ELECTORAL AND REPRESENTATION RIGHTS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Prepared by
Timothy Cooper
Statehood Solidarity Committee

With contributions from:
D.C. Statehood Party, and
The Rainbow Coalition

I. SUMMARY STATEMENT
The U.S. government, pursuant to provisions in the Constitution granting plenary power over the District of Columbia to the Congress, has continuously denied citizens of the District the right to vote and the right to representational government in violation of nondiscrimination, equal protection and political participation provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (“Covenant”). Recently, the U.S. Congress eliminated the ability that had previously been granted to the Distr5ict’s “delegate” to the Congress to take part in preliminary votes, thereby further reducing D.C. representation rights. Domestic courts will not consider challenges to these exclusionary and discriminatory standards, because they are explicitly authorized under the Constitution, and numerous political efforts to gain independent status for the District have failed.

II. RELEVANT COVENANT PROVISIONS
Article 1 of the Covenant stipulates that “[a]ll people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Article 25 provides that “[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage… (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” It should be noted that the United States Senate, in its Resolution of April 2, 1992, took no reservations regarding article 25 of the Covenant.

Article 26 provides that “[a]ll persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (Emphasis added.)
Article 2(1) stipulates that “[e]ach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (Emphasis added.)

III. ANALYSIS OF U.S. REPORT
The Initial Report of the United States of America (“U.S. Report” or “Report”) to the U.N. Human Rights Committee under the Covenant (at pg. 193) maintains that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned the district as a separate enclave, “apart from the influence of any state government and responsible to the federal government alone,” quoting from The Federalist, No. 43, 289 (J. Madison) (J. Cooke, ed. 1961): “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….”

The U.S. government suggests by reference to this quotation that residents of the District pose a potential threat to the security of the national government, and that they could exert undue influence on the legislative affairs of the Congress by virtue of their close proximity to the Congress if in fact they were granted equal representation and equal autonomous powers. Two hundred years ago, when a weak federal government was dependent upon state militia for its physical security, and when proximity to the nation’s capital might have inn fact been an unfair asset to the people living around the capitol, a temporary, rational basis for the deprivation of equal rights was arguable. But today, in an era when the federal government is capable of physically protecting the nation’s capital and the nation as a whole, the U.S. government’s justification cannot be taken seriously. Influence in and access to Congress is facilitated by lobbyists and citizens from every corner of the country via fax machines and telephones, and is no longer controlled by geography.

Despite the fact that the U.S. government maintains that the principle of self-determination is “at the core of American political life,” (at pg. 193) the U.S. government continues to ignore the fundamental principle of self-determination as it relates to the residents of its own capital city.IV. ISSUES

REQUIRING ADDITIONAL ATTENTION
For two hundred years District residents, unlike all other American citizens in each of the 50 states, have been denied voting representation in Congress. District residents are granted only a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, who may not cast a vote on any national or local legislation affecting his or her constituency. Residents of all of the other states are represented by at least one voting member of the House of Representatives and two voting members of the United States Senate.Furthermore, under article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over the affairs of the people of the District, and may at any time veto legislation passed by the D.C. City Council, including annual city budgets. No other American taxpaying citizens are subject to this arbitrary manipulation of their democratic governmental institutions by the U.S. Congress. By virtue of the fact that district residents live in the federal capital, Congress may ignore their right to equality before the law by denying them the same autonomy enjoyed by all other Americans over their own local governmental affairs.

The U.S. Congress possesses the legislative power to grant statehood to the District, but has failed to do so. Historically, Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats in Congress have blocked efforts to improve the political rights of District residents. Since the District of Columbia is 67% African-American and supports generally liberal, Democratic candidates in both presidential and local elections, it is possible to conclude that partisan and racial politics may be a factor in preventing District residents from being given the opportunity to participate equally in democracy.
In 1994, the House of Representatives defeated statehood legislation for the District by an overwhelming margin. A statehood bill was never brought up before the Senate. And on January 4th, 1995, the very day the Republican majority took control of the House of Representatives, in one of the very first actions, the House voted to strip the D.C. Delegate of the power to vote in the Committee of the Whole, a largely symbolic vote in the House of Representatives. As a result, the people of the District of Columbia presently have no vote whatsoever in the United States Congress. There are no other constitutions in all the Americas which create a federal district yet deny its residents representation in the national legislature.

Article 2 (2) speaks directly to this point, stating that “[w]here not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effects to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
Though the U.S. government maintains that the unequal political status of District residents can be rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective, a close examination of the historical intent behind creating a federal enclave two hundred years ago undermines the legitimacy of this objective in light of profoundly changed present-day circumstances. It should be noted that both slavery and non suffrage for women were originally enshrined in the constitution; yet it was not until 1885 that slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, and not until 1920 with the 19th Amendment that women in the US were granted to right to vote.

The U.S. government violates article 1 of the Covenant when it denies self-determination to the people of the District. Article 1 states that “[a]ll peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status….”. Article 1(3) states that “[t]he States Parties to the present Covenant….shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.” (Emphasis added.)

The issue of the status of the residents of the District of Columbia is currently being investigated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. On April 1, 1993, the Statehood Solidarity Committee of Washington, D.C. filed a human rights petition alleging that the U.S. government violates the human rights of Washingtonians on a continuing basis by depriving them of the right to equality before the law and the right to participate in their national government through their elected representatives. The case was formally opened for investigation on October 18, 1993.