[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5413-H5415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NORTON FILES BILL FOR FULL CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE 
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the District of 
Columbia Voting Rights Act of 1998, my first bill following the July 4 
recess. District citizens commemorated July 4 of this year by 
presenting a petition to Congress for redress of grievances granting 
the citizens of the District of Columbia representation in Congress.
  July 4 was the date the Founders of the Nation and the Framers of the 
Constitution declared their right to full voting representation before 
submitting to any government. The residents of the District take them 
at their word and insist upon the same.
  Because the petition is not self-executing but requires the 
introduction of a bill, I have an obligation to respond to the petition 
by introducing a bill to carry out its request to the Congress to grant 
the District full voting representation. I expect the same bill to be 
introduced in the Senate.
  District citizens, with great patience, have pursued all the remedies 
available to them, the Voting Rights Act of 1978 and the New Columbia 
Admission Act of 1993. Following the example set at the founding of the 
Nation on July 4 of 1776, it has become impossible for the District to 
let the matter rest any longer. A combination of authoritative sources 
now make clear that Congress cannot continue constitutionally to deny 
District residents representation in the national legislature, but must 
and can take all steps necessary to afford them full representation.
  The Congress has continually cited Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, 
for the proposition that it has plenary power to do whatever is 
constitutionally and legally necessary to or for the District. Using 
this power, the Congress has required District residents to meet the 
responsibilities of States and to accept the obligations of States, but 
has denied District citizens the rights that citizens of the States 
take for granted. Under the Constitution as interpreted by the courts 
today, it has become impossible to argue that the Constitution gives 
the Congress power at once to impose obligations and to deny rights.
  Fortunately, the Framers of the Constitution have not left District 
citizens without a remedy, should Congress fail to act. That is what 
the courts are there for, and that is what the Constitution is there 
for.
  Therefore, today I am introducing into the Record the Petition for 
Redress of Grievances, which lays out the broad outlines of the 
constitutional framework that requires that District citizens be 
treated like the full American citizens they are.
  The courts have already decided that all Americans are entitled to 
equal representation in the national legislature. The Supreme Court has 
interpreted the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the 
privileges and immunities clause, and the guarantee of a republican 
form of government, to mean that no American citizen may be excluded 
from an equal vote in the Congress.
  The right to be represented in the national legislature is a function 
of national citizenship. District residents cannot be held to be the 
only citizens excluded from the one man-one vote equal representation 
of Reynolds versus Sims.
  The citizens of the District of Columbia are as much entitled to the 
right to full representation as citizens who leave our shores, perhaps 
for a lifetime, but still claim the right to representation in the 
House and Senate, under the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 
passed by the Congress.
  Thomas Jefferson spoke for the people whom I represent when, in the 
Declaration of Independence, he wrote about ``. . . a long line of 
abuses and usurpations'' resulting from government without 
representation of the governed, and concluded that there was ``a duty 
to throw off such government and to provide new guards.''
  Like the colonists, District citizens pay taxes as required by a body 
in which they have no representation. Unlike the colonists, District 
citizens have recourse to a peaceful path for the redress of 
grievances, the Congress of the United States, and failing that, 
Article 3 courts established by the Framers themselves.
  Therefore, I call upon my colleagues in the House and Senate to use 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and the other relevant constitutional 
provisions and cases forthwith to grant, in the words of the bill I 
introduced today, ``. . . the community of American citizens who are 
residents of the District constituting the seat of government of the 
United States . . . full voting representation in the Congress'' before 
the 105th Congress adjourns sine die.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the Petition for 
the Redress of Grievances.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                   Petition for Redress of Grievances

       We the people of the District of Columbia exercise our 
     First Amendment right this July 4th ``to petition the 
     Government for a redress of grievances.'' \1\ We file our 
     Petition to ask the Congress and the President to redress the 
     most fundamental of grievances: our lack of voting 
     representation in the

[[Page H5414]]

     United States House of Representatives and in the United 
     States Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       We the people of the District of Columbia are citizens of 
     the United States, endowed with all the attendant rights and 
     duties of American citizenship. Like all other American 
     citizens, we are governed by the laws Congress writes; 
     thousands of us have fought and died in the wars Congress has 
     declared; and we pay into the Treasury billions of dollars 
     for the taxes Congress levies. Yet, unlike all other 
     citizens, we have no vote in the decisions Congress makes. 
     And we are denied that right solely because our home is the 
     Nation's Capital, the city that is a symbol of Democracy to 
     people throughout the world.
       This denial is wrong, because it is contrary to the 
     principles of democratic consent and representative 
     government upon which our Nation was founded. It was wrong 
     when the vote was denied to African-Americans; it was wrong 
     when the vote was denied to women; it was wrong when the vote 
     was denied through poll taxes, literacy tests, property 
     requirements and other devices that excluded citizens from 
     equal participation in our Government; and, it is wrong now 
     to deny voting rights in Congress to the citizens of the 
     District of Columbia. Congress and the President, in the 
     noble American tradition of justice for all, have redressed 
     these wrongs in the past. They should do the same for us now. 
     We therefore petition the Congress and the President to right 
     the wrong that continues to be done to the citizens in the 
     Nation's Capital.
       The principles upon which we base our petition were first 
     set out in the Declaration of Independence, 222 years ago 
     today. There, Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of our 
     Republic declared that Governments justly derive their powers 
     only ``from the consent of the governed'' and that Great 
     Britain had violated that requirement by forcing our people 
     to ``relinquish the right of Representation in the 
     Legislature, a right inestimable to them . . .'' \2\
       In its first seven words, our Constitution carries forward 
     these basic principles of our Declaration of Independence and 
     articulates the sole source of our Government's legitimacy: 
     ``We the people of the United States . . .'' \3\ On behalf of 
     all the people of the United States, the Founding Fathers 
     wrote the Constitution in order to secure the Blessings of 
     Liberty to the citizens of the original states and to their 
     Posterity. We are part of that Posterity, and we therefore 
     claim the rights the Constitution gives us.
       The Constitution guarantees Due Process to all citizens. It 
     guarantees Equal Protection of the Laws to all citizens. It 
     guarantees the Privileges and Immunities of citizenship to 
     all citizens. And it guarantees a Republican Form of 
     Government to all citizens. As Abraham Lincoln said, ours is 
     a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the 
     people.'' \4\ We the citizens of the District of Columbia are 
     entitled to the rights the Constitution guarantees, and we 
     are certainly a part of the people of whom Lincoln so 
     movingly spoke. To continue to deny us the vote is to deny us 
     these constitutional rights and to exclude us from Lincoln's 
     promise.
       For how can ours be a Government of the people if part of 
     the people have no voice in that Government solely because of 
     their place of residence? How can we receive Due Process if 
     we do not participate in the process that makes the laws we 
     are asked to obey? How can we benefit from Equal Protection 
     if the laws exclude us from voting representation? How can we 
     exercise the Privileges of citizenship if we are denied 
     citizenship's most precious privilege--the right to vote for 
     those who govern us? And how can we enjoy a Republican form 
     of Government if we have no voting representation in that 
     Government? Indeed, how can our Government claim the consent 
     of the governed when a half-million people in our Nation's 
     Capital cannot consent because they have no vote?
       The answer to all these questions is that without the right 
     to vote, our Democratic rights are debased and the Blessings 
     of Liberty are withheld. As Susan B. Anthony said in 1872: 
     ``Our democratic-republican government is based on the idea 
     of the natural right of every individual member thereof to a 
     voice and a vote in making and executing the laws.'' \5\ As 
     she also said: ``It was we, the people, not we, the white 
     male citizens, but we, the whole people, who formed this 
     Union.'' \6\ And as Martin Luther King, Jr., said on that 
     historic day in 1963 when he and thousands of others gathered 
     in our Nation's Capital: ``When the architects of our 
     republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and 
     the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a 
     promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.'' 
     \7\ As he also said then, ``now is the time to make real the 
     promises of democracy.'' \8\
       For most citizens, the Supreme Court made good that promise 
     in 1964 in its landmark ``one-person one-vote'' decision 
     (Reynolds v. Sims). In so doing our Supreme Court declared: 
     ``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.'' \9\
       To their great credit, our recent Presidents and Congresses 
     have repeatedly acted to further this constitutional 
     imperative of representation for all Americans. President 
     Lyndon Johnson, placing the full weight of his presidency 
     behind the historic Voting Rights Act in 1965, declared 
     before a Joint Session of Congress that ``every American 
     citizen must have an equal vote'' and that ``there is no duty 
     which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to 
     ensure that right.'' \10\ Twenty-five years later, on the 
     anniversary of that Act, President George Bush proclaimed a 
     national day of celebration, declaring that ``the right to 
     vote . . . is at the heart of freedom and self-government.'' 
     \11\ He urged all Americans to ``reflect upon the importance 
     of exercising our right to vote and our determination to 
     uphold America's promise of equal opportunity for all.'' \12\
       For its part, Congress has repeatedly responded to such 
     calls from our Presidents and from the Nation to protect the 
     right to vote. For example, in the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993, Congress expressly found that: (1) 
     the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a 
     fundamental right; and (2) it is the duty of the Federal, 
     State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that 
     right.\13\
       Our grievance is that these resounding pronouncements ring 
     hollow to us this July 4th. In November, when all other 
     American citizens cast their ballots for their 
     Representatives and Senators in our national Legislature, our 
     votes will not be among them. On that day, the people of 
     America will exercise their most precious right, but we the 
     people of the Nation's Capital will be left out.
       Twenty years ago, Congress recognized this grave injustice 
     and proposed a constitutional amendment to address it. Two-
     thirds majorities of both Houses of Congress passed a joint 
     resolution declaring that District citizens are entitled to 
     full voting representation in both Houses. Senator Thurmond, 
     who supported the amendment, defended its adoption as 
     follows:
       ``I think it is a fair thing to do. We are advocating one-
     man, one vote. We are advocating democratic processes in this 
     country. We have more than 700,000 people in the District of 
     Columbia who do not have voting representation. I think it is 
     nothing but right that we allow these people that 
     representation. We are advocating democratic processes all 
     over the world. We are holding ourselves up as the exemplary 
     Nation that others may emulate in ideas of democracy. How can 
     we do that when three-quarters of a million people are not 
     allowed to have voting representation in the capital city of 
     this Nation?'' \14\
       Senator Dole, who also championed the bill, explained that 
     the 1976 Republican platform had endorsed voting 
     representation for the District in both Houses, that as the 
     Vice-Presidential nominee he had pointed ``with pride'' to 
     that position as an ``excellent expression of Republican 
     ideals and principles,'' and that he supported passage of the 
     1978 bill.\15\ His reasons eloquently capture why such a bill 
     was and is necessary:
       ``The absence of voting representation for the District in 
     Congress is an anomaly which the Senate can no longer 
     sanction. It is an unjustifiable gap in our scheme of 
     representative government--a gap which we can fill this 
     afternoon by passing this resolution.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``It seems clear that the framers of the Constitution did 
     not intend to disenfranchise a significant number of 
     Americans by establishing a Federal District. I believe that 
     the framers would have found the current situation offensive 
     to their notions of fairness and participatory government.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``The Republican Party [in 1976] supported D.C. voting 
     representation because it was just, and in justice we could 
     do nothing else. We supported full rights of citizenship 
     because from the first--from Lincoln forward--we have 
     supported the full rights of citizenship for all Americans.'' 
     \16\
       These Senators' reasoning in support of full democratic 
     representation for the District is as compelling today as it 
     was 20 years ago. And yet, what these Senators rightly found 
     intolerable 20 years ago still persists today. For although 
     two-thirds of the Congress endorsed voting representation for 
     the District in 1978, the vehicle chosen by Congress--a 
     constitutional amendment--failed to attain ratification by 
     the required three-fourths of the States. As a result, the 
     equal rights for D.C. citizens that a large majority of the 
     Members of Congress supported have still not been enacted 
     into law.
       However, a constitutional amendment is not required to give 
     us those rights. Those rights are already guaranteed by the 
     Constitution. All that Congress need do is pass a bill today 
     recognizing that fact and giving us voting representation as 
     it intended 20 years ago. Congress should do so now, not only 
     because it is constitutionally and morally right, but also 
     because it speaks to the common sense of the people. The most 
     recent poll of public opinion shows that 80 per cent of the 
     American people believe we should have equal representation 
     in Congress.\17\
       For these reasons, we formally petition the Congress to 
     pass a bill granting us by legislation full voting 
     representation as it approved for the District in 1978. We 
     furthermore petition the Congress to pass such a bill before 
     it adjourns this session. And we petition the President to 
     support and promptly sign the bill. Our Government should not 
     let us enter the 21st century as second-class citizens.
       It is time to remedy this fundamental injustice. It is time 
     to extend democracy to the loyal and taxpaying American 
     citizens who reside in the Nation's Capital. It is time to 
     give us the vote.
       Respectfully submitted by John M. Ferren, District of 
     Columbia Corporation Counsel, On Behalf of the Citizens of 
     the Nation's Capital.

[[Page H5415]]

       [To be signed, also, by a number of representative citizens 
     of the District of Columbia]


                               FOOTNOTES

     1. Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment I.
     2. The Declaration of Independence (1776).
     3. Constitution of the United States of America, Preamble.
     4. Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address (November 19, 
     1863)
     5. Susan B. Anthony, Women's Right to Vote Speech (June 1873)
     6. Ibid.
     7. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``I Have a Dream'' Speech 
     (August 28, 1963).
     8. Ibid.
     9. 377 U.S. 533, 560 (1964).
     10. 111 Cong. Rec. H5059 (1965).
     11. Proclamation No. 6165, 55 Fed. Reg. 32233 (1990).
     12. Ibid.
     13. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg.
     14. 124 Cong. Rec. 27253 (daily ed. August 22, 1978).
     15. 124 Cong. Rec. 27254 (daily ed. August 22, 1978).
     16. Ibid.
     17. Washington Post, page J-1 (March 19, 1980).

                          ____________________