The Republican Party, having squandered its electoral authority
by succumbing to the dissolute wiles of Washington, appears to have
learned nothing from its defeat last November. Faced with a clear
challenge to the unambiguous language of the Constitution, many GOP
leaders have abandoned their principles. Particularly shocking is
the defection of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
As a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch should view himself as a guardian of the Constitution.
Instead, he set a low price for violating the document, a price
that the Democratic majority says it will eagerly pay: one
congressional seat.
At issue is granting voting representation to the District of
Columbia. (The District, like American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, already has non-voting delegates; Puerto Rico has a
similar resident commissioner.) Adding a seat to Utah is meant to
maintain the partisan balance.
The measure has already passed the House with 22 GOP votes.
Former Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) roamed the halls, calling the
measure a civil rights issue. Sen. Hatch has cosponsored (with Sen.
Joseph Lieberman, ID-Conn., a Republican favorite) companion
legislation in the Senate.
The issue is simple, so simple that you’d think even legislators
could get it. The residents of Washington, D.C. deserve to have
voting congressional representation. The federal district is far
larger than the core territory necessary for federal operations.
There’s no reason to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of
people.
However, the Constitution does not allow Congress to willy-nilly
bestow congressional representation on disenfranchised groups.
Article I states: “the House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen … by the People of the several states.”
The word is “states.” Like Virginia and Maryland, California and
New York. Not cities. Not districts. Not territories. Not enclaves.
Not groups of people living overseas. Not extended families. But
“states.”
The Constitution could be amended to provide the District with
congressional representation. Indeed, the 23rd Amendment explicitly
provided D.C. with presidential electors. It did not, however,
offer representation in the House or Senate.
Obviously, it is out of fashion these days to worry much about
what the Constitution says. The president is supposed to be 35?
Well, many 30-year-olds are pretty mature. The chief executive is
supposed to be a natural born citizen? Well, why let a little
ancient xenophobia prevent a good person from being elected? The
president is limited to two terms? A silly measure directed
posthumously against Franklin Delano Roosevelt shouldn’t bind
future presidents.
Thus, why let a constitutional provision limiting congressional
representation to states actually limit congressional
representation to states? After all, the Constitution is but a
piece of paper written by a bunch of dead slave-owning white males
and it shouldn’t get in the way of justice, fairness, and good
governance. Voting representation is a good cause, so who cares
what the nation’s fundamental law says!
That appears to be the opinion of not just Democrats, but some
Republicans. Rep. Thomas Davis (R-Va.), a leading supporter,
advocates that Republicans vote for representation and let the
courts decide the issue. So much for GOP blathering about the
sanctity of the Constitution and the importance of judges who will
follow rather than fabricate the law. Congressmen, too, take an
oath to the Constitution and have an obligation to follow the
nation’s fundamental law.
Jack Kemp is even less concerned about the Constitution,
complaining about members who “literally walk away, saying the bill
is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional? They voted for the Patriot
Act!” Is his argument that if legislators voted for one
unconstitutional bill, they should vote for another one? If that’s
his attitude, why bother having a Constitution?
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who ran unsuccessfully for the
Republican leader position after last November’s electoral debacle,
argues: “I cannot believe the Founders intended to deny 550,000
Americans representation.” Actually, the Founders did so intend if
those 550,000 Americans didn’t live in a state. But the Founders
never imagined that so many people would live in what was expected
to be a small federal enclave.
Advocates of the legislation simply prefer not to talk about the
Constitution. “This is one of the last chances the Republicans have
to be a truly national party,” says Kemp. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)
opines that “This is about being on the right or wrong side of
history.”
If advocates of D.C. congressional representation really believe
their rhetoric, however, they would provide the District with two
senators as well. Why, after all, should D.C. residents be denied
the right to vote for members of the upper body? If the
Constitution is no barrier, then justice requires that city
residents be treated like their countrymen in every respect.
Providing one congressman looks like a cheap compromise, intended
to pacify voters without unduly destabilizing the political
structure.
Instead, advocates of voting representation for Washington, D.C.
should craft a solution that is both just and constitutional. That
would entail carving out a small federal district limited to the
areas of the District with the highest concentration of federal
properties, while combining the rest of D.C. with Maryland for
voting purposes.
Indeed, Congress should consider full integration of Maryland
and the District. The territory originally came from Maryland (land
on the other side of the Potomac similarly provided to the federal
government by Virginia long ago was returned). Incorporating the
city of Washington into Maryland would give District residents the
same privileges, including voting for senators as well as
congressmen, as the citizens of any other state.
House Republicans have little influence, irrespective of the
quality of their ideas. But Republican senators, especially those
who have built their careers pushing for responsible judicial
appointees, could take the lead in crafting a constitutional
solution. Instead, Hatch, one of the leading Senate Republicans,
has traded the Constitution for a fourth congressional seat for
Utah.
The press release announcing his cosponsorship of the
legislation included a bit of boilerplate arguing that District
residents “deserve voting rights.” But this was not Senator Hatch’s
main point.
Senator Hatch (along with Utah’s other Republican senator,
Robert Bennett) was more interested in the fact that the
legislation would provide Utah with a fourth seat. As Hatch points
out, “Utah missed an extra seat to North Carolina by just 856
people, which is an uncomfortably thin margin of error since Utah
is seeing some of the fastest growth in the nation.”
Utah suffered a bad break in the last census, but there always
is a losing state that would get an extra congressional seat. Next
time it will probably be a different state. There’s no
justification for this provision other than as a partisan pay- off.
Maintaining the partisan balance certainly doesn’t justify doing
violence to the Constitution.
Senator Hatch’s decision to cosponsor the legislation in the
Senate raises serious questions about his role on the Judiciary
Committee. Not only has Hatch been responsible for overseeing the
confirmation of judicial nominees, but he once was talked of as a
possible Supreme Court appointee. We are lucky he never was
selected, having been willing, in the manner of Esau, to sell our
constitutional birthright for a mess of political porridge.
District voting rights advocates understandably argue that the
present system is unfair to D.C. residents. But that doesn’t
warrant violating the Constitution. As Sen. Hatch, more than most
legislators, should realize.
Republicans should take the lead in pressing for a solution that
preserves both the democratic and the republican aspects of
America’s political system. That’s what being a constitutional
republic is all about. We all want “justice.” But justice requires
preserving the rule of law, most particularly the integrity of the
Constitution.
