How to maintain taxation without representation

September 19, 2007

The Senate took up a measure yesterday to expand the House of Representatives by two, to 437. One seat, which would probably go to Republicans, would be awarded to Utah, which was arguably short-changed by the last census. The other seat, which would probably go to the Dems, would be for the District of Columbia, which includes over a half-million taxpaying Americans — the only citizens in the country with no voice in Congress.

The bill would have passed on an up-or-down vote, but Republicans filibustered the legislation. When it came time to vote, proponents came up with 57 members, three short of the total needed to end debate.

I’ve always been curious what would possess someone to believe that Americans can live inside the country, pay federal taxes, but must be denied a congressional representative. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the only Democrat in the chamber to support the GOP filibuster, explained his motivation: “If we were to expand the House, Montana’s voice would become less influential.”

TNR’s Christopher Orr took a closer look at this conclusion.

[M]y back-of-the-envelope calculation — and I hope readers will feel free to correct it if it’s wrong — finds that Montana’s single House vote currently makes up 0.2299 percent of the total House vote. If the House were expanded from 435 members to 437, Montana’s share would drop to 0.2288 percent. Yes, Baucus felt obligated to vote against any federal representation for residents of the District of Columbia, because it would reduce the relative clout of his states’ residents (in the House only, the Senate would be unaffected) by one-thousandth of one percent.

This was, to be sure, the dumbest reason, but there were others.

The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and the White House have strongly criticized the legislation. They maintain that, because the District is not a state, the bill violates the constitutional mandate that House members be chosen by the “People of the several States.”

“I opposed this bill because it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional,” McConnell said in a statement. “If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, they have a remedy: amend the Constitution.”

You know, maybe if they had a voice in Congress, they could actually pursue a constitutional amendment. At this point, they have to rely on the goodwill who reject the notion of taxation without representation.

Apparently, denying DC residents a vote was an important Republican priority.

Proponents blamed their loss on aggressive last-minute lobbying by the Republican leadership. They said three Republican senators who had indicated support for moving the bill forward changed their minds: Gordon Smith (Ore.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Thad Cochran (Miss.).

They not only opposed the measure, they filibustered it. Worse, they not only filibustered it, they lobbied aggressively to make sure their obstructionist tactics worked.

The mind reels.

If Hillary Clinton ends up winning the Electoral Collage by 1 electoral vote next year, we can thank the defeat of this bill for denying that extra vote to Utah.

Congresional representation for DC residents (of which I am one) is a fundamental American right denied merely by a Constitutional technicality, which should be fixed – but it should be held hostage to pretty Repulican partisan chicanery either.

  • The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and the White House have strongly criticized the legislation. They maintain that, because the District is not a state, the bill violates the constitutional mandate that House members be chosen by the “People of the several States.”

    Republican respect for the Constitution is such a fickle thing.

  • I’m sure this has nothing to do with the racial demographics of the city.

    “I opposed this bill because it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional,” McConnell said in a statement. “If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, they have a remedy: amend the Constitution.”

    Sure Mitch, you really screamed the place down when the pResident started shitting on the Constitution.

    And please keep in mind that DC was forced to foot part of the bill for the last inagural hoe down. I wonder how many people who keep the Capitol running are DC residents? I wonder what would happen if they stopped showing up for work?

  • I agree with Ethel. Had I been there, I would have opposed the bill as well. DC should have voting representation, but that should stand or fall on its own. Utah did not get “shortchanged” — in each reapportionment someone has to have the smallest margin. When the rules were applied evenly, Utah got its allocation like everyone else. We already have a problem with small states being wildly overrepresented and overly empowered, while the majority of the population is held hostage to their parochial whims (and I say this coming from li’l ol’ Iowa – so I exempt caucus order from this reasoning!) Giving Utah “superrepresentation” is not the answer to DC’s issue.

  • I love this bit from the Washington Post’s editorial calling them on their lame excuses:

    The most cynical aspect of the debate was the lip service Mr. McConnell and other opponents gave to voting rights — only if done properly, via an amendment to the Constitution. Are we really to believe that they would back a measure that could lead to their worst fears — two senators from the mainly Democratic District of Columbia? And if so, where have they been all these years? Perhaps D.C. residents should hope that the soon-to-be retired Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), an opponent who said he’ll introduce a constitutional amendment, will accomplish in the next few months what he hasn’t bothered with during his 30 years in the Senate.

  • As a resident of the District, I would gladly forego Congressional representation and accept that the District is not a State for purposes of the Constitution if Congress would then admit that the Constitution does not apply to the District (and the three branches of government established thereby do not have any authority over the District) . The District should then be free to establish its own Constitution and set of rights for its people. Either we are a state, and the entire Constitution applies, or we are not and none of it does.

  • In 1847, 39 square miles of the District of Columbia was ceded back to the state of Virginia. If it can be done once, why not cede back to Virginia and Maryland any part of D.C. not occupied by Federal buildings? Surely the great minds (sic) of our government could draw up a sufficiently compact District of Columbia so as not to disenfranchise the residents of the city.

  • PLEASE stop calling this obstructionism a filibuster…It is merely the “threat” of filibuster. Americans can understand it much easier when they understand that these republican obstructionist are merely threatening to filibuster and so the Dems back off without making them actually filibuster. We can’t keep it straight because they never do it they just say it. They make it easier for these obstructionist to continue blocking all legislation. Make them actually filibuster each and every time. We want to hear their arguments. We want them to show us how absurd they have become on a daily basis. It should be posted that “the republicans threatened to filibuster”, then many Americans would say why aren’t the Dems making them filibuster…we want to hear their reasons…we want to see them say it not get it through a third party.

    On representation for the District of Col…is there a way to take the government to court for making them pay taxes without being represented in spite of not being a state?
    Also is there a way to get McCain institutionalized and on medication before he completely flips out and starts thinking…”They know,…I know they know…They’re not saying anything but I know they know…they’re looking at me…they know…I know they know”?

  • Question for those who know more than me:

    If one cannot be legally taxed without representation, then what compels residents of the District to federal income tax?

    Seems to me that someone needs to convince tens of thousands of DC residents to not pay federal income tax next year in protest — not all the residents need to protest, just enough so that they can’t throw all of them prison.

    Just a thought …

  • did they actually filibuster, or did they pull their usual threat of a filibuster.

    make the bastards filibuster!

  • This may be a stupid question, but why doesn’t DC just petition for statehood like all the other states that were admitted to the union??

  • “If one cannot be legally taxed without representation, then what compels residents of the District to federal income tax? Seems to me that someone needs to convince tens of thousands of DC residents to not pay federal income tax next year in protest — not all the residents need to protest, just enough so that they can’t throw all of them prison.”

    The real problem is withholding laws. The people of DC may very well choose to not pay tax, but their employers will no doubt continue to withhold (and pay over to the US) the taxes from the DC residents’ wages

  • ET and others are right. If D.C. residents were to follow the “correct” method of a Constitutional amendment, they presumably would be entitled to TWO Senators (out of 102) and ONE House member (out of 435). The pious defenders of the Constitution would just love that.

    Setting aside the legalistic quibbling of the Repugnants, the founders envisioned a bicameral legislature in which the Senate would represent the States (two Senators per state), and the House of Representatives would represent the citizens (actually white male property owners). Following this logic, D.C. is not a State, but D.C. residents are citizens. The defeated bill was based on this logic: no Senate seat, but one House seat for D.C. It even awarded a bonus seat to the Republicans, to mollify Utahans still disgruntled by the 2000 census reapportionment.

    I continue to hope that the Democrats will learn from yet another humiliating defeat, stop bending themselves into pretzels for “bipartisanship” and recognize what they are really up against. And, right, don’t call it a filibuster. They caved at the PROSPECT of a filibuster. D.C. suffrage was not worth actually putting the bad guys to the trouble of a real filibuster. Speaking of the Constitution, how did the Republicans get it written that 60 votes out of 100 are required to pass ordinary legislation?

    By rights, the bill should have provided one House seat to D.C., nothing for Utah. That would raise the House membership temporarily to 436. After the 2010 census, the House would be reapportioned, following the usual procedure, back to 435. Is that so hard?

  • “I’ve always been curious what would possess someone to believe that Americans can live inside the country, pay federal taxes, but must be denied a congressional representative.”

    Unfortunately, a cursory reading of the Constitution would have been enough to satisfy your curiosity. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 vests Congress with authority “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”

    The D.C. Voting Rights Act is just not a wise measure to support. It is patently unconstitutional. Representation in Congress is expressly reserved for States, and the Constitution explicitly states that the national capital shall not be a state but shall be carved out “by Cession of particular States.” I agree with you that it seems unfair that D.C. residents lack direct representation in Congress, but passing a blatantly unconstitutional statute that would quite rightly be struck down by the courts before it could be implemented is not the solution to that problem. If the unfairness inherent in D.C. residents’ lack of representation is to be rectified, it must be done by Constitutional amendment and not by invalid legislation.

  • One of nation’s first birthing pangs was when we threw the tea overboard.
    The reason: taxation without representation

    It was an example of injustice then as much as it is now.

    If justice is to prevail: Either the people of DC cannot be taxed…or they should have representation in the government that is currently taxing them. If it requires a Constitutional ammendment to make this happen then that should be done right now. So…which Republican is going to launch this ammendment?

    • Comments are closed.