Partisan Politics Shaping Debate on D.C. Vote
Critics Are Wary of Bill's Possible Implications in Congress and Beyond; Supporters Downplay Concerns

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007

As the U.S. House of Representatives debates whether to give the District its first full vote in the chamber, lawmakers have focused their arguments on high-minded principles: respecting democracy, defending the Constitution, standing up for civil rights.

But behind the lofty rhetoric is another concern: politics.

Some opponents say they fear that the voting rights bill could pave the way for two full senators as well as a House representative for the District, a liberal bastion that gave 89 percent of its vote to U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the last presidential election.

"If this were a strong, powerful, conservative Republican enclave, there might be people who might not have quite the same conviction" about a vote for D.C. residents, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in a recent hearing.

Some critics say they worry that the legislation could lead in the long run to full congressional votes for U.S. territories, since the Constitution treats them and the District similarly. In addition to Washington, four non-states have delegates who can't vote on the House floor: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

All but Puerto Rico are represented by Democrats -- a point not lost on Republicans.

Sponsors of the D.C. bill say it is "partisan-neutral." It would permanently add two seats to the House, one for the District and one for the next state due to get a representative -- currently, Republican-leaning Utah. It would leave the U.S. Senate unchanged.

Still, even supporters say that the measure has become embroiled in partisanship. On Thursday, Democratic leaders pulled the bill off the House floor after Republicans moved to send it back to committee with added language that would overturn the District's strict gun laws.

Democrats called the move a temporary setback and said they would find a way to bring it back to the full House and pass it.

The Republican maneuver was just the latest indication of the staunch opposition the bill has faced. In the past two weeks, the White House has threatened to veto it, and Republican Party leaders have rallied to fight it.

There are various reasons for the GOP's stance. One is a suspicion of a hidden Democratic agenda.

Opponents fear that the House bill could set a precedent for eventually giving the District two voting senators. They note that the constitutional language on who can serve in the two chambers is similar. Adding two Democrats to the 100-member Senate could alter its balance of power more than an extra seat or two would affect the House, which has 435 representatives.

"Everyone knows Democrats are salivating at the thought of having two guaranteed seats in the Senate," said Brian Robinson, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). The congressman tried to attach an amendment to the bill that would block future Senate representation for the District.

D.C. vote advocates, including Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a sponsor of the bill, don't mask their hope that the District will eventually get senators. But the bill's supporters say concerns of a future partisan advantage are overblown.

"You'd need a completely different coalition to get two senators" approved by Congress, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who originally came up with the idea to pair a House seat for the District with one going to Utah. He opposes adding D.C. senators.

The bill includes another element that worries some Republicans. It would give the extra House seat to Utah for now, but it would not necessarily stay there. It could move as part of the next reapportioning of congressional seats after the 2010 census. The seat could wind up in either party, but the District seat is expected to remain Democratic.

With the margins of power close in Congress and seats costing millions of dollars to defend, politicians are wary of giving any advantage to the other party.

Davis notes that the bill includes sweeteners for Republicans. They would be sure to get the extra Utah seat until 2012 and an accompanying electoral vote that could help in the 2008 presidential race.

"There's something in here that everybody can not like," Davis said. But he said the two parties need to compromise to correct a shameful denial of rights.

"The underlying issue is, is it important that the capital of the free world be allowed a representative vote in Congress?" Davis asked.

Much of the debate on the bill has focused on the Founding Fathers' intentions. Legal scholars have differed on whether Congress can single-handedly grant the District representation in the House. But in the acrimonious political atmosphere, each side has accused the other of using the Constitution to suit partisan purposes.

Opponents of the bill point out that the Constitution limits House representation to states -- and the District is not a state. They say that if the city wants representation, it should become part of Maryland or pass a constitutional amendment establishing D.C. voting rights. The latter approach was tried more than 20 years ago but collapsed when it failed to win ratification from enough states.

Supporters say the current legislation was deemed constitutionally sound by experts including Republican heroes Kenneth W. Starr, a former federal appellate judge and the special prosecutor who investigated President Bill Clinton, and Viet D. Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped write the Patriot Act.

"People who oppose the D.C. Voting Rights Act are wrapping the Constitution around themselves," said Ilir Zherka, leader of D.C. Vote, an advocacy group. "What this is really about is partisanship."

For their part, many Democrats base their arguments for creating a D.C. seat on a section of the Constitution called the "District Clause," which gives Congress sweeping power to regulate the city.

Republicans note that such legal reasoning was rejected in 1975 by the Democrat-dominated House Judiciary Committee. That committee said "a constitutional amendment is essential" for full D.C. representation in Congress.

Democrats say they support the legislation because of democratic principles. They have decried the fact that Washington residents have fought in wars and paid billions of dollars in taxes without full representation in Congress.

But political considerations have also influenced Democrats' actions.

The party was reluctant to support the D.C. vote bill when Davis first proposed it in 2003, because members feared that a redistricting of Utah could hurt that state's lone Democratic congressman, Norton said. Democrats were especially concerned because then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) had promoted a highly partisan redistricting in his state without waiting for the census.

"Democrats, having just been victims of an unprecedented redistricting, couldn't possibly just say to DeLay, 'Here's another one,' " Norton said.

In recent weeks, House Democrats have tweaked the bill to make the extra Utah seat at-large rather than risk a redistricting that could endanger U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah). And they have insisted that the entire legislation be declared null if one part is struck down -- a reflection of their concerns that the D.C. seat could be eliminated in court while the Utah seat stands.

Democrats also recently used their power to strip Republican amendments from the legislation, stoking anger in the minority party.