DC Representation Used To Be a Bipartisan Cause. I Was a House Republican Who Voted For It.

By Tom Coleman, Opinion contributor
USA TODAY
Published 5:00 AM EDT May 10, 2021

In Federalist 43, James Madison wrote that residents of his new country “will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them,” but it wouldn’t be so. In 1801, the District of Columbia was incorporated without the benefits of statehood, leaving it without congressional representation.

In 1978, when I was serving in the House of Representatives, we undertook a serious effort to fix that: With H.J. Res 554 – a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for approval in both the House and Senate and ratification by 38 states within seven years of its passage – we sought to guarantee congressional representation for the District of Columbia. It was the 24th time since 1800 that legislation granting congressional representation for the district had been pursued.

As the House Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the resolution said, the original disenfranchisement of the district appeared to be more a result of circumstances than of design, and no reasonable basis existed for its continuation.

At the time, the district’s non-voting delegate, Walter Fauntroy, told the House: “We want no more and no less than that to which all Americans are entitled and to do that we must be represented in both the House and Senate. Nothing more is needed; nothing less will satisfy the dictates of conscience.”

A tough vote for me even back then
When the vote arrived, I was focused on my first reelection to the House, which involved a challenging campaign. For many of us Republicans running for reelection, the vote was not politically convenient: We knew there could be political blowback from our constituents since it was certain our vote would result in the addition of three Democratic members of Congress – one in the House and two in the Senate.

But the question was a moral one, pitting political expediency against a straightforward question of equality: Could we, the public servants charged with representing Americans in Congress, deny that same representation to our fellow citizens?

Sixty-one House Republicans voted for the resolution – representing 43% of the Republican caucus – and it passed the House by a 289-127 vote – 11 votes more than the required two-thirds majority. Of the necessary votes for two-thirds passage, 13 came from the 17 Republican freshmen, who would face voters again in less than seven months. The vote marked the first time a proposal for full congressional representation of the district had passed either chamber.

The Senate considered H.J. Res 554 on Aug. 22, 1978, and Sen. Ted Kennedy served as its floor manager. He called for “strong bipartisan support (for) what is a fundamental issue of justice and equality, that people who have fought in our wars and have a population greater than seven other states ought to have voting representation in the Congress of the United States.”

The joint resolution passed the Senate 67-32, one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Senate Republicans evenly split their votes, with 19 voting for and against. Among those voting in favor were Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater – often referred to as “Mr. Conservative” – and Strom Thurmond – an archconservative from South Carolina. They were joined by Minority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee and Bob Dole of Kansas. Had any one of these Republican senators voted against the resolution, it would have failed to pass.

Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, the constitutional amendment failed to be ratified by 38 states within the required seven-year period, leaving the residents of Washington, D.C., without congressional representation.

This year – 43 years after our effort – the House passed legislation to grant statehood to the district by a vote of 216 to 208. Not a single House Republican voted in favor of it.

Fairness on the merits not considered
While the two resolutions are different – one called for only representation, the other for statehood – the number of additional representatives in Congress would have been the same under both. And because the fundamental issues at play have not changed, the lack of Republican votes marked the distance the party has traveled over those four decades: from a willingness to consider a question of fundamental fairness on the merits, to no consideration whatsoever.

Mark Phillips, left, and Karen Beriss show off the new District of Columbia license plate at a rally for the new “Taxation Without Representation” on Nov. 4, 2000. ROD A. LAMKEY, JR., ASSOCIATED PRESS

When the Senate votes on the House bill, Republicans will once again have an opportunity to begin to govern with dignity and respect. Will they take into consideration that residents of D.C. are full American citizens who fight our wars, pay their taxes and deserve equality?

Does the Republican conference still have a Barry Goldwater, a Howard Baker or a Bob Dole willing to base decisions on something other than naked political calculation?

Wyoming, Monaco, voting rights and taxes: All the reasons Washington, DC should be a state

In 1801, residents of what would become the District of Columbia complained to Congress that creating the district as prescribed by the Constitution would reduce them to “that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation.” It is an argument they have made consistently for 220 years.

There is no extenuating constitutional or ideological principle at play that makes this question more complex. It is about equality and self-government, two questions at the core of the American experience. It is not a difficult argument to accept, regardless of ideology or party.

______

Tom Coleman is a former nine-term Republican member of Congress from Missouri and an adviser to Protect Democracy. Follow him on Twitter: @RepTomColeman