Constitutional Amendment

The most often-introduced proposal for voting rights has taken the form of a constitutional amendment. 56) granting voting representation in Congress to District residents, but did not vote on the measures. (See discussion of Virginia retrocession later in this report.) Also, in 1965, the House District of Columbia Committee reported H.R. It would have made the following changes:
treat District residents as Maryland voters for the purpose of federal elections, thus allowing District voters to participate in the election of Maryland's delegation to the House and Senate; allow District residents to run for congressional and senatorial seats in Maryland; increased the size of the House by two additional members until reapportionment following the 2010 decennial census; classify the District as a unit of local government for the purpose of federal elections and subject to Maryland election laws; give one House seat to Maryland and require most, if not all, of the city to be designated a single congressional district, as population permits; direct the clerk of the House to notify the governor of the other state, mostly likely Utah, that it is entitled to a seat based on the apportionment report submitted to the Congress by the President in 2001; repeal the 23 rd Amendment, which allows the District to cast three electoral votes in presidential elections; and allow citizens in the District to vote as Maryland residents in elections for President and Vice President. 4208 , a bill providing full voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia. The measure suggested that Congress might provide voting representation by statute, a constitutionally untested proposition. 2043 ) that would have provided voting representation to the citizens of the District of Columbia by eschewing methods used in the past such as a constitutional amendment, retrocession, semi-retrocession and statehood. 157

On January 6, 2009, Delegate Norton introduced H.R. 157 , the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009, a measure identical to a bill, H.R. 157 , as introduced, would:
permanently increase the number of Members in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 starting with the 111 th Congress (provision was changed to 112 th Congress during Committee consideration of the bill); designate the District of Columbia a congressional district for purposes of voting representation in the House; limit the District to no more than one representative in the House, (this provision was eliminated during Committee consideration of the bill); and require that one of the two additional seats be occupied by a Representative of the District of Columbia; the other would be temporarily elected at large from the state of Utah based on the 2000 decennial census and would remain in place until the 2012 apportionment process. By a vote of 20-12, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and approved an amended version of H.R. 157 on February 25, 2009. S. 160

The Senate bill, S. 160 , which was introduced on January 6, 2009, was reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on February 12, 2009 and approved by the full Senate on February 26, 2009. In addition, the bill includes amendments unrelated to voting rights for the District. The second, and more controversial provision would repeal provisions of the District's gun control law. 1, Sec. 2, of the Constitution which conveys voting rights to representatives of the several states. 1, Sec. A full analysis of these legal arguments can be found at CRS Report RL33824, The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole , by [author name scrubbed].
This report provides a summary and analysis of legislative proposals that would provide voting representation in Congress to residents of the District of Columbia. Since the issue of voting representation for District residents was first broached in 1801, Congress has considered five legislative options: (1) seek voting rights in Congress by constitutional amendment, (2) retrocede the District to Maryland (retrocession), (3) allow District residents to vote in Maryland for their representatives to the House and Senate (semi-retrocession), (4) grant the District statehood, and (5) define the District as a congressional district for the purpose of voting representation in the House of Representatives.
On January 6, 2009, the non-voting delegate for the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, introduced H.R. 157, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009, a bill that would permanently increase the size of the House from 435 to 437 Members and provide voting representation to the District and the state most likely to gain an additional representative, Utah. Weeks later, on January 23, 2009, Representative Dana Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 665, a bill that would provide voting rights to District citizens by retroceding the District of Columbia to Maryland. Also on January 6, Senator Lieberman introduced S. 160, a related bill of the same title as H.R. 157. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee reported S. 160 on February 12, 2009. The House Judiciary Committee reported an amended version of H.R. 157 on February 25, 2009, by a vote of 20-12. A provision amending the city's gun control laws was introduced during Committee markup of the bill, but was withdrawn before a vote. The full Senate passed the bill on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 61-37. The Senate bill includes a controversial provision unrelated to voting rights that would amend the District's gun control laws.
These proposals would grant voting representation by statute, eschewing the constitutional amendment process and statehood option. Any proposal considered by Congress faces three distinct challenges. It must (1) address issues raised by Article 1, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which limits voting representation to states; (2) provide for the continued existence of the District of Columbia as the "Seat of Government of the United States" (Article 1, Sec. 8); and (3) consider its impact on the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which grants three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. For a discussion of constitutional issues of proposed legislation, see CRS Report RL33824, The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole, by [author name scrubbed].
This report will be updated as events warrant.