![]() |
Written Testimony of the Committee for the Capital City To the Senate Committee on Government Affairs Voting Representation in Congress for Citizens of the District of Columbia May 23, 2002 Betty Ann Kane, spokesperson Board of Directors
Senator Lieberman and members of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, my name is Betty Ann Kane. I am pleased to present this written testimony on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Committee for the Capital City concerning options for restoring voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia. I have been a resident of the District of Columbia for 34 years and, as you know, was honored to serve for 16 years as an elected official on the Board of Education and the D.C. Council. The Committee for the Capital City is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization formed in 1995 by a group of civic-minded residents of the District, Maryland and Virginia who are united by a common desire to preserve and protect the unique character of the nation's capital city while achieving full democratic rights for its citizens. We are devoted to researching and increasing public awareness of a just and practical solution to the injustice daily faced by District residents: that in the capital city of the world's greatest democratic nation, its residents lack fundamental voting rights, including the right to participate fully in their own governance. The Committee believes that any solution to this injustice that still leaves citizens of the city of Washington with fewer political rights than other Americans cannot be accepted. Whatever form of government is established, we must have full political rights, including the right to a local elected government with real municipal power, the right to voting representation in a state government that has sovereign taxing authority, and the right to voting representatives in both houses of Congress. After examining four types of governmental structures that could meet the criteria of fiscal stability and full political rights, including stand alone statehood, creation of an expanded state, and annexation by another state, the Committee believes that the most just solution is reunion of the District of Columbia with its original territory, the State of Maryland, and the establishment of Washington as a home rule jurisdiction within the State of Maryland system. Our testimony today will focus on that option, and in particular will address some of the misunderstandings of reunion. We believe that reunion of most of the territory of the District of Columbia with the State of Maryland is the most just and practical solution for full democracy for District residents for several reasons. First, history is on our side. As you know, the District was originally created with land ceded for that purpose from the states of Maryland and Virginia. The portion ceded by Virginia was returned to that state in 1846. The reason given for that retrocession was that it "was not needed" by the national government. It is difficult to see in the year 2002 how any continuing national interest is served by Congress retaining ultimate sovereignty over anything other than a small federal enclave in the remaining portion of the District. Second, while we do not underestimate the political challenges, the process of reunion would be relatively simple. As was the case with the Virginia portion, no Constitutional amendment would be required, and no prolonged process of ratification by multiple state legislatures. The Constitution requires only that there be a District "not exceeding ten miles square" as the seat of the federal government. As long as there remained a small federal enclave, the change in legal status could be brought about by a simple act of Congress returning the Maryland portion to that state, and by a simple act of the Maryland legislature accepting the return of the territory. Although not required, at the time of the Virginia reunion a referendum was held among the citizens of Alexandria to determine that they wished to be reunited with Virginia, and such a referendum would undoubtedly be desirable to the current District citizens. As a matter of fact, legislation to achieve reunion is currently pending in Congress. For the seventh consecutive session, on March 1 of 2001, a senior Republican Congressman, Ralph Regula, representing the 16th District in Ohio since 1972 and a member of the House Appropriations Committee and its Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 810, the District of Columbia Retrocession Act. The bill has five co-sponsors. One co-sponsor, Congressman Stephen Horn (R-CA), noted on the House floor that since 1961, "there have been endless and fruitless talks about either statehood for the district or some other means to provide full and permanent representation in the House and with the Senate. The legislation we are offering today would cut through this logjam by retrocession of a part of the current District [retaining] as a Federal enclave containing the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and most of the executive agencies. The rest of the current District would be returned to the State of Maryland." He closed by referring to his great-grandfather, an immigrant from Ireland to the District of Columbia, who "for about 3 years," this being the brief period in the 1870's when District residents could vote, "marched down there with top hat and tails because he was so proud to have the franchise." The Congressman concluded: "We do not have that franchise and we need to do it for the people that live within the District of Columbia." HR 810 has been referred to both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committee. A copy of the bill is attached. Similar in concept to legislation introduced in prior years by Congressman Regula, the current bill is more detailed in that it includes a detailed description of the National Capital Service Area that would remain under Congressional control, makes Maryland legislation accepting the District a requirement, and provides that until the next reapportionment, Maryland would receive one more seat in the House and "the individual serving as the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia shall serve as a member of the House of Representatives from the State of Maryland" with full voting privileges. As Maryland matches Congressional districts with urban jurisdictions, the District would retain its own Representative after the 2010 census. Third, the Committee believes that District residents never actually lost the right to vote in Maryland. In our amici brief filed in the case of Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (2000), affirmed, U.S. Supreme Court by Summary Disposition (October 16, 2000), we argued that no law or Constitutional amendment has ever revoked our right to vote in Maryland's Congressional elections. While the court did not grant the remedy we suggested- ordering that District residents be allowed to vote for Representatives and Senators in Maryland elections-- we continue to believe that the legal arguments are valid. Citizens who live on other federal territory such as military bases and in national parks retain full voting rights in the state the territory was created from, and so do we. Fourth, reunion with Maryland would not only provide full voting representation in Congress, it would also restore full political rights on every other level. By becoming part of Maryland, we would gain our own four elected state senators and 12 elected delegates to the Maryland legislature. This would double the number of elected positions for Washington residents and make the District an important force in the Maryland state government. Full democratic rights would also be restored by removing Congress from authority over District laws, the District budget, District taxing authority, and all other District policy. Some have objected that reunion with Maryland would dilute District authority. I strongly disagree: it would greatly increase our democratic rights. I would much rather have Maryland be my state than have a Congress we have no vote in constantly interfering and imposing its un-elected will on our local officials and residents. In that vein, let me conclude by addressing some of the common misunderstandings of the reunion option. It is thought by some that by becoming part of Maryland, the District would lose political identity. This is not true. Politically, the District would be a home-rule county under the Maryland Constitution, the same as Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Baltimore City and three other urban counties in Maryland. As a home rule jurisdiction, we would retain our current system of locally elected City Council and Mayor. Or we could alter it if our voters - I say, our voters, not the Maryland legislature - so chose. Like other Maryland home rule counties, local matters would come under our exclusive control. This includes police, fire protection, land use and zoning, community development, economic development, and the regulation of taxis. In Maryland welfare services are administered by the state, but both the state and the local government have a mutual veto over the selection of the local social services director. The same situation would prevail for public health services. In education, the District's current structure of a mixed elected and appointed local board of education would also remain. Oversight and total budget control by the Mayor and the City Council would remain. Supervision by the Maryland State Board of Education is rather light. They administer state-wide testing, and students rights, and can intervene in cases of failed schools, but that's about it. The State of Maryland would assume certain functions now performed by the District that are normal state responsibilities. These would include supervision of banking, insurance, the professions, and driver's licenses. It would include the prison system, other than the DC jail for pre-trial and short-term incarcerations. In addition, state functions taken over by the federal government for fiscal reasons could be restored to the control of persons elected by District residents-- another win for full democracy. The fiscal picture is more complex. There would certainly be efficiencies created by combing duplicative state functions. Revenue options would increase, including the authority to tax income by all persons working in the District. The tax burden on District residents would probably decrease slightly. Fiscal stability would be increased for the District and, if the facts are looked at objectively, the District could be a valued net gain for Maryland. Would our city would lose any identity in the public eye by reunion with Maryland. Is New York City any less identifiable because it is part of New York State? Or Boston? Or Baltimore? Washington would remain the nation's capital and the world will continue to view us that way. Mr. Chairman, you have styled the topic of this hearing options for restoring voting rights for District residents. Like other options, restoring full democratic rights through reunification with Maryland will take a serious educational as well as political strategy. We look forward to working with you and other members of Congress as you study ways to solve this problem. District of Columbia Retrocession Act (Introduced in the House) HR 810 IH
To provide for the retrocession of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes.
Mr. REGULA (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. HORN, Mr. FOLEY, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. RETROCESSION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO MARYLAND.
SEC. 3. EFFECT ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL CAPITAL SERVICE AREA.
(b) STREETS AND SIDEWALKS- The National Capital Service Area shall include any street (and sidewalk thereof) that bounds such Area. (c) AFFRONTING OR ABUTTING FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY-
SEC. 5. TRANSITION PROVISIONS RELATING TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SEC. 6. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
SEC. 7. PROCLAMATION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF RETROCESSION BY MARYLAND.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
|