District of Columbia voting rights
Satellite view of the District of Columbia in
relation to the states of Maryland and
Virginia.
Voting rights of citizens in the District of
Columbia differ from those of United States
citizens in each of the 50 states. D.C. resid-
ents do not have voting representation in the
United States Senate and only a delegate in
the House of Representatives. Also, D.C. is
entitled to three electoral votes.
The United States Constitution grants con-
gressional
voting representation
to
the
states, which the District is not. The District
is a federal territory ultimately under the
complete authority of Congress. The lack of
voting representation in Congress for resid-
ents of the U.S. capital has been an issue
since the foundation of the federal district.
Numerous proposals have been introduced to
remedy this situation including legislation
and constitutional amendments to grant D.C.
residents voting representation, returning
the District to the state of Maryland and mak-
ing the District of Columbia into a new state.
All proposals have been met with political or
constitutional challenges; therefore, there
has been no change in the District’s repres-
entation in the Congress.
History
See also: History of Washington, D.C. and
District of Columbia home rule
The "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:
[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, be-
come the seat of the government of
the United States.
The land on which the District is formed was
ceded by the state of Maryland in 1790 fol-
lowing the passage of the Residence Act. The
Congress did not officially move to the new
federal capital until 1800. Shortly thereafter,
the 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. Since the
District of Columbia was no longer part of
any state, the District’s residents lost voting
representation.[1]
Residents of Washington, D.C. were also
originally barred from voting for the Presid-
ent of the United States. This changed after
the passage of the Twenty-third Amendment
in 1961, which grants the District three votes
in the Electoral College. This right has been
exercised by D.C. citizens since the presiden-
tial election of 1964.
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of
1973 devolved certain congressional powers
over the District to a local government ad-
ministered by an elected mayor, currently
Adrian Fenty, and the thirteen-member Coun-
cil of the District of Columbia. However, Con-
gress retains the right to review and overturn
laws created by the city council and inter-
vene in local affairs.[2] Each of the city’s
eight wards elects a single member of the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
1
council, and five members, including the
chairman, are elected at large.[3]
In 1980, District voters approved the call
of a constitutional convention to draft a pro-
posed state constitution, just as U.S. territor-
ies had done prior to their admission as
states. The proposed constitution was ratified
by District voters in 1982 for a new state to
be called "New Columbia". However, the ne-
cessary authorization from the Congress has
never been granted.[4]
Pursuant to that proposed state constitu-
tion, the District still selects members of a
shadow congressional delegation, consisting
of two shadow Senators and a shadow Rep-
resentative, to lobby the Congress to grant
statehood. These positions are not officially
recognized by Congress. Additionally, until
May 2008, the Congress prohibited the Dis-
trict from spending any funds on lobbying for
voting representation or statehood.[5]
Arguments for and
against
A sample Washington, D.C. license plate with
"Taxation Without Representation" slogan
There is limited evidence of nationwide ap-
proval for DC voting rights, however, two loc-
al polls indicate that 61 to 82% of Americans
believe that D.C. should have voting repres-
entation in Congress.[6][7] There are multiple
arguments for and against giving the District
of
Columbia
voting
representation
in
Congress.
Consent of the governed
The basic argument among advocates of vot-
ing
representation
for
the District
of
Columbia is that as citizens living in the Un-
ited States, the close to 600,000 inhabitants
of Washington, D.C. should have the same
right to determine how they are governed as
citizens of a state. This argument has been
laid forth by many legal scholars; Justice
Hugo Black described the right to vote as
fundamental in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376
U.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 il-
lusory if the right to vote is undermined."[8]
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Ab-
sentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens to vote
for the Congress from anywhere else in the
world, except the District of Columbia. If a
U.S. citizen were to move to the District, he
would lose his ability to vote for a member of
Congress. This is in contrast to citizens who
have permanently left the United States, but
are still permitted to vote for Congress in
their home state.[8][9]
Constitutional provisions
The primary objection to legislative proposals
to grant the District voting rights is that
some provisions of the Constitution suggest
that such an action would be unconstitution-
al.[10] How the House of Representatives is
to be comprised is described in Article I, Sec-
tion 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 Qualific-
ations 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 re-
spective Numbers[.]
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reaf-
firms Article I, Section 2 in that regard when
it says:
Representatives
shall
be appor-
tioned among the several States ac-
cording to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of per-
sons in each State, excluding Indi-
ans not taxed.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
2
In addition, the Seventeenth Amendment cor-
respondingly describes the election of "two
Senators from each State". Those who be-
lieve D.C. voting rights legislation would be
unconstitutional point out that the District of
Columbia is not a U.S. state.[11] 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, also allows the
Congress to pass legislation that would grant
D.C. voting representation in the Congress.[8]
The District is entitled to three electors in
the Electoral College, pursuant
to
the
Twenty-third Amendment which says the Dis-
trict is to have:
A number of electors equal to the
whole number of Senators and Rep-
resentatives in Congress to which
the District would be entitled if it
were a State, but in no event more
than the least populous State[.][12]
The constitutional argument about whether
Congress can assign a voting member from
the House of Representatives to the District
of Columbia, but not a voting member from
the Senate, is heavily debated on 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.[13] In
National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater
Transfer Co., Inc, 337 U.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.[14]
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 pur-
poses.[15] Opponents have also pointed out
that if the power of Congress to "exercise ex-
clusive legislation" over the District is used
to supersede other sections of the Constitu-
tion, then the powers granted to Congress
could potentially be unlimited.[16]
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 Dis-
trict."[17]
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.[18] In the financial year 2007, D.C. res-
idents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in
federal taxes; more than the taxes collected
from 19 states and the highest federal taxes
per capita.[19] This situation has given rise to
the use of the phrase "Taxation Without Rep-
resentation" 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 Lough-
borough v. Blake 18 U.S. 317 (1820), the Su-
preme Court said:
The difference between requiring a
continent, with an immense popula-
tion, to submit to be taxed by a gov-
ernment 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 per-
mitting the representatives of the
American people, under the restric-
tions of our constitution, to tax a
part of the society...which has volun-
tarily relinquished the right of rep-
resentation, and has adopted the
whole body of Congress for its legit-
imate 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 institu-
tions to admit a representative from
the district,
it may be doubted
whether, in fact, its interests would
be rendered thereby the more se-
cure; and certainly the constitution
does not consider their want of a
representative in Congress as ex-
empting it from equal taxation.[20]
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.[21] However, proponents of a
tax-centric view against D.C. representation
do not apply the same logic to the 32 states
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
3
that received more money from the federal
government
in 2005 than they paid
in
taxes.[22] Additionally, the federal govern-
ment is exempt from paying city property
taxes and the Congress prohibits the District
from imposing a commuter tax on non-resid-
ents who work in the city. Limiting these rev-
enue sources strains the local government’s
finances.[21] 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 govern-
ment to help offset some of the city’s security
costs; these funds totaled $38 million in
2007, approximately 0.5% of the District’s
budget.[23] 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 $272 million in 2008.[24] Addition-
ally, all federal law enforcement agencies,
such as the U.S. Park Police, have jurisdic-
tion in the city and help provide security.[25]
In total, the federal government provided
about 33% of the District’s general reven-
ue.[26] On average, federal funds formed
about 30% the states’ general revenues in
2007.[27]
Political considerations
Opponents of D.C. voting rights have also
contended that the city is too small to war-
rant representation in the Senate. However,
sponsors of voting rights legislation point out
that Wyoming has a smaller population than
the District of Columbia, yet has the same
number of Senators as California, the most
populous state. Additionally, opponents argue
that District residents have chosen to live in
the city and are therefore fully aware of the
political situation in the capital; however,
voting rights advocates claim that the major-
ity of Washingtonians have lived in the Dis-
trict for 20 or more years.[21] Conservatives
in the United States have also made the case
that the District of Columbia should not re-
ceive voting representation in the Congress
because the city government is dominated by
the Democratic Party and any new Repres-
entatives or Senators would likely be Demo-
crats as well, potentially shifting the balance
of power in Congress towards the Demo-
crats.[16]
Proposed reforms
Advocates for D.C. voting rights have pro-
posed several, competing reforms to increase
the District’s representation in the Congress.
These proposals generally
involve either
treating D.C. more like a state or allowing
the state of Maryland to take back the land it
ceded to form the District.
Legislation
Several bills have been introduced in Con-
gress to grant the District of Columbia voting
representation in one or both houses of Con-
gress. As detailed above, the primary issue
with all legislative proposals is whether the
Congress has the constitutional authority to
grant
the District voting representation.
Members of Congress in support of the bills
claim that constitutional concerns should not
prohibit the legislation’s passage, but rather
should be left to the courts.[28][29] A second-
ary criticism of a legislative remedy is that
any law granting representation to the Dis-
trict could be undone in the future. Addition-
ally, recent legislative proposals deal with
granting representation in the House of Rep-
resentatives only, which would still leave the
issue of Senate representation for District
residents unresolved.[15] Thus far, no bill
granting the District voting representation
has successfully passed both houses of Con-
gress. A summary of legislation proposed
over the last few years is provided below.
Proposals during administration of
George W. Bush
The Justice Department during the adminis-
tration of President George W. Bush took the
position that “explicit provisions of the Con-
stitution do not permit Congress to grant
congressional representation to the District
through legislation.”[30] Various such propos-
als 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.[31]
• The District of Columbia Fair and Equal
House Voting Rights Act of 2006
(H.R. 5388) would have granted the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
4
District of Columbia voting representation
in the House of Representatives only. This
bill never made it out of committee
either.[32]
• 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.[33]
• 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.[34] The new bill
(H.R. 1905) passed the full House of
Representatives in a vote of 214 to
177.[35] 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.[36]
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.[37] Barack Obama, a Senate co-
sponsor of the 2007 bill, said during his
presidential campaign that he would sign
such a bill if it were passed by the
Congress while he was President.[38]
Proposal during administration of
Barack Obama
On January 6, 2009, Senators Joe Lieberman
of Connecticut and Senator Orrin Hatch of
Utah, and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton in the House, introduced 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.[39] However on February 25, Senator
John Ensign proposed an amendment to the
bill, the Second Amendment Enforcement
Act, that would remove the authority of the
District of Columbia to prohibit or "unduly
burden" its residents from possessing guns in
their homes, on their properties, or at their
places of businesses.[40] That amendment to
the bill would also repeal District legislation
requiring gun registration, repeal the Dis-
trict’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, and
repeal the District’s criminal penalties for
possession of an unregistered handgun.[40]
The amendment to the bill passed by a vote
of 62-36 on February 26.[41] Following the
Senate’s passage of the bill, as amended,
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that
a House vote on the bill had been postponed
by him for at least a week on March 4.[42][43]
On March 5, Hoyer said that, because there
are not enough votes to bring the bill to the
floor without any amendments, the bill is
stalled for the time being.[44] On March 11,
Hoyer said "[w]e know the [gun] amendment
enjoys majority support before the House of
Representatives" and so efforts were under
way to get supporters of that amendment to
agree to propose it as separate legislation
rather than as an amendment to this bill.[45]
Stephanie Lundberg, a Hoyer spokeswoman,
said Hoyer hopes to bring the bill to the
House floor in April, after the House returns
from its recess.[46] On April 3, Delegate Nor-
ton announced that she "expected" the bill to
be passed by the House with the Ensign
amendment.[47] However, Norton spokeswo-
man Sonsyrea Tate Montgomery issued a
statement saying Norton still considers the
Ensign amendment to be "totally unaccept-
able."[48].
The Justice Department has split over the
constitutionality of legislation to give the Dis-
trict 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 opin-
ion from the United States Solicitor General
that the legislation could be defended if it
were challenged after its enactment.[49]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
5
Retrocession
The process of reuniting the District of
Columbia with the state of Maryland is re-
ferred to as retrocession. The District was
originally formed out of parts of both Mary-
land 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.[50] If both the Congress and the
Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdic-
tion 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.[51] If the
District were returned to Maryland, citizens
in D.C. would gain voting representation in
the Congress as residents of Maryland. The
main problem with any of the proposals is
that the state of Maryland does not currently
want to take the District back.[52] Further,
retrocession may require a constitutional
amendment as the District’s role as the seat
of government is mandated by the District
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[52][53] Retro-
cession could also alter the idea of a separate
national capital as envisioned by the Found-
ing Fathers.[54]
A related proposal to retrocession was the
"District of Columbia Voting Rights Restora-
tion 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 ap-
portioned accordingly to include the popula-
tion of the District.[55] Those in favor of such
a plan argue that the Congress already has
the necessary authority to pass such legisla-
tion without the constitutional concerns of
other proposed remedies. From the founda-
tion 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 Con-
gress 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 dis-
trict.[9] The proposed legislation, however,
never made it out of committee.[55]
Amendment process
Given the potential constitutional problems
with legislation granting the District voting
representation in the Congress, scholars
have proposed that amending the U.S. Con-
stitution would be the appropriate manner to
grant D.C. full representation.[16]
District of Columbia Voting Rights
Amendment
In 1978, the Congress proposed the District
of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. This
amendment would have required that the
District of Columbia be "treated as though it
were a State" in regards to congressional
representation, in presidential elections (to a
greater extent than under the Twenty-third
Amendment) and the constitutional amend-
ment process. It would not have made the
District of Columbia a state and had to be
ratified within seven years in order to be ad-
opted. In 1985, the amendment expired when
it was ratified by only 16 states, short of the
requisite three-fourths (38) of the states.[17]
Current proposal
Senator Lisa Murkowski believes the District
of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
would be unconstitutional if adopted and so
has proposed a constitutional amendment
(S.J.Res. 11) that would provide one Repres-
entative to the District of Columbia.[56] Un-
like the District of Columbia Voting Rights
Amendment, S.J.Res. 11 would not provide
the District any Senators or a role in the con-
stitutional amendment process. S.J.Res. 11
was referred to the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee.[57]
Statehood
If the District were to become a state, con-
gressional authority over the city would be
terminated and residents would have full vot-
ing representation in the Congress, including
the Senate. However, there are a number of
constitutional considerations with any such
statehood proposal. Article IV, Section 3 of
the Constitution gives the Congress power to
grant statehood.[4]
In 1980, local citizens passed an initiative
calling for a constitutional convention for a
new state. In 1982, voters ratified the consti-
tution of a new state to be called "New
Columbia".[58] This campaign for statehood
stalled. After the District of Columbia Voting
Rights Amendment failed ratification in 1985,
another constitution for the state of New
Columbia was drafted in 1987.[58] The House
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
6
of Representatives last voted on D.C. state-
hood in November 1993 and the proposal
was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153.[4] Fur-
ther, like retrocession, it has been argued
that D.C. statehood would require a constitu-
tional amendment, because it would violate
the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution
and erode the principle of a separate federal
territory as the seat of government.[53]
References
[1] "Statement on the subject of The District
of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting
Rights Acts" (PDF). American Bar
Association. 2006-09-14.
http://www.abanet.org/poladv/letters/
electionlaw/
060914testimony_dcvoting.pdf.
Retrieved on 2008-07-10.
[2] "History of Self-Government in the
District of Columbia". Council of the
District of Columbia. 2008.
http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/
history. Retrieved on 2008-12-29.
[3] "Elected Officials". Government of the
District of Columbia.
http://www.grc.dc.gov/grc/cwp/
view,a,1203,q,447121,pm,1,grcnav_gid,1424,,grcNav_GID,0.asp.
Retrieved on 2008-06-03.
[4] ^ "DC Statehood: a Chronology". DC
Statehood Green Party.
http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/about/
history.php. Retrieved on 2008-12-29.
[5] Sheridan, Mary Beth (2008-05-29). "D.C.
Seeks to Fund Lobbying Effort for a
Voting House Member". The Washington
Post: pp. B01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2008/05/28/
AR2008052802976.html. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[6] "Poll Shows Nationwide Support for DC
Voting Rights" (PDF). DC Vote Voice.
2005. http://www.dcvote.org/newsletter/
spring05.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-05-29.
[7] "Washington Post Poll: D.C. Voting
Rights". The Washington Post.
2007-04-23.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
politics/polls/postpoll_042307.html.
Retrieved on 2008-06-10.
[8] ^ "25 Legal Scholars Support
Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights".
DC Vote. 2007-03-12.
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/
legalscholarsdcvra03082007.pdf.
Retrieved on 2008-12-27.
[9] ^ Rohrabacher, Dana (2004-06-23).
"Testimony before the Committee on
Government Reform". DC Vote.
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/
drohrabacher062304.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-12-27.
[10]von Spakovsky, Hans. “Violating Their
Sacred Honor,” National Review
(2009-02-23)
[11]Fortier, John (2006-05-17). "The D.C.
colony". The Hill. http://thehill.com/john-
fortier/the-d.c.-colony-2006-05-17.html.
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[12]“A History of the Debate”, The
Washington Post (2009-02-25)
[13] "Hepburn v. Ellzey". The University of
Chicago Press. 1987. http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/
a1_8_17s12.html. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[14]Dinh, Viet D.; Adam H. Charnes
(November 2004). "The Authority of
Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide
the District of Columbia with Voting
Representation in the House of
Representatives". D.C. Vote.
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/
vietdinh112004.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[15]^ Turley, Jonathan (2007-08-20). "D.C.
Vote in Congress: House Judiciary
Committee". Statement for the Record,
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5388.
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/dc-
vote-in-congress-house-judiciary-
committee/. Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[16]^ Will, George F. (2007-03-29). "The
Seat Congress Can’t Offer". The
Washington Post: pp. A19.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/03/28/
AR2007032801879.html. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[17]^ Thomas, Kenneth (2007-01-24). "The
Constitutionality of Awarding the
Delegate for the District of Columbia a
Vote in the House of Representatives or
the Committee of the Whole".
Congressional Research Service.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/
RL33824_20070124.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[18] "Individuals Living or Working in U.S.
Possessions". Internal Revenue Service.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
7
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/
international/article/
0,,id=97321,00.html. Retrieved on
2008-07-24.
[19] "Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by
Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year 2007"
(XLS). Internal Revenue Service. 2008.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/
07db05co.xls. Retrieved on 2008-08-20.
[20] "Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 5
Wheat. 317 (1820)". U.S. Supreme Court
Center. 2008. http://supreme.justia.com/
us/18/317/case.html. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[21]^ Richards, Mark David (November
2002). "10 Myths about the District of
Columbia". DC Vote.
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/
10MythsAboutDC.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-12-27.
[22] "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar
of Taxes Paid by State, 2005". The Tax
Foundation. 2007-10-09.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/
show/266.html. Retrieved on
2008-12-27.
[23] "Introduction to the FY 2007 Budget and
Financial Plan" (PDF). Office of the Chief
Financial Officer. http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/
frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/budget/
2007/DC_Budget-Volume_1b.pdf&open=/
33210/. Retrieved on 2008-05-31.
[24] "About the District of Columbia Courts".
District of Columbia Courts.
http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/about/
index.jsp. Retrieved on 2008-05-31.
[25] "U.S. Park Police Authority and
Jurisdiction". National Park Service.
2006-03-03. http://www.nps.gov/uspp/
tauthorit.htm. Retrieved on 2008-06-10.
[26] "State and Local Government Finances
by Level of Government and by State:
2005-06". United States Census Bureau.
2008-07-01. http://www.census.gov/govs/
estimate/0609dcsl_1.html. Retrieved on
2009-01-13.
[27] "State Government Finances: 2007".
United States Census Bureau.
2008-11-04. http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/
state/07statess.xls. Retrieved on
2009-01-13.
[28] "Lieberman Deeply Disappointed By
Failure To Secure 60 Votes For Equal
Representation For D.C. Citizens".
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. 2007-09-18.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressR
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[29] "Senator Collins’ Statement On District
Of Columbia Voting Rights Legislation".
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. 2007-06-13.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressR
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[30]Elwood, John. “Constitutionality of D.C.
Voting Rights Act of 2007,” Testimony to
Senate Subcommittee (2007-05-23).
[31] "No Taxation Without Representation Act
of 2003 (108th Congress, H.R. 1285)".
GovTrack. 2003. http://www.govtrack.us/
congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1285.
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[32] "District of Columbia Fair and Equal
House Voting Rights Act of 2006 (109th
Congress, H.R. 5388)". GovTrack. 2006.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h109-5388. Retrieved on
2008-12-28.
[33] "District of Columbia Fair and Equal
House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (110th
Congress, H.R. 328)". GovTrack. 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h110-328. Retrieved on
2008-12-28.
[34] "District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2007". GovTrack. 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h110-1433. Retrieved on
2008-12-28.
[35] "District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2007 (110th Congress, H.R.
1905)". GovTrack. 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h110-1905. Retrieved on
2008-12-28.
[36] "District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2007 (110th Congress, S.
1257)". GovTrack. 2007.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=s110-1257. Retrieved on
2008-12-28.
[37]Burr, Thomas (2008-12-15). "D.C. looks
to get House vote - with Utah’s help".
The Salt Lake Tribune.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11226437.
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[38] "Two More DC Superdelegates Endorse
Barack Obama". Obama for America.
2008-02-26.
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
8
26/
two_more_dc_superdelegates_end.php.
Retrieved on 2008-12-28.
[39]Warren, Timothy (February 26, 2009).
"Senate votes to give D.C. full House
vote". The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/
2009/feb/26/senate-votes-give-dc-full-
house-vote/. Retrieved on 2009-02-26.
The Senate roll call is here.
[40]^ "S.Amdt.575: Text of the amendment
(press "Printer Friendly Display")".
United States Senate. Thomas. Library of
Congress.. February 25, 2009.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/
R?r111:FLD001:S02491.
[41] "Vote on S.Amdt. 575 to S. 160". U.S.
Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress -
1st Session. United States Senate.
February 26, 2009.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/
roll_call_lists/
roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00072.
[42]Nakamura, David A. (March 4, 2009).
"Rep. Hoyer Wants More Talk on Voting
Rights Bill". The Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/
2009/03/
rep_hoyer_wants_more_talk_on_v.html.
[43]Kossov, Igor (March 4, 2009). "D.C. Vote
Bill Stalls In House". CBS News.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/
04/politics/politicalhotsheet/
entry4842950.shtml.
[44]Nakamura, David; Stewart, Nikita
(March 5, 2009). "Gun Law Push Puts
D.C. Vote Bill on Indefinite Hold". The
Washington Post: p. B01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2009/03/04/
AR2009030403802.html.
[45]Sheridan, Mary Beth (March 11, 2009).
"Leaders Strategize on How to Pass D.C.
Vote Bill". The Washington Post. pp. B03.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2009/03/10/
AR2009031003486.html. Retrieved on
2009-03-11.
[46] "House delays DC vote bill for weeks".
Associated Press and The Washington
Examiner. March 27, 2009.
http://www.examiner.com/
a-1928485~House_delays_DC_vote_bill_for_weeks.html.
Retrieved on 2009-03-28.
[47]Soraghan, Mike (April 3, 2009). "D.C.
voting rights moves a step closer". The
Hill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/
d.c.-voting-rights-moves-a-step-
closer-2009-04-03.html. Retrieved on
2009-04-04.
[48]Soraghan, Mike (April 6, 2009). "Norton:
D.C. gun measure ’unacceptable’". The
Hill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/
norton-dc-gun-measure-totally-
unacceptable-2009-04-06.html. Retrieved
on 2009-04-08.
[49] Johnson, Carrie (April 1, 2009). "A Split
At Justice On D.C. Vote Bill". The
Washington Post. pp. A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2009/03/31/
AR2009033104426.html?hpid=topnews.
Retrieved on 2009-04-01.
[50] "Get to know D.C.". The Historical
Society of Washington, D.C.. 2004.
http://www.historydc.org/gettoknow/
faq.asp. Retrieved on 2008-05-27.
[51] "District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion
Act (110th Congress, H.R. 1858)".
GovTrack. 2007. http://www.govtrack.us/
congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1858.
Retrieved on 2008-12-29.
[52]^ "Q&A with Rep. Tom Davis". The
Washington Post. 1998-03-03.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/zforum/levey/bob0303b.htm.
Retrieved on 2008-12-29.
[53]^ Pate, Hewitt R. (August 27, 1993).
"D.C. Statehood: Not Without a
Constitutional Amendment". The
Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/
politicalphilosophy/hl461.cfm. Retrieved
on 2008-12-29.
[54]Madison, James (1996-04-30). "The
Federalist No. 43". The Independent
Journal. Library of Congress.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers/
fed_43.html. Retrieved on 2008-05-31.
[55]^ "District of Columbia Voting Rights
Restoration Act of 2004 (108th Congress,
H.R. 3709)". GovTrack. 2004.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h108-3709. Retrieved on
2008-12-29.
[56]Office of Senator Lisa Murkowski
(February 25, 2009). Sen. Murkowski
Introduces D.C. Voting Rights
Constitutional Amendment. Press
release. http://murkowski.senate.gov/
public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&C
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
9
e2d4-b923-d71e-5cb67228a8b8&IsPrint=true.
Retrieved on 2009-02-27.
[57] "S. J. RES. 11: All Congressional
Actions". 111th Congress, 1st Session.
United States Senate.. Thomas. Library
of Congress. February 25, 2009.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/
z?d111:SJ00011:@@@X.
[58]^ "District of Columbia Official Code".
Westlaw. 2009.
http://government.westlaw.com/
linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000.
Retrieved on 2009-05-03.
External links
• D.C. Statehood Green Party
• DC Vote
• DC Represent
• Cityhood for DC
• The Founder’s Constitution: Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 17
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights"
Categories: Home rule and voting rights of the District of Columbia, History of voting rights in
the United States
This page was last modified on 3 May 2009, at 18:17 (UTC). All text is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-
deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia voting rights
10