Taxation Without Representation: Should D.C. Get a Vote in Congress?

There has been increased debate recently about whether or not the District of Columbia should have a voting member of the House of Representatives, just as each of the fifty states do. Those in favor of a voting member of the House tend to cite the "taxation without representation" article as well as the provisions of the "Seat of Government" Clause, or "District" Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Those opposed to granting the residents of D.C. a voting member in the House generally claim that voting representatives are limited to the states by the Constitution.

Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has expressed her support for Congressional voting rights for D.C., and it is widely expected that she will push for passage of House Resolution 5388, the D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act. But will it pass, and more importantly, should the residents of the District of Columbia have a voting member of the House of Representatives?

Opponents of H.R. 5388 say that Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants to states alone the power of the vote in the House. Here's what the Constitution says: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states…." It goes on to say, "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."

So the argument goes something like this: the Constitution is very clear in its wording, in which the STATES are represented in the House. The District of Columbia is not a state, and is therefore not entitled to a voting representative in the House. Currently, the District is represented by a delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is not allowed to vote on legislation before the House.