Statement of Mark David Richards, Ph.D., Sociologist
Before the Subcommittee On Labor, Voting Rights and
Redistricting of the Council of the District of Columbia
June 20, 2001
Thank you Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Graham, and Councilmember
Orange for holding this roundtable on options for restoring voting rights
in the District of Columbia. I am here today as a District citizen with a
keen interest in this topic.
The topic of the political status of citizens of the District of
Columbia is an exciting and difficult topic that has engaged the passions
of District residents for two centuries, since George Washington chose the
land that would become the District in 1791. If only we could be so lucky
to have George Washington and other heroes of our War for Independence
here today, offering their ideas for how to extend the American birthright
to the residents of Washington, District of Columbia.
The most important thing D.C.’s elected officials can do in support
of restoring—or gaining—voting rights is to strengthen D.C.’s local
democracy, improve municipal management, and develop the economy. However,
history shows that although optimal performance cannot be expected to
result in rewards, inferior performance can certainly be expected to
result in loss of the partial rule that has been delegated to officials.
Congress Rules the District
For District residents, the question of how to restore what was lost
hundreds of years ago is difficult to answer because the resources of
District citizens are significantly less than the body that wields
exclusive legislative authority in all cases whatsoever over their
society. Thus far, the elected representatives of the fifty states have
not been willing to allow residents of the District to vote as equals in
The People’s House on The Hill. Every ten years when the Census is taken
for apportioning seats to the House of Representatives, the count for
District citizens is excluded. Although the American capital is the only
one of all country’s claiming democracy that bars the door of the
national legislature to its capital district residents, there has been
little incentive to change the status quo.
Congress has the right to deny D.C.’s participation in that body
until the nation either makes District citizens part of a state or a state
of its own, or modifies the Constitution under which exclusive legislative
authority is exercised. The Constitution of 1787 gave it the right to
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the seat of
government (Article I, Section 8, §17), not to exceed ten miles square,
once an area was ceded to the federal government by the states that held
jurisdiction.
In 1800, Augustus Woodward, a lawyer who wrote under the pen name
"Epaminondas," recognized that Congressional assumption of
exclusive legislative control would place District citizens in a situation
that would be hard to reverse. He argued against the First Federalist
Congress assuming exclusive power, noting that "[a] grant of power to
do an act, does not impose an obligation to exercise that power."
Epaminondas wrote: "The effect of an assumption then, is to reduce
us to that political situation, which Americans deprecate; we are to be
governed by laws, in the making of which, we have no participation; we
have no share in the state governments, of which we have no reason to
complain, for we are separated from them; but we have no share in electing
the members of congress, who are exclusively to legislate for us. We are
reduced to the mortifying situation, of being subject to laws, made, or to
be made, by we know not whom; by agents, not of our choice, in no degree
responsible to us, who from their situation, and the circumstance of
having other constituents to serve, are not likely to be very tender of
our rights, or very much alive to our interests. We resort in vain to the
constitution, for the means of relief; from that instrument, we cannot
hope to have our situation ameliorated." …
He urged that, should Congress choose to assume exclusive legislative
authority, it should establish a Territorial elected legislature in
Washington City, and pass a Constitutional amendment to give District
citizens the vote for President and Vice-President, senators, and when the
population had grown sufficiently, a representative.
On February 27, 1801 centralists won the day when the First Federal
Congress voted to assume exclusive legislative power over the District,
their last act before Federalists lost power for all time. Since that day,
as District residents have watched and even cheered from the sidelines,
Congress has admitted thirty-four states whose citizens have gained all
rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. But, as the historic
record and day-to-day experience show, Epaminondas was correct about the
lot of District citizens. They have appealed to the Supreme Court, and
found that it does not believe it can force Congress to apportion or
include D.C. I am not an expert on the legal implications of the Supreme
Court’s ruling, but it is not difficult to understand that D.C.’s
options relate to persuading Congress to take some action. If not, D.C.’s
status will apparently not change.
Efforts to Modify the federal/District relationship
Even in Congress, there has been disagreement about what exclusive
legislative authority should mean, and that disagreement started early on.
President Monroe (1818) said, "…Congress legislates in all cases,
directly, on local concerns of the District. As this is a departure, for a
special purpose, from the general principles of our system, it may merit
consideration, whether an arrangement better adopted to the principle of
our government… may not be devised…" One can trace how
perceptions among federal officials changed over the years—from Congress
looking out for the interests of District citizens because they were not
represented to being considered people who live off the federal largesse.
In both cases, the District is considered a ward of the federal
government, or a federal agency. The relationship between the federal
government and the District has always been somewhat paternal, but more
often than not in an unhealthy way. The federal government wants to have
and control its national capital—but it wants citizens living in that
area to finance the effort. The arrangement is not unlike the one that
caused George Washington and other patriots to fight for independence.
District citizens have learned from 200 years of experience, documented
in the historical record, that there are good reasons to try to modify the
federal-local relationship. It is clear that Congress gives D.C.
responsibilities for most state, county, and city functions—responsibilities
D.C. enjoys having despite fumbling more frequently than desired. But,
these responsibilities are given without compensation or a means to
develop resources (no PILOTaxes, many exemptions and costs are imposed on
the local jurisdiction, etc.). As legislators, you are well aware of how
Congress controls D.C.’s checkbook.
And D.C. has lived with taxation without representation in Congress for
its entire history since jurisdiction was transferred from the ceding
states to the federal government. I applaud you for putting this factual
information on the District’s license plate. As my elected
representatives, I am humiliated when you are called like children before
Congressional oversight committees to answer for decisions that were made
through the legislative process. In the District, it seems that only when
the federal government takes power do they share more of the burden of
maintaining the infrastructure. So the Catch-22 Cycle is this: D.C. has
economic instability, therefore, D.C. doesn’t deserve democracy. D.C.
doesn’t have democracy, therefore, D.C. is economically unstable. I
believe a key reason that District citizens have sought changes has
related to trying to gain economic stability and make social progress.
Since 1800, District citizens have taken steps to gain greater or equal
citizenship rights. Although Congress has established and modified on
several occasions the governance structure it established to administer
the affairs of the District, the fundamental status of most District
citizens has not improved for two hundred years. This has never been a
major national issue. But there is a long legacy of local debate and
struggle to redefine the relationship between the federal government and
the District. I documented many elements of that struggle in my doctoral
dissertation, "Hope and Delusion: Struggle for Democracy in the
District of Columbia (2001)."
The primary approaches District citizens have attempted that would have
significantly modified their status were (1) retrocession, (2) statehood,
and (3) amending the Constitution. There is little disagreement that these
approaches can be taken. Each presents obstacles and challenges—all are
daunting.
In 1801, one member of Congress who thought Congress should retrocede
the area back to the original states said that one day D.C. citizens would
want statehood. Before the Civil War, residents of Alexandria City and
Georgetown were interested in returning to their original states.
Alexandria succeeded in 1846, foreshadowing the Civil War. The
Congressional record shows that the issue was directly related to the
question of slavery. Presidents Lincoln and Taft and some Congressmen, who
didn’t think George Washington’s "Ten-Mile Square" should
have been fragmented in 1846, spoke of reuniting the full District, but
representatives from Virginia said they would never give up Alexandria
City again. All along, Washington City residents tended to go their own
way, and preferred the approach suggested by Epaminondas.
After the remaining separate jurisdictions of the District (Washington
City, Washington County, and Georgetown) were consolidated into one with a
so-called Territorial government in the 1870s (Governor and Upper House
appointed by President, Lower House elected), it was only a few years
before the new "city-state" lost its Home Rule government to
federal commissioners for one hundred years. The reason given was
overspending by the Governor to repair the dilapidated infrastructure
after the Civil War, but the main reason was to prevent newly freed blacks
from voting. Local elites and Congress forged a deal in which local
self-government was traded in exchange for Congress paying half the
municipal budget, and D.C. would pay off the debt. Congress reduced its
proportion of compensation rapidly, but not its power. Disagreements arose
over what was municipal and what was federal (for example, did the zoo
belong to D.C. or the federal government?). The Board of Trade and local
elites continually hoped to impress Congress into increasing its share of
compensation for municipal expenses, or at minimum restrain anger over
disagreements.
Without any elected officials to work on their behalf, many D.C.
citizens organized voluntary civic and citizen associations, á la
Tocqueville, and worked to protect the interests of their neighborhood(s)
and business interests. It wasn’t long after D.C. lost local
self-government that D.C. citizens began asking for political
representation in the federal government. The business classes were
particularly interested in federal voting rights, but less so in Home
Rule. There was a fear that those without property would not respect
property interests (this is an important reason to increase home
ownership). Calls for national representation picked up after the debt was
paid off just before 1920.
For the most part, District officials have attempted to improve the
status quo via Congressional legislation modifying each Congressionally
defined governing arrangement in a way that would benefit citizens without
"disturbing national control." Even early attempts at a
Constitutional amendment were framed not in terms of granting D.C.
citizens the same political rights as citizens who live in states, but
rather in terms of empowering Congress to correct this inequity without
disturbing in the slightest national control of the Capital or the present
form of municipal government"(The Citizens’ Joint Committee on
National Representation for the District of Columbia, 1933).
Citizens organized year after year, through World War I and II, and in
parallel with the Civil Rights movement. The media played a key role in
reporting on events created by organizations to draw attention to the
issue. The states approved one measure: in 1961, a limited Constitutional
amendment for the Presidential vote was passed and ratified by the states.
Congress has also modified the District’s governing arrangement
legislatively numerous times, including:
- 1968—an elected school board was approved;
- 1970—a non-voting delegate was approved; and in
- 1973—a limited home rule government was approved.
Some citizens, including Julius Hobson, called the Home Rule agreement
"Home Fool." Others said there was a "plan" to see
that this arrangement would fail, that the federal government would one
day take governance back completely. Others were happy to have made
incremental progress.
The benefit of having an elected school board and a home rule
government has been to establish an operational electoral apparatus (the
ward system) that could support national voting rights.
In 1985, a bi-partisan coalition in Congress approved a Constitutional
amendment to grant D.C. the right to representatives in the Senate and the
House. But D.C. did not succeed in gaining approval from the states and
the proposed amendment lost during President Reagan’s term by 22 states
(16 approved). The Amendment did not have adequate backing or resources,
and opponents had gained experience with the Equal Rights Amendment and
launched a campaign in which they trained people to switch the debate from
principle to method: They would agree that in principle D.C. should have
the vote, but the method chosen (Amendment) was not acceptable because it
would make the District a "city state," or a "virtual
state."
Many in D.C. could not get excited about trying to pass a limited
voting rights amendment because they wanted both local self-government and
voting rights via statehood. The statehood movement grew, even as many
elected officials and the local media ignored or downplayed the subject.
Citizens demonstrated their support for statehood using the Initiative
process, and gained approval for a statehood Constitution. In 1993, the
House of Representatives voted on statehood: 153 voted yes, but D.C. was
63 votes short.
Perhaps as a consolation prize, in 1993, Democrats legislatively
granted D.C.’s non-voting delegate a symbolic vote in Committee of Whole
of the House of Representatives, but a Republican Congress legislatively
took away that privilege when it won control of the House in 1995.
This illustrates another two points: Legislative solutions are
temporary solutions. And, D.C. is trapped in a partisan situation. I
sometimes wonder if D.C. would not be better served by having a
non-partisan elected Delegate. That idea, however, defies the reality of
the party system and the way Congress works. D.C. faces a Catch-22.
After 200 years, we should understand this clearly: The status of
District citizens is not settled or fixed. The issue is intergenerational,
and D.C. citizens throughout the ages have kept searching for solutions—lobbying,
protesting, filing lawsuits, and practicing civil disobedience. Citizens
have neither been silenced nor gained critical mass. No solution will be
easy or short-term. And some solutions might ever hinder the District from
achieving full political equality in the long run. A partial voting rights
amendment, if passed, could be very difficult to undo—the District could
be left as politically unequal forever. So, here we are today, hopeful or
delusional, seeking how to leave a stronger foundation for future District
citizens, to solve this puzzle left to us by our founders.
D.C. must have a duel strategy in which she builds support both in
Congress and among other Americans.
BASE OF National Support for D.C. Equal Rights
As part of my doctoral research I established baseline data on
awareness of this issue, support for Congressional voting rights, and
methods to achieve equal rights. Professionally, I am a consultant on
national opinion research, often for strategic planning purposes. I
developed a study and hired professionally trained interviewers from
Bruskin Research to interview a nationally representative sample of 1,000
U.S. adults. In 1997, 86% supported D.C. citizens having the right to
elect their own local officials. Twenty-five years after D.C. was granted
limited Home Rule, support for self-government had increased by 21
percentage points. (A question was first asked by George Gallup in 1949—65%
supported).
I did not find any historic national data on Congressional voting
rights for D.C. citizens (perhaps there is proprietary data that I am
unaware of). So in 1999, as D.C. waited for the three judge panel to
review the two D.C. lawsuits, I funded data collection from another
nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults. I found that after
providing a small amount of information, 72% thought D.C. should have
equal voting rights in the Senate and the House of Representatives. This
support crossed political party lines—81% of Democrats, 71%
Independents, 61% Republicans supported.
The data show there is a base of support to begin with, to build upon
and activate into a policy choice. But public support is latent—not
active. And one must remember that opinions can change. Therefore, any
effort to activate public support should be done carefully as part of a
long-term strategy. The District has the advantage of starting from the
"moral high ground." Like in an election, support is
"dynamic"—and could change depending on how the issue is
framed.
FACTORS THAT HAVE BLOCKED SUCCESS
There are many reasons why D.C. hasn’t achieved greater levels of
political equality over 200 years—today I will focus on a few reasons,
some of which D.C. citizens can do something about.
First, race and class or socio-economic factors have always been
important. White supremacy and slavery have created a history of distrust
that today has not completely disappeared. Although D.C.’s Home Rule
government was the first in D.C. to integrate women and African-Americans
into governance, race is still an important issue in D.C. and in the
nation. Some believe D.C. has not achieved their rights because the area
is majority African-American, while others disagree with this assessment.
Class and socio-economic factors are sometimes described in D.C. as the
West of the Park/East of the River divide.
Although I am not certain how to solve the problem if these are the
primary factors, they are important to recognize and to be sensitive to in
forming coalitions. It is important to recognize that a majority of
African-Americans in D.C. support statehood, compared to fewer Caucasians.
Recall that on the elected versus appointed school board issue, opinions
also divided along racial lines.
The second reason is that D.C. is not seen as a real place… D.C. has
a double identity in which Washington has been assigned the very meaning
of what Americans in general (and local D.C. citizens in particular)
dislike—an impervious federal government and the erosion of local
self-government. D.C.’s very name has been twisted to mean what it
dislikes! We must systematically ask for respect from nationally elected
officials and show other Americans this is a real place. There is good
work underway through the D.C. Heritage Tourism Coalition to showcase D.C.
neighborhoods to visitors.
Third, Americans do not know about or understand the nature of the
problem. In my 1999 study of some of the most informed Americans, college
graduate voters, 56 percent were not aware that D.C. does not have equal
voting rights in the Senate and the House (many think D.C. already has
these rights). Even tourist guidebooks to D.C. hardly cover the story. A
content analysis of 27 tourist guidebooks that I did in 2000 showed the
federal and local issues are blurred and not clearly explained. D.C.’s
own Convention and Visitors Association publications didn’t even mention
the issue!
Fourth, D.C. citizens seem to love to argue and feud, and sometimes
they just don’t work toward consensus and try to find agreement! This
has been a key issue throughout D.C. history—different neighborhoods and
groups undermine one another. On the issue of what remedy would best
accomplish what D.C. wants, residents fragment. In 2000, 58 percent of
D.C. citizens supported statehood in a Washington Post survey. The major
division in D.C. was not by class, but by race: 63 percent of African
Americans supported statehood (30% opposed), while 45 percent of
Caucasians supported (50% opposed). Regionally, a poll by Wirthlin Group
in 1994 found 53 percent in D.C. supported statehood, but 57 percent in
D.C.’s suburbs in Maryland and Virginia opposed statehood. That same
poll found about 20 percent in D.C. and regionally supported merging D.C.
into Maryland.
D.C. citizens—and the region—need to spend more time thinking about
the different remedies, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of
each, and developing greater levels of consensus on the elements that are
minimum requirements regardless of the method taken. (See attached chart.)
I believe we not only need EQUAL federal voting rights, but we also need a
SECURE local legislature. I’m not sure if we can have voting rights in
Congress if at any time that same body can abolish our local legislature.
The last reason I’ll mention today for why D.C. hasn’t won equal
political rights is that there are many people living in D.C. who accept
the status quo, are complacent, or apathetic. D.C. citizens would be
served to think more carefully about the how they would personally benefit
by having equal constitutional rights. D.C. needs adult history courses!
This is an intergenerational issue and we must become more organized to
compensate for our weaknesses. The District needs well-informed, bold, and
fearless leaders to unite District citizens behind an agenda on which
there is large-scale agreement. We are not adequately organized to
succeed.
Recommendations
Establish a District Office for Equal Constitutional Rights
In writing my dissertation on this subject, I learned that information,
while available, is not easy to locate and is not synthesized and
analyzed. There is much research that still needs to be conducted. In my
own area of expertise, there has been very little public opinion research
on this subject conducted in the District, the region, in the nation, and
among key audiences. In the economic arena, there is much to be done.
For District citizens, this issue is intergenerational. The current
generation would be served by evaluating its choices from the perspective
of the 200-year legacy of citizens—there is much to be learned from
these efforts.
District citizens may benefit from institutionalizing the collection
and organization of solid information.
I recommend that a District Office for Equal Constitutional Rights be
established. The Office could be charged with establishing and updating
factual information on this issue and making it widely accessible to
citizens. It must unite the divided District interests. This would include
compiling information that already exists, identifying information still
needed. In addition, the Office could develop and implement an educational
strategy, such as including the subject in high school curriculum and
providing yearly updates to travel writers. The Office should also monitor
the national political landscape and advise District citizens of potential
opportunities.
Congress would likely not allow the District government to spend local
taxpayer money for such an effort; therefore, the Office may need to be
sustained with foundational or private support.
Develop a Strategic Plan
To succeed, D.C. must achieve greater local consensus on approaches.
D.C. citizens do not appear to be united. Your leadership in calling this
roundtable today could be important in this effort. D.C. citizens have
good reason not to be too hopeful, but rather depressed! But many are
undaunted. I believe any effort to increase local consensus will require
the use of public involvement methods beyond legislative hearings that
involve larger numbers of citizens who learn about the options, and
express their choices. Neighborhood Action was a method that could be
used. A Deliberative Poll (James Fishkin) could be used. Or another method
could be devised using the existing Advisory Neighborhood Commission
structure. I have given considerable thought to public involvement
approaches for achieving legitimacy in the decision-making process and
public consent.
D.C. needs to develop a strategic plan for how it plans to achieve its
goals. A strategic plan should have a vision statement; long-,
intermediate-, and short-term goals; methods to achieve the goals; and
milestones for celebrating progress. Roles and responsibilities for
advancing political equality for D.C. citizens can be integrated across
the District’s elected bodies and agencies. But how can one expect to
advance and find a role to play without a clearly established plan? This
would also serve to let Congress and the nation know what D.C. wants.
Develop a Smart Campaign to Win
This issue requires informing people and making D.C.’s best case in a
short amount of time. But D.C. has very limited resources, so she must
develop a smart campaign. Following are some elements of a smart campaign:
Information Development—To argue the case for D.C.’s vision of
political equality, D.C. must have clarity of thought. This requires
knowledge and analysis. D.C. needs to identify what studies and
information is needed to make its case more clearly. For example, I
frequently hear people make the statement that the federal government pays
for or subsidizes D.C. and census statistics can be taken (out of context)
to show D.C. is the federal government’s welfare child. I have not yet
found a good economic study that lays out this issue clearly. This is but
one piece of information that is critical to making our case.
Audiences—D.C. must prioritize its audiences and target its messages.
Audiences include Congress, State legislatures, City Councils and urban
interests, rural interests, media, Wall Street, opinion leaders, Civil
Rights groups. D.C. needs to systematically understand what they know and
what they think. Research that can be used to refine D.C.’s strategy and
messages should be conducted amongst these audiences.
Messages—While there are many things one can say to make ones point,
not all are equally persuasive or effective. Research can identify which
messages are most effective. To simply guess which messages might be most
effective is wasteful and can be risky and even backfire. If one has 15
seconds to make a point, what is the most compelling point to make? In my
experience of testing messages for clients, it is difficult to guess which
messages are most effective. Typically, if one is "selling" an
idea or product, one must explain the benefits. I have started to develop
messages that could be tested among public audiences. Once messages are
prioritized, they can be integrated into talks, brochures, advertising,
and other communications vehicles, where they can be personalized.
Create Local Symbols of Civic Pride
Another way to institutional this issue is to create local symbols of
civic pride, such as annual events or days on which citizens observe and
celebrate the successes they have made. This could take the form of an
annual Elected officials’ Day or Democracy Day on which District
residents could honor those who serve as elected officials and those who
work hard to expand D.C.’s democracy. Recognize the contributions people
make and share in success.
The D.C. mayor and Council should create public and media events. On
November 6th, 1928, District citizens had a "Day of
Humiliation," because that was the day on which the President and
Congress were elected, and the day in which the inhabitants of D.C. had no
part. Citizens also produced educational souvenirs at the inaugural and
distributed the souvenirs to those coming to D.C. to celebrate.
Another idea might be to have each neighborhood establish a
"Freedom Light," or something similar to the Liberty Poles of
the colonists. Each time citizens walked by the light in their
neighborhood, they would be reminded of the goal.
CONCLUSION
This is an exciting topic. Many want to understand this issue, to get
their hands around it. No one can do this alone—this must be an
inclusive team effort, or D.C. is unlikely to succeed.
KEY POINTS
Thank you Chairman Mendelson, Councilmember Graham, and Councilmember
Orange for holding this roundtable. My name is Mark David Richards. I am a
District citizen and a sociologist.
I have provided a detailed statement, but will mention a few brief
points today.
1. We know that the purpose of the arrangement established by the
founding fathers was not to take away the rights of DC residents.
The Constitution of 1787 gave Congress exclusive legislative authority in
all cases whatsoever over their seat of government so Congress would not
have to depend on any one state for its security. In arguing for this,
James Madison said local residents would have a local legislature and
Alexander Hamilton said the Constitution could be amended to give DC
citizens voting rights in Congress after their population grew.
Unfortunately, Congress has not fixed the situation since they took power
in 1801. Since, DC residents have cheered from the sidelines as Congress
has added 34 states whose citizens have gained all the rights and
responsibilities of American citizenship—but here we are today in DC,
still trying to figure out how to get equal rights! National public
opinion research I conducted shows that the majority of college graduate
voters are not even aware that DC citizens have no vote in the Senate and
the House – people can hardly believe such a thing exists in the capital
of the American democracy.
2. The serious problems created by the current arrangement have been
known to DC residents since the early 1800s, but these problems have not
been explained or personalized to the American public. For 200 years, the
result of having people in charge of DC who are not elected by or
sensitive to DC residents’ interests has been to slow social progress
and economic development, which has resulted in higher local taxes.
Congress not only controls DC’s local budget—which comes from local
taxpayers, not Congress, but it does not contribute a fair market value
for services it demands! Americans have no idea.
3. It is important to separate long-term from short-term goals. DC’s
long-term goal should be to achieve the same rights enjoyed by citizens
who live in states. Opinion research shows that nearly three quarters
(72%) of American adults believe DC citizens should have equal voting
rights in the Senate and the House and even larger majorities believe DC
citizens should have local self-government. Why should DC citizens have
less than equal rights? We should not sell ourselves short, even if that
means waiting for the right time.
4. DC citizens need to be much more organized and to turn up the volume
significantly. My main recommendations are to:
(a) Establish a District Office for Equal Constitutional Rights to
centralize factual information, making it widely accessible to citizens
in their efforts to achieve equal rights.(b) Develop greater local consensus on long-term approaches and a
strategic plan.(c) Develop a smart campaign by conducting research among key
audiences and developing effective messages for outreach.(d) Create local symbols of civic pride, such as an Elected Officials’
Day or Democracy Day to celebrate the gains DC has made (such as
regaining Home Rule in 1974 and winning the right to vote for President)
and to recognize those who contribute to furthering the cause of
achieving equal Constitutional rights for District citizens.
I hope you will read the full statement. Thank you.