Few AU students imagined that their choice in college could cost them their right to representation in Congress.
On Jan. 27, however, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act, which would give D.C. residents a vote in Congress, according to the legislation's text. Supporters have higher hopes for the bill to pass now than they have in the past, due to President Barack Obama's support of D.C. representation in the House, according to The Washington Post.
The bill, H.R. 157, would create a D.C. representative in the House and an additional representative for Utah, bringing the number of representatives in the body from 435 to 437.
Utah narrowly missed getting another representative in the 2000 census. In addition, the extra representative for Utah would keep the balance of political parties in the body at the current margin.
D.C. would keep the positions of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a non-voting representative to the House, and Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss, a non-voting representative to the Senate, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Supporters of the bill claim Congress has both the right and the duty to create representation for D.C. in Congress. Barbara Palmer, a professor in the School of Public Affairs and a D.C. resident, said she thought the bill was constitutional.
"It's clear Congress has the power over the District," she said. "Congress stripped D.C. of its right to vote in 1800, and the Constitution says that citizens have the right to vote."
A variety of supporters have also pointed out the irony of having a failure of representation in the home of democracy in the United States.
"Today, out of all of the world's democracies, there is only one national capital without full voting rights: this city full of monuments to democracy," Hoyer said before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. "The people of the District have watched as America extended the right to vote over and over again, wondering when their time would come. Now, in this time of change for America, we can succeed where so many before us failed."
Opponents of the bill argue that it is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to make such sweeping changes without a constitutional amendment.
"The proposed legislative creation of a non-state voting member for the first time in the United States House of Representatives, H.R. 157 is the latest effort to legislatively mandate such a vote," Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said in testimony before Congress. "The legislative creation of a voting non-state member is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and would create a dangerous precedent for this institution and this country."
According to a 2005 poll done for the Boston Globe, 83 percent of Americans believe D.C. residents should have full representation in the House and Senate. Dan Raby, a sophomore in the School of Communication, said he supported the bill.
"I think a large number of people living in the District don't have a say in the House or Senate," he said. "You'd think a vote for people would include people living in D.C. It just seems right."
David Byrd, a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences, said he had a mixed view on the legislation.
"It depends on how this would affect other non-state districts like Guam," he said. "If people are affected by government policies, they should have a say in how those policies are made. A vote in the House would give D.C. residents a fair influence on policy. However, a pair of Senate seats would give D.C. a disproportionate amount of power."
Michelle Dromgold, a junior in the School of International Studies, said she was hesitant about the bill, particularly about Utah's additional vote.
"I think D.C. needs to be represented in the House," she said. "I'm not sure Utah needs another vote."
Palmer said that even if the bill does become law, she is unsure what change a D.C. representative in the House will bring to the District.
"It's very important, but more important symbolically," she said. "It seems very strange to have no representation in our nation's capital. From a philosophical point of view, it's very important. Will it have an immediate effect? Probably not, but down the line, it could affect the fiscal status of D.C. and its relationship with the federal government."
You can reach this staff writer at news@theeagleonline.com.
