District of Columbia grabs for political power

The new Democratic Congress seems hell-bent on granting a congressional seat to the District of Columbia, no matter what the Constitution says. A bill before Congress would add a 436th seat to the U.S. House, the first time since 1911 that the number of House seats has been altered (the original House had 65 representatives). Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a reconsideration of an original Justice Department analysis that found the bill unconstitutional.

The problem with this legislation, and of other, similar legislation over the years, is that the Constitution limits representation in Congress to the states. The District of Columbia is not a state; therefore, it cannot have a voting representative in the House, nor can it have two senators, as all states are allowed. And don't doubt that, if this bill passes, Senate representation will not be far behind. Previously, advocates have proposed statehood for the District of Columbia, but it is obvious that statehood for a city of a few square miles was never envisioned by the Constitution.

The Constitution, in Article I, clearly states that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen ... by the people of the several states" and members shall be "an inhabitant of the state in which he shall be chosen." The Constitution also refers to vacancies "in the representation from any state." "State ... state ... state" — it's abundantly clear that the Founding Fathers were establishing a legislature composed of representatives from the states.

In Section 8 of Article I, the Constitution gives Congress "exclusive" authority over a "district" that might be ceded by the states for a seat of government. This is an area ceded by the states but is not, by definition, a state. It's a district.

But what of the civil rights of residents of D.C.? Some proclaim that they are suffering "taxation without representation." That is only partially true. Since 1960, D.C. residents have counted in presidential elections, and they have had a non-voting representative in the U.S. House for decades. But their voting power is less than that of citizens of the states.

There's a simple solution for this slight, however. Congress can exercise its exclusive authority to shrink the size of the District of Columbia, to limit this seat of government to no more than the Capitol and its accessory structures, the Supreme Court building, the White House and executive offices, the National Mall and the national museums and monuments nearby, and the Executive Branch buildings and offices. The remainder of the district could be returned to Maryland, which ceded it to the federal government 200 years ago. Virginia had given a similar size parcel to the feds at the same time but took it (present-day Arlington) back when the government built the Capitol, White House and other structures on the Maryland side of the Potomac. As residents of Maryland, the former D.C. residents would have full voting rights, a voting representative in the House and two U.S. senators. Problem solved.

But this controversy is not really about civil rights, it's about political power. Adding a new reliably Democratic representative to the House (and eventually two new Democrats to the U.S. Senate) would give Democrats greater power on Capitol Hill. And let's not let the Constitution get in the way of a grab for political power.