member in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate, is heavily debated by each side. In Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805), the Supreme Court held that the right of residents of the District to sue residents of other states is not explicitly stated in Article III, Section 2.[38] In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc, 337U.S.582(1949), the Supreme Court held that Congress could grant residents of the District of Columbia a right to sue residents of other states.[39] However, opponents of the constitutionality of the legislation to grant D.C. voting rights point out that seven of the nine Justices in Tidewater rejected the view that the District is a “state” for other constitutional purposes.[40] Opponents have also pointed out that if the power of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District is used to supersede other sections of the Constitution, then the powers granted to Congress could potentially be unlimited.[33]
On January 24, 2007, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on this subject. According to the CRS, "it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District."[41]
A secondary criticism of a legislative remedy is that any law granting representation to the District could be undone in the future. Additionally, recent legislative proposals deal with granting representation in the House of Representatives only, which would still leave the issue of Senate representation for District residents unresolved.[40] Thus far, no bill granting the District voting representation has passed both houses of Congress. A summary of legislation proposed since 2003 is provided below.
Proposals during administration of George W. Bush
The Justice Department during the administration of President George W. Bush took the position that “explicit provisions of the Constitution do not permit Congress to grant congressional representation to the District through legislation.”[42] Various such proposals were considered by the Congress during Bush's tenure:
The No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003 (H.R.1285 and S.617) would have treated D.C. as if it were a state for the purposes of voting representation in the Congress, including the addition of two new senators; however, the bill never made it out of committee.[43]
The District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006 (H.R.5388) would have granted the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives only. This bill never made it out of committee.[44]
The District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R.328) was the first to propose granting the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives while also temporarily adding an extra seat to Republican-leaning Utah to increase the membership of the House by two. The addition of an extra seat for Utah was meant to entice conservative lawmakers into voting for the bill by balancing the addition of a likely-Democratic representative from the District. The bill still did not make it out of committee.[45]
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R.1433) was essentially the same bill as H.R. 328 introduced previously in the same Congress. This bill would still have added two additional seats to the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and a second for Utah. The bill passed two committee hearings before finally being incorporated into a second bill of the same name.[46] The new bill (H.R.1905) passed the full House of Representatives in a vote of 214 to 177.[47] The bill was then referred to the Senate (S.1257) where it passed in committee. However, the bill could only get 57 of the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster and consequently failed on the floor of the Senate.[48] Following the defeated 2007 bill, voting rights advocates were hopeful that Democratic Party gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the November 2008 elections would help pass the bill during the 111th Congress.[49]Barack Obama, a Senate co-sponsor of the 2007 bill, said during his 2008 presidential campaign that as President he would continue to support the rights of DC residents.[50]
Proposal during administration of Barack Obama
On January 6, 2009, Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, and D.C. DelegateEleanor Holmes Norton introduced in the House the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (H.R.157 and S.160). On February 26, 2009, the Senate passed S. 160 by a vote of 61–37.[51] However, before passing the bill, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator John Ensign that would have removed the authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit or unduly burden the ability of its residents to possess guns in their homes, on their property, or at their places of business. The Ensign amendment would have also repealed District legislation requiring gun registration, the District's ban on semiautomatic weapons, and the District's criminal penalties for possession of an unregistered handgun.[52] Following the Senate's passage of the bill, as amended, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on March 4 that he had postponed a House vote on the bill for at least a week,[53][54] but it quickly became clear there were not enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without any amendments.[55] Despite Hoyer's efforts to have the amendment's supporters withdraw it and propose it as separate legislation,[56] and Norton's efforts to achieve consensus within the District's political community, where there is strong opposition to Ensign's amendment, Hoyer had to announce on June 9 that the bill was on hold indefinitely.[57] In April 2010, the bill rather abruptly returned to the agenda,[58] but the week a vote was expected, Hoyer declared the bill was unlikely to be passed during the 111th Congress.[59] District politicians reiterated their opposition to the House passing the bill with Ensign's amendment.[60] The House bill was reintroduced in the 112th Congress as H.R.267.[61]
The Justice Department has split over the constitutionality of legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. The Office of Legal Counsel reported to Attorney General Eric Holder that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional, but Holder overrode that determination and instead obtained an opinion from officials of the United States Solicitor General's office that the legislation could be defended if it were challenged after its enactment.[62]
The process of reuniting the District of Columbia with the state of Maryland is referred to as retrocession. The District was originally formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia which they had ceded to the Congress. However, Virginia's portion was returned to that state in 1846; all the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland.[63] If both the Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court building.[64] If the District were returned to Maryland, citizens in D.C. would gain voting representation in the Congress as residents of Maryland. One problem with any of these proposals, according to one Virginia Republican in a 1999 interview, is that the state of Maryland does not currently want to take the District back.[65][bettersourceneeded] Further, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify a minimum size for the District, retrocession may require a constitutional amendment, as the District's role as the seat of government is mandated by the Constitution's District Clause.[65][66] Retrocession could also alter the idea of a separate national capital as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.[67] It may also violate the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution's granting of votes in the electoral college, as they would still be constitutionally granted to the district.
A proposal related to retrocession was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004 (H.R.3709), which would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District.[68] Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authority to pass such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.[17] However, the proposed legislation never made it out of committee.[68]
Amendment process
Given the potential constitutional problems with legislation granting the District voting representation in Congress, scholars have proposed that amending the U.S. Constitution would be the appropriate manner to grant D.C. full representation.[33]
In 1978, Congress proposed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Under this amendment, the District of Columbia would have been "treated as though it were a State" regarding congressional representation, presidential elections (replacing the limited treatment under the Twenty-third Amendment), and the constitutional amendment process. The amendment had to be ratified within seven years to be adopted. The amendment was ratified by only 16 states, short of the requisite three-fourths (38) of the states, and so it expired in 1985.[41] The amendment has never been resubmitted for ratification.
Murkowski proposal
Senator Lisa Murkowski- (R-AK) believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, and so she proposed a constitutional amendment to provide the District with one representative.[69][70] Unlike the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Murkowski's proposal would not have provided the District any Senators or a role in the constitutional amendment process. Her proposal was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never acted on the proposal.[71]
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress power to grant statehood. If the District were to become a state, congressional authority over the District would be terminated, and residents would have full voting representation in both houses of Congress. However, there are some constitutional considerations with any such statehood proposal.[9]
In 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of a new state to be called "New Columbia".[72] This campaign for statehood stalled. After the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment expired in 1985, another constitution for the state of New Columbia was drafted in 1987.[72] The House of Representatives voted on D.C. statehood in November 1993, and the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153.[9] Like retrocession, it has been argued that D.C. statehood would erode the principle of a separate federal territory as the seat of the federal government and that a constitutional amendment would be needed to avoid a violation of the Constitution's District Clause.[66]
On April 15, 2016, District Mayor Muriel Bowser called for a citywide vote on whether the District should become the 51st state.[73] This was followed by the release of a proposed state constitution.[74] This constitution would make the mayor of the District of Columbia the governor of the proposed state, while the members of the City Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates. Despite requests for a different name, the proposed state constitution refers to the District as "New Columbia."[75] However, the Council of the District of Columbia passed legislation making the proposed name "State of Washington, D.C." Under this proposed name "D.C." stands for "Douglass Commonwealth," a reference to the historic abolitionistFrederick Douglass.[76] District residents voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, in an advisory referendum, but statehood legislation is unlikely to be enacted.[77][78] On June 26, 2020, during the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill to grant statehood to the District (H.R.51) by a vote of 232–180. H.R. 51 never received a vote in the Senate during the 116th Congress.[79] The Office of Management and Budget said President Donald Trump's advisors would have recommended he veto H.R. 51 if it was passed by Congress.[80] H.R. 51 was introduced in the 117th Congress.[81] On January 26, 2021, Tom Carper of Delaware also introduced a similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" into the United States Senate with a record 38 co-sponsors.[82][83]
On April 14, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted to pass H.R. 51, paving the way for the whole House to vote on it.[84] The House passed that bill on April 22 with a vote of 216–208.[85] On April 30, Democratic senator Joe Manchin came out against both H.R. 51 and S. 51, effectively dooming their passage.[86]
Comparison with other national capitals
Other countries with federal systems similar to the U.S. either extend full voting rights to residents of the federal capital, comparable to those of a constituent state, or have established their capital within a larger sub-national jurisdiction.
In the Parliament of Malaysia, the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur (the original federal capital and still the seat of parliament) has eleven MPs in the Dewan Rakyat (lower house) by members, while Putrajaya (the administrative center since 1999) has one. In the Dewan Negara (upper house), each of the federal territories is represented by two senators, but these are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. In contrast, those representing the states are indirectly elected by each state legislative assembly.
Berlin, the capital of Germany, is also both a city and one of the sixteen states and is represented on the same basis as the other states in the directly elected Bundestag, in which it has about twenty-four directly elected seats, and the indirectly elected Bundesrat, to which its Senate (or executive) sends four members.[99]
Ottawa, the capital of Canada, has remained a part of Ontario, one of the country's four founding provinces, since the country's establishment in 1867. The National Capital Commission (NCC) administers and manages federal property in the city, but in almost all respects the city is subject to federal and provincial laws on the same basis as the rest of Ontario. The current elected municipal government and city boundaries of the Canadian capital were established in 2001 by provincial legislation. Residents of Ottawa elect representatives to both the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Since Ontarian election law currently stipulates that the electoral boundaries for most provincial constituencies, including those in Ottawa, match those of federal constituencies, Ottawa elects the same number of legislators (currently eight) to each of the federal and provincial parliaments.
Unitary states
Paris, the capital of France, is also one of the special status collectivities, but is nevertheless represented on the same basis as the other departments in the National Assembly and the Senate.
Rome, the capitol of Italy, is part of the Lazio 1 Constituency for what concerns elections to the Chamber of Deputies and part of the Lazio Constituency for what concerns elections to the Senate. Lazio, the region Rome belongs to, is costitutionally entitled to no less than 3 senators, just as every other region aside from Molise (which is constitutionally entitled to no less than 2 senators) and Valle d'Aosta (which is constitutionally entitled to no less than 1 senator).
Tokyo, one of the 47 prefectures of Japan, is in many respects regarded as a prefecture like any other, although in English it is officially known as the Tokyo Metropolis and its elected government the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Voters in the Japanese capital elect lawmakers to the National Diet on the same basis as in the rest of Japan.
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.
The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution extends the right to participate in presidential elections to the District of Columbia. The amendment grants to the district electors in the Electoral College, as though it were a state, though the district can never have more electors than the least-populous state. How the electors are appointed is to be determined by Congress. The Twenty-third Amendment was proposed by the 86th Congress on June 16, 1960; it was ratified by the requisite number of states on March 29, 1961.
The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, a city within a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. The federal government, sometimes simply referred to as Washington, is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
The posts of shadow United States senator and shadow United States representative are held by elected or appointed government officials from subnational polities of the United States that lack congressional vote. While these officials are not seated in either chamber of Congress, they seek recognition for their subnational polity, up to full statehood. This would enfranchise them with full voting rights on the floor of the US House and Senate, alongside existing states. As of 2021, only the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico currently have authorized shadow delegations to Congress.
United States congressional apportionment is the process by which seats in the United States House of Representatives are distributed among the 50 states according to the most recent decennial census mandated by the United States Constitution. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states. Every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one seat in the House and two seats in the Senate, regardless of population.
51st state in American political discourse refers to areas considered candidates for U.S. statehood, joining the 50 states that have constituted the United States since 1959. The phrase has been applied to external territories as well as parts of existing states which would be admitted as separate states in their own right.
The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have given the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress, full representation in the Electoral College system, and full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. It would have also repealed the Twenty-third Amendment, which granted the District of Columbia the same number of electoral votes as that of the least populous state, but gave it no role in contingent elections.
The District of Columbia statehood movement is a political movement that advocates making the District of Columbia a U.S. state, to provide the residents of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and complete control over local affairs.
Commonwealth is a term used by two unincorporated territories of the United States in their full official names, which are the Northern Mariana Islands, whose full name is Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico, which is named Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in English and Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico in Spanish, translating to "Free Associated State of Puerto Rico." The term was also used by the Philippines during most of its period under U.S. sovereignty, when it was officially called the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.
District of Columbia home rule is Washington, D.C. residents' ability to govern their local affairs. As the federal capital, the Constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".
The District of Columbia retrocession is the act of returning some or all of the land that had been ceded to the federal government of the United States for the purpose of creating its federal district for the new national capital of the United States, the City of Washington. The land was originally ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Maryland in 1790. After moving through various stages of federal and state approval, the Virginia portion was eventually returned in March 1847. The Maryland portion still constitutes the District of Columbia today, but at various times some have proposed retroceding it, in part or in whole, to address issues related to the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia.
The Constitution of the State of Colorado is the foundation of the laws and government of the U.S. state of Colorado. The current, and only, Colorado State Constitution was drafted on March 14, 1876; approved by Colorado voters on July 1, 1876; and took effect upon the statehood of Colorado on August 1, 1876. As of 2020, the constitution has been amended at least 166 times. The Constitution of Colorado derives its authority from the sovereignty of the people. As such, the people of Colorado reserved specific powers in governing Colorado directly; in addition to providing for voting for Governor, state legislators, and judges, the people of Colorado have reserved initiative of laws and referendum of laws enacted by the legislature to themselves, provided for recall of office holders, and limit tax increases beyond set amounts without explicit voter approval, and must explicitly approve any change to the constitution, often with a 55% majority. The Colorado state constitution is one of the longest in the United States.
Voting rights of United States citizens who live in Puerto Rico, like the voting rights of residents of other United States territories, differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have voting representation in the United States Congress, and are not entitled to electoral votes for president. The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to U.S. states, which Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not, specifying that members of Congress shall be elected by direct popular vote and that the president and the vice president shall be elected by electors chosen by the states.
The District of Columbia has a mayor–council government that operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The Home Rule Act devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the local government, which consists of a mayor and a 13-member council. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs.
In the United States, a state is a constituent political entity, of which there are 50. Bound together in a political union, each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory where it shares its sovereignty with the federal government. Due to this shared sovereignty, Americans are citizens both of the federal republic and of the state in which they reside. State citizenship and residency are flexible, and no government approval is required to move between states, except for persons restricted by certain types of court orders.
The United States House of Representatives, often referred to as the House of Representatives, the U.S. House, or simply the House, is the lower chamber of the United States Congress, with the Senate being the upper chamber. Together they comprise the national bicameral legislature of the United States.
A referendum on statehood for the District of Columbia was held on November 8, 2016. It was the first referendum on statehood to be held in the district. The District of Columbia was created following the passage of the Residence Act on July 9, 1790, which approved the creation of a national capital, the City of Washington on the Potomac River.
The District of Columbia was created in 1801 as the federal district of the United States, with territory previously held by the states of Maryland and Virginia ceded to the federal government of the United States for the purpose of creating its federal district, which would encompass the new national capital of the United States, the City of Washington. The district came into existence, with its own judges and marshals, through the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801; previously it was the Territory of Columbia. According to specific language in the U.S. Constitution, it was 100 square miles (259 km2).
The Washington, D.C., Admission Act, often referred to simply as the D.C. Admission Act, was a bill introduced during the 116th United States Congress. The bill would grant Washington, D.C., admission into the Union as a state and make it the country's first and only city-state. The bill was originally introduced in the 116th Congress on January 3, 2019, and was reintroduced on January 4, 2021, in the 117th Congress. The United States House of Representatives passed it on April 22, 2021.
References
↑ District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007: Hearing Notes. DIANE publishing. March 14, 2007. p.23. ISBN978-1-4223-2085-3.
↑ Statehood Solidarity Committee, Case 11.204, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States), Report No. 98/03, para. 119, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 (2003).
↑ "Two More DC Superdelegates Endorse Barack Obama". Obama for America. February 26, 2008. Archived from the original on October 7, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2008. Senator Obama said, "I thank Senators Strauss and Brown for their support. Even without the vote, they have always been strong advocates for the rights of DC residents -- rights I will continue to support as President. And I look forward to working with them and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Adrian Fenty in the months ahead to bring about real change not just in the District of Columbia, but all across this country."
↑ Madison, James (April 30, 1996). "The Federalist No. 43". The Independent Journal. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on September 14, 2013. Retrieved May 31, 2008.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
