D.C. Voting Rights Bill Clears Senate Hurdle, 62-34

But the vote on the bill, S. 160, which would add two seats to the House - one from the district of Columbia and one from Utah - by no means signaled the end of a long battle. The fight to overturn what advocates for the district's voting rights call "taxation without representation'' will likely wind up as a constitutional test in the courts, even if this measure is signed into law. (The House is expected to approve a similar bill, and President Obama has indicated support for it.)

Nearly two years ago, a similar bill passed the House but failed a procedural vote in the Senate by 57-42. Opponents, largely Republicans, have argued in part that the constitution does not permit the district's nearly 600,000 residents to have a voting representative because it is not a state. They argue that such a move requires an amendment to the constitution, usually involving approval by two-thirds of the states, which is a far steeper climb than passage of a law.

While Eleanor Holmes Norton has served in the House as the district's elected official for 10 terms, she, like delegates representing United States territories, cannot take part in full-floor votes on legislation on behalf of the district.

Adding an additional congressional district to Utah was a deal struck a few years ago to garner Republican support for the D.C. measure, since the political ramifications of increasing the House by only a Washington district would invariably guarantee another Democratic seat. (Utah was chosen by those who believe its population was undercounted in the 2000 census, thus depriving it of an additional congressional district.)

And Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, argued today on behalf of the Senate bill, saying "representation and suffrage are central to our system of self-government." (He has written about the constitutionality in an essay for the Harvard Journal on Legislation.)

He pointed out that this session's proposal also tries to address one other sticking point among opponents about granting voting rights to the district; It explicitly prohibits Senate representation.

Proponents like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, of Connecticut, an independent and chief sponsor of the bill, argued today that taxes paid by residents and businesses in the nation's were the second-highest per capita. Opponents countered by saying that the district's residents get far more back in federal dollars per capita than any other state.

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said in opposition that the district already technically has representation, with all members of Congress overseeing its welfare and appropriating funds. While advocates counter that that oversight, covered in the constitution's so-called "district" clause gives Congress the authority to grant representation, Mr. Kyl dismissed that as an incorrect interpretation.

He contended that the courts would find the measure unconstitutional; Article 1 of the Constitution limits representation in the House and Senate to the states. Arguments to the contrary, he said, "are weak and will not survive in court."

Mr. Kyl and others reached back to the move granting the District of Columbia participation in presidential elections, through members of the Electoral College, which was accomplished through a constitutional amendment (the 23rd).

The discussion about congressional representation for residents of the district dates back nearly 200 years. Advocates for the modern measures point to the fact that even after land was granted by Virginia and Maryland to create the nation's capital, residents living within those confines were still able to vote in either state for the ensuing 11 years. Mr. Lieberman noted today that when the district was formally established in 1800, there was silence on this issue, and he lamented the fact that at the time, slaves, women and even some men did not have voting rights.

Repeatedly cited - and as Senator Richard Durbin, Democratic majority whip from Illinois joked today that he would otherwise rarely quote this expert - is an Op-Ed written by Kenneth W. Starr (and Patricia) in the Washington Post a few years back that argues Congress does have the authority to grant such representation. Opponents cited testimony by Jonathan Turley, a law professor, in which he called the move flagrantly unconstitutional, and an article rebutting Mr. Starr's viewpoint by Matthew J. Franck in the National Review.

A number of Republicans voted with Democrats in support of S. 160 today, including Senator Hatch, Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, voted against the measure.