Discover

The 'District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment' was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. It has officially expired and, therefore, would have to start from square one passing through both houses of Congress again before getting ratification by the state legislatures.

Contents

Text of the Amendment

History in Congress

Effect of the Amendment had it been ratified

Other attempts to alter the political status of the nation's capital

Response of the state legislatures

See also

Text of the Amendment

The full text of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment reads:

''SECTION 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.''

''SECTION. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.''

''SECTION. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''

''SECTION. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.''

History in Congress

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was presented to the state legislatures for consideration by the 95th Congress in the form of House Joint Resolution No. 554, offered by California Democrat Don Edwards.
Representative Edwards' joint resolution was approved by the United States House of Representatives on March 2, 1978, with a vote of 289 yeas, 127 nays and 18 "not voting" (124 ''Congressional Record'' 5272-5273). It was then approved by the United States Senate on August 22, 1978, with a vote of 67 yeas, 32 nays and 1 "not voting" (124 ''Congressional Record'' 27260). And with that, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was offered to the state legislatures for consideration, as prescribed by Article V of the Constitution. In accordance with the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the 1921 case of ''Dillon v. Gloss'' (256 U.S. 368), Congress chose to place a seven-year deadline upon the measure's consideration by the state legislatures.
Ultimately, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed because it was not ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 U.S. states when the August 22, 1985, deadline—specified in the text of the proposed Amendment itself (fourth and final section)—had arrived.

Effect of the Amendment had it been ratified

Had it succeeded, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment would have repealed the 23rd Amendment. The 23rd Amendment does ''not'' allow the District of Columbia to have more electoral votes "than the least populous State"; nor does it grant Washington, D.C. an official role in the unusual scenario of an election of a President by the House of Representatives (or that of Vice-President in the Senate). The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, by contrast, ''would'' have granted to the District of Columbia the full voting rights of a state. Specifically, it would have given Washington, D.C. full representation in both Houses of the United States Congress in addition to full participation in the Electoral College. The proposed amendment would have also allowed the Washington D.C. City Council, the Congress, or the people of Washington D.C. (depending on how this proposed amendment would have been interpreted) to decide whether to ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution on an equal footing as a State's legislature pursuant to Article V of the Constitution or to apply to Congress for a national convention to propose amending the Constitution.

Other attempts to alter the political status of the nation's capital

In 1980, voters in the District of Columbia approved a call for a local constitutional convention to be prepared for a new state, to be called New Columbia. The product of that convention—the statehood constitution—was adopted by the city's voters in 1982. Provisions of the statehood constitution are still upheld in the electing of an unofficial "shadow" United States Senator to lobby Congress on behalf of interests of importance to Washington, D.C.
In 2007, the new Democratic majority in Congress announced plans to give voting representation in the House to the District. To attempt to gain bipartisan support, the bill would also give an additional seat to Utah, thus the membership of the House would be expanded by two seats. The bill - titled H.R. 1905 - passed a House vote on 2007-04-19 and is currently pending before the Senate.[1] The Bush Administration has stated that the President will be advised to veto any such bill as unconstitutional.

Response of the state legislatures

Requiring the approvals of lawmakers in at least 38 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of only the following 16 states:

★ New Jersey on September 11, 1978;

★ Michigan on December 13, 1978;

★ Ohio on December 21, 1978;

★ Minnesota on March 19, 1979;

★ Massachusetts on March 19, 1979;

★ Connecticut on April 11, 1979;

★ Wisconsin on November 1, 1979;

★ Maryland on March 19, 1980;

★ Hawaii on April 17, 1980;

★ Oregon on July 6, 1981;

★ Maine on February 16 1983;

★ West Virginia on February 23, 1983;

★ Rhode Island on May 13, 1983;

★ Iowa on January 19, 1984;

★ Louisiana on June 24, 1984; and

★ Delaware on June 28, 1984.

See also

★ District of Columbia voting rights

★ List of amendments to the United States Constitution

★ List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

★ Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution

★ League of Women Voters History of DC Voting Rights

★ District of Columbia Vote in House of Representatives