District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals

Publication Date: January 2007

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Government

Type:

Abstract:

This report provides a summary and analysis of legislative proposals that would provide voting representation in Congress to residents of the District of Columbia. Since the issue of voting representation for District residents was first broached in 1801, Congress has considered five legislative options: (1) seek voting rights in Congress by constitutional amendment, (2) retrocede the District to Maryland (retrocession), (3) allow District residents to vote in Maryland for their representatives to the House and Senate (semi-retrocession), (4) grant the District statehood, and (5) define the District as a state for the purpose of voting for federal office (virtual statehood).

During the 109th Congress, several bills were introduced to provide voting representation in Congress for District residents, but none passed. The bills were of the following three types: (1) measures providing a single vote for the District in the House by increasing the number of House seats by two, one for the District and one for Utah, H.R. 2043 and H.R. 5388; (2) a measure allowing District residents to vote in Maryland for their representatives to the House and Senate, H.R. 190 (semiretrocession); and (3) measures granting the District full voting rights in Congress (one Representative and two Senators), H.R. 398 and S. 195. (Note: based on 2000 Census data Utah is next in line to gain an additional seat if the total number of congressional seats were increased by one to 436. For information on the impact of the 2000 Population Census on the apportionment process, see CRS Report RS20768, House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin; and CRS Report RS22579, District of Columbia Representation: Effect on House Apportionment, both by Royce Crocker.)

Early in the 110th Congress, sponsors of two 109th Congress bills introduced new measures. On January 9, 2007, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis introduced H.R. 328. The bill does not include the most controversial provision included in H.R. 5388, namely, the creation of an at-large congressional district for the state most likely to gain an additional representative. That state, Utah, recently approved a fourth congressional district. On January 16, 2007, Representative Dana Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 492, a bill with many of the same provisions included in H.R. 190 (from the 109th Congress). These proposals would grant voting representation by statute, eschewing the constitutional amendment process and statehood option. Any proposal considered by Congress face three distinct challenges. It must (1) address issues raised by Article 1, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which limits voting representation to states; (2) provide for the continued existence of the District of Columbia as the "Seat of Government of the United States" (Article 1, Sec. 8); and (3) consider its impact on the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which grants three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. For a discussion of constitutional issues of proposed legislation, see CRS Report RL33824, The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole, by Kenneth R. Thomas. This report will be updated as events warrant.