“I oppose S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. I must renew my objections to legislation of this sort, and speak to its flaws as I have done when similar erroneous attempts have been made to amend the Constitution with legislation. As I have stated previously, my quarrel is not with the intent of the legislation, but with the vehicle with which the Congress is seeking to effect this change.”

“Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states ‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ The Constitution does not include the residents of the District of Columbia in this context.”

“We know from our history books that our Founding Fathers sought out a federal city, and one that would not have to rely upon the protections of any one state. Their vision, a center of government apart from the states, is seen in the distinction made in Article I, Section 8 between the ‘States’ and a ‘District.’”

“Thus, under the Constitution, the District is not a state. Consequently, a Constitutional amendment is required to give the District's citizens voting representation in Congress. This is a step that should be taken, and one that I have consistently supported.”

“As far back as 1978, as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, I spoke in support of and voted for H.J. Res. 554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress.”

“Every single member of this Senate ascribes to the underlying tenet of our system of government B that the government of the United States of America serves only by the consent of its citizens as expressed through their elected representatives. Every Senator seeks the goal of upholding and perfecting our representative form of government. But the difference lies in how we seek to effect those rights, and I contend that this is no way to go about doing it. While the goal in this case is laudable, it is a perilous course on which we embark. Simply passing a law that grants voting rights to an entity that is not a state is plainly circumventing the Constitution. As John Adams noted, ‘Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.’”

“This imperfect method of legislation employed to amend the Constitution has already been met with swift and solid opposition; the text of the legislation anticipates that very outcome by providing for the court's expedited review. Legal challenges will surely come quickly, calling into question this legislation's validity, and the fate of the District's long sought voting rights will be further bogged down in a swamp of litigation.”

“Providing voting rights for the District through a Constitutional amendment would provide the clarity and constitutionality needed, and also avoid the path of litigation. Anything short of a Constitutional amendment will be insufficient, and possibly set a dangerous precedent.” 

“While it is indeed an arduous task to amend the Constitution, and rightly so, something so critical as representation in the House for the people of the District of Columbia compels it. ‘Short cuts’ have no place here. And in this instance because of litigation, any ‘short cut’ may turn out to be the long way home for the very, long suffering, deserving people of Washington, D.C.”

###