The roller coaster journey toward adding a seat in the House for the District of Columbia has reached its most ambitious height since the 1970s, and the wild ride is now heading into the Senate.

Washington Post metro columnist Marc Fisher was online Monday, May 7 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article on how the long fight finally has reached the point where a payoff could be around the corner.

Could This Be the Year? ( Post, May 6)

The transcript follows.

Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors

____________________

Marc Fisher: Welcome aboard on another spectacular spring day in the District. Lots of comment on Sunday's Outlook piece; the D.C. voting rights issue has certainly taken on a new importance, drawing interest not only from the Washington area, but across the country -- in part as a partisan issue giving Democrats a chance to assert a different perspective from the GOP, in part as a way for Republicans to look anew at their relationship with black America, in part as a chance to reconsider our country's dedication to democratic ideals as we seek to spread that approach in other parts of the world.

Lots of comments and questions already in the queue, so let's get right to it. Thanks for coming along...

_______________________

Green Valley, Ariz.: I thought the Constitution covered the D.C. situation very correctly!

Marc Fisher: Well, that's always a grand position to take, but the question is, what does the Constitution really say? The District clause clearly gives Congress the right to control what goes on in Washington, and various other clauses in the document reserve certain rights and privileges for residents of the "several States," but Congress has routinely interpreted the District to be part of the United States. So Congress says D.C. residents may sue in federal court and must pay income taxes -- all of which is ostensibly reserved for state residents. Given that approach, is it at all different to reason that Congress may let D.C. residents have representation in the House and a meaningful vote?

_______________________

Washington: Why should the people of Washington (particularly native-born ones, as I am) be so excited to get one vote in Congress after 200 years of absolutely no representation in either House or Senate? This trade with Utah (the least urban state, and the one that was the very last to vote for the MLK holiday) is highly insulting. And representation will not address the fact that Congress will continue to oversee our local government -- the local budget, court system and legislation. It's a poor substitute for real citizenship!

Marc Fisher: The D.C. voting rights movement has long been torn apart from within as it struggles over just how purist to be in its demands. There are statehood diehards who believe that any accommodation short of statehood is giving away our rights. There are retrocession activists who believe that the District will only get its true rights if it becomes part of Maryland once again. And there are those who oppose the current Tom Davis bill because it provides only for representation in the House, not the Senate.

Many supporters of the current bill believe that the District should only have a voice in the House, because the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states. But others in the D.C. voting rights movement see the Utah/D.C. deal merely as a first step.

_______________________

Ventura, Calif.: Nice article, Mark, as always. Rep. Mike Pence said in your piece, "I cannot believe the Founders intended to deny 550,000 Americans representation." I think if he went back and looked at our history through the last election, he would find there were many laws that denied people their vote. As for the Framers, they did have some issues that future generations would have to solve besides D.C. -- slavery, voting rights for women, free blacks, and Native Americans to name just a few. It does seem to me that we will need a constitutional amendment to really settle the problem for the District of Columbia.

Marc Fisher: Perhaps, but look at all the many ways in which Congress has used the District clause to grant D.C. residents rights and obligations that are not foreseen in the Constitution. The latest federal appeals court ruling against D.C. voting rights expressly said that Congress was the only one that could solve the voting rights problem, and that's what the Davis bill now seeks to do.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.: I'm interested in the constitutional arguments for and against the approach in the Davis bill, but don't have the patience or training to wade through a detailed legal brief. Is there a source or link that you could point me to that discusses the issue in more depth than simply citing Article I and the District clause, as typically is done?

Marc Fisher: There are some very good pieces on this page on the D.C. Vote Web site.

_______________________

Towson, Md.: Why isn't retrocession seriously being considered?

Marc Fisher: Retrocession -- making all but the federal core of the District part of Maryland -- has a certain logic to it: Adding the District to its neighboring state, from whence much of the land that is now Washington originally came -- would not change the political balance in either Maryland or the country. D.C. and Maryland are both safely Democratic. But neither Maryland nor the District want retrocession.

Maryland politics has been dominated for many years by Baltimore, which finds itself no longer dominant in population, as the D.C. suburbs continue to grow at a much faster rate than the Baltimore area. So Maryland politicians hate the retrocession idea because they believe it would make the Washington area the dominant political force in their state.

D.C. politicians and some residents believe retrocession would diminish the independence and uniqueness of the District.

_______________________

Washington: Every expansion of the franchise has been called unconstitutional.

Marc Fisher: Good point, but actually, this is an easier move than the expansion of the franchise to women, blacks, or 18-year-olds. If you accept the idea, as I described above, that Congress can decide pretty much anything it wants to about the District, then this is a simple matter of passing a law.

_______________________

Washington: While I'm happy that we might finally get a vote in Congress, the "Taxation Without Representation" slogan would not suddenly become "Taxation With Representation." It would look something like, "Full Taxation with Partial Representation." What do you think the chances are that Washington will ever get two votes in the Senate?

Marc Fisher: The only way I could see that happening is through retrocession or statehood, and I cannot imagine the political forces that would lead to success for either of those notions. Can anyone spell out such a scenario?

_______________________

Baltimore: Thanks for the very fine column. Do you think that if this doesn't pass now, it will be brought up as an issue in the national/presidential campaign? If so, who among the candidates are the biggest supporters, Democratic and Republican?

Marc Fisher: It's very hard to imagine this becoming a significant issue in the presidential campaign. It's just too local an issue, and it's one that requires a fair amount of knowledge and an interest in constitutional issues before voters might get particularly exercised about it. I don't know of any candidate in either party who has shown the slightest interest in making this much of an issue in either direction. The movement will come from this Congress if it comes at all.

_______________________

Washington: What do you think the chances are this will pass the Senate?

Marc Fisher: Pretty decent chances that it will pass; the real question is whether advocates for the bill will muster the 60 votes they need to quash a filibuster. And then there's the question of whether the president would veto the bill, as White House officials have threatened. Jack Kemp and Tom Davis told me they do not believe Bush would use the veto power on this--given how unusually infrequently this president has used the veto, they argue that this is hardly the kind of issue on which he would choose to do so.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Would it not be best to resolve it once and for all and take the steps in Article V, as intended, to change the Constitution -- to get 38 states to ratify? There seems to be the weighted view that Bush will veto, and that even if the veto is overridden this Supreme Court would reject it anyway.

Marc Fisher: I don't buy those assumptions: Bush has been so reluctant to use the veto that it's a stretch to think he'd choose this issue to do so. The president has always said that he opposes the District having two Senators -- "I'm against the Senators" is his famously weird formulation about D.C. voting rights, and his repeated use of that phrase has left the door open to the idea that he might not oppose House representation.

And an appeal to the Supreme Court is something that a fair number of people on both sides of the issue would very much like to see -- it's not at all clear how that would turn out. Justice Scalia, for example, is the author of an appeals court ruling in which he said that Congress has the sole power to decide how things are done in the District, leading many legal authorities to think he might be quite open to Congressional assertion of D.C. residents' right to representation in the House.

_______________________

Washington: You seem to suggest that Republicans are on board, but 90 percent of them in the House did not support the legislation. Unless Republican support doubles in the Senate, the bill probably will not pass. What do you think?

Marc Fisher: As Davis says, there's no need for Republicans to vote in any great numbers for this bill. All he needs is nine Republicans to support it to silence a filibuster and then then bill would go to the president.

_______________________

Washington: How is it that we have to pay federal income taxes? The constitution clearly states only residents of the several states must pay. Thus those living on reservations, districts and territories -- not being in states -- don't have to pay.

Marc Fisher: Wouldn't that be lovely? Well, Congress has several times shown that it doesn't see the District clause as any bar to treating the District as a state -- for purposes of income taxes, or serving in the military, or access to federal courts, etc. So the vote for D.C. is hardly a step beyond that at all, the pro-vote side argues.

_______________________

Frederick, Md.: Okay, concede for a second the unconstitutionality of getting a representative, but what if the president (in a rare act of genius) declares the District to a be an income tax-free zone? Just what would happen to DC in ten years? It would be the richest, cleanest and finest city on the planet -- but it wouldn't be Democrat city anymore. Would you still be so much in favor of getting representation then? I wouldn't, but the tax-free zone is a good idea.

Marc Fisher: This has come up a number of times in the history of home rule in the District, and I'm sure you're right that a large portion of D.C. residents would happily accept No Taxation and No Representation. There was even a flurry of advocacy for turning Washington into one big tax-free enterprise zone back in the heyday of that concept during the Reagan and Bush I years. The idea was that the District would turn into a Delaware-ish magnet for corporations if doing business here were tax-free. Obviously, this did not especially appeal to congressfolk from elsewhere and the idea went nowhere.

_______________________

What of Utah?: Marc -- as you may know, one of the other issues about this bill is the seat for Utah and the question of whether it should be at-large (representing the state as a whole) or a new four-district map should be adopted (which was approved last year). The House-passed bill used the at-large approach, while the Senate measure introduced last week went with the four-district approach. There are some constitutional issues at play with the at-large approach, as each Utah resident essentially would have two representatives (one for the state, one for the district). Do you have a sense of which approach may prevail?

Marc Fisher: It's hard to imagine that the at-large concept could survive either a conference committee or court scrutiny. As you say, the at-large seat would give Utahans two representatives each in the House, and that is not exactly equitable. Look for the Senate version to prevail (the GOP and the Dems have worked out a deal in which the one Democratic-held district in Utah would remain more or less as is in the next redistricting, so as to eliminate the prospect of the Republicans using this as a means to redraw the map and carve the Dems right out of that seat.)

_______________________

Agana, Guam: Why not extend voting rights to Americans in Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands? We are loyal, patriotic Americans who have shed blood in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The time has come.

Marc Fisher: Oh, please. The District is and always has been every bit as much a part of the United States as any state. Those territories are colonial leftovers that have awkward relationships with the U.S. and already have highly beneficial deals in which they get all manner of goodies without having to pay federal taxes.

Here's how the League of Women Voters describes the difference:

Q. If D.C. gets voting representation in Congress, what about the U. S. territories?

A. The two cases are uniquely different. District citizens pay over $1.8 billion in federal individual income taxes. Residents of the territories (Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Island, and Puerto Rico) pay zero. Moreover, the District's claim stands on its own because it was part of the original 13 states; the people of the District are inheritors.

_______________________

Hyattsville, Md.: Why don't Democratic candidates discuss this issue on a national platform? President Bush and many Republicans are against Washington gaining voting representation (I believe because it is heavily Democratic). I am a second-grade teacher in Washington. We recently studied the three branches of government. Teaching my students about their lack of voting representation is embarrassing.

Marc Fisher: It's not that clear that Bush opposes all voting rights in the District. He certainly opposes representation in the Senate. Jack Kemp believes that while some on the president's staff -- and certainly Vice President Cheney's office -- oppose any D.C. voting rights, the president himself may be willing to sign this bill.

_______________________

Downtown, D.C.: Do you think a vote in the House will help get the fire hydrants in working order?

Marc Fisher: Not a chance.

_______________________

San Francisco: The District of Columbia was made up of land from Maryland and Virginia so no state would control the territory of the federal government. The District gave Arlington back to Virginia. Why not reduce the size of the federal District of Columbia and give the residential areas back to Maryland?

Marc Fisher: That's the retrocession notion discussed above. It makes tremendous sense, but simply won't happen for political reasons. Of course, if the original piece of the District that was on the western side of the Potomac River hadn't been given back to Virginia, you could now work out a retrocession deal that might work, adding a piece of the District to Republican Virginia and a piece to Democratic Maryland. But even that would likely be doomed because the area of northern Virginia closest to Washington is pretty heavily Democratic.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: This subject is fascinating, if only for the history. Congressmen used to be much more open about why they opposed representation for mostly black Washington -- you may want to look up a certain Sen. Bilbo (his real name) from one of the southern states back in the 1950s and what he had to say on the topic. (It was along the lines of "while I'm here that city of (bad word) will never get the vote...")

Marc Fisher: I spent a lot of reporting time while working on this piece probing the racial attitudes of those on either side of the voting rights issue, and while it's certainly true that the bulk of the opposition to D.C. voting rights is political -- Republicans not wanting to create another, almost assuredly and permanently Democratic seat in the House -- I was impressed to hear how many Republicans hold the opposite view, that if their party doesn't look at this as a civil rights issue, it will be stuck with a tiny portion of the black vote "in perpetuity," as Jack Kemp put it.

_______________________

St. Mary's City, Md.: Marc, have you gotten any "Marion Barry" responses to your piece? That's shorthand for the despicable argument that "a city that would re-elect Barry doesn't deserve a vote in the House."

Marc Fisher: I have never once written about D.C. voting rights without getting a slew of such comments. They are a staple of the topic, and they make no sense at all: If voters have to behave to a particular standard to qualify for democratic rights, then we're not remotely talking about democracy.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Two questions: I live in a place that was originally part of the District but was given back to Virginia? Why? And if the District went back to Maryland, couldn't Marion Barry run for governor? He still is much younger than William D. Schaeffer.

Marc Fisher: Here's a very mild example of what the previous poster was talking about.

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: I propose that Washington get a voting member in the House of Lords in the U.K. along with full voting rights there -- and this will include having to pay all British taxes, including the VAT and gas taxes. And you will not be able to leave Washington without going through passport control, and the HRH becomes the ruler of Washington. And you can curtsy for her, Marc, and achieve your ultimate fantasy of becoming a lady-in-waiting!

Marc Fisher: If this made any sense at all, it would win today's ThreadWeaver award.

_______________________

Washington: As an African-American woman, does this bill take me from three-fifths of a person to one-third? Is that supposed to be equality? As Fannie Lou Hamer said, "is this America?"

Marc Fisher: That's certainly a fair argument. But so is "why insist on getting nothing when you have a good shot at getting something"? D.C. voting advocates portray the House seat as a first step, while some congressional supporters see it as the only step.

_______________________

Chinese example?: Marc, great article. I giggled when I read the part about being scolded by China on D.C. voting rights.

Marc Fisher: Ok, but I have to tell you the congressmen I've spoken to who find themselves getting lectured about that all over the world are not giggling, and the more annoyed they get over hearing that, the better the chances are for D.C. to get a vote in the House.

_______________________

Fort Belvoir, Va.: Without giving too much ammunition to opponents, what would be the legal basis for a court case that would test the constitutionality of the D.C. Voting Rights Act?

Marc Fisher: If this bill passes and is signed into law, you would soon see a lawsuit challenging Congress's right to grant a House seat to the District in apparent contravention to the constitutional requirement that representatives come from "the several States." That case would surely go all the way to the Supremes.

_______________________

Washington: What about requiring that all members of both houses give up their right to vote as residents of the District? That way they could either feel our pain or commute in from Maryland or Virginia and really feel our pain.

Marc Fisher: You mean give up their right to vote back in their home states? Well, wouldn't that then disqualify them from representing those home states?

But it is fascinating to see how many ex-congressmen who now live in the District have chosen to become active supporters of D.C. voting rights. Bob Dole, Jack Kemp and many more Republicans and Democrats alike choose to live in the city and have children and grandchildren who grow up here disenfranchised, and this grates against the politicians' sense of democracy. Many, if not most, ex-congressmen choose to stay here rather than retire back to whatever backwater they came from, and they often become active in city affairs.

_______________________

Washington: Marc -- I believe there are something close to 50 countries whose national capital is in a federal district of some sort, but only the U.S. denies the citizens of its capital a right to vote on how their tax money is spent. Seems like some other countries may want to export democracy to us!

Marc Fisher: Correct, and this is one of the facts that is often thrown in the faces of American politicians and diplomats as they travel the world. And of course they don't have a good response to it, because there is no good response.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: The tax-free zone idea is interesting. How does Washington do in terms of revenue in versus spending out, excluding of course the federal payment for support of federal government operations?

Marc Fisher: The federal payment was eliminated in the 1990s as part of the deal that created the fiscal control board. The District is a money-losing proposition, primarily because so much of its land is federally controlled and therefore not taxable.

_______________________

Washington: What is the justification for taxes in the District when the other territories are not taxed?

Marc Fisher: The District is part of the original United States and its residents are full citizens who are treated as such in every way except for the historical anomaly of having no vote.

_______________________

Georgetown, D.C.: The degree of constitutional ignorance here is amazing. The 16th Amendment was needed so that Congress could directly tax the income of residents of states. Because Congress has plenary authority over the District, it could have taxed the income of D.C. residents without need for amendment. Retrocession or an amendment is needed. It's not clear to me why Marc thinks that Maryland must consent to retrocession -- the Baltimore gang may not like it, but Congress can (I think) just give the District back anyway. As a practical matter they won't, but that's the right solution.

Marc Fisher: Maryland would not need to give formal assent to retrocession, but as a matter of course, its representatives would be given virtual veto power over any such proposal in Congress, and given that both senators traditionally come from Baltimore, as well as a good share of the House delegation, this would be a non-starter.

_______________________

Washington: I have to be completely honest here and say that if the Supreme Court were to rule that under the Constitution, District residents are not afforded any congressional representation -- and by the way, taxing them is also unconstitutional -- I would be simply overjoyed. I'd take the money any day.

Marc Fisher: So would a good many of us. And just imagine what would happen to property values. Today's gentrification inflation would immediately became a pittance compared to the boom that would occur.

_______________________

Washington: That's the whole point -- nine Republican Senators from a percentage standpoint is about 44 House Republicans (approximately 10 percent -- twice the Republican support the Bill got in the House).

Marc Fisher: As both House members and Senators told me, these are two very different bodies. Already, we see the Utah senators lining up behind this bill -- Orrin Hatch is even co-sponsoring the bill with Joe Lieberman.

_______________________

Washington: What is your take on the D.C. government moving so fast to retain CFO Gandhi? Doesn't that help Congress feel better about financial oversight of the city? Your thoughts on this and the CFO? Thanks.

Marc Fisher: Nat Gandhi is a particular favorite of the District's overseers in Congress, many of whom base their newfound confidence in the D.C. government entirely on their belief in Gandhi's competence and honesty. The Fenty administration would have done anything to keep him, and knowing Gandhi, he very much wanted to stay here rather than run a dying railroad.

_______________________

Baltimore: Why do liberals go crazy over perceived damage to our Constitution by this administration but have no problem at all with passing a law that quite clearly would have a conflict with the representation clause that says congressman will be elected by the states?

Marc Fisher: I don't buy the premise. I hear more avid support and moral outrage about the disenfranchisement of D.C. voters from rock-ribbed conservatives than from liberals. It's true that more Democrats than Republicans will vote for the voting rights bill, but that reflects desires for partisan advantage more than any bedrock belief in the cause. The Clinton administration came and went with no significant action on behalf of D.C. voting rights. It took a Republican, Tom Davis, to create the breakthrough -- the pairing of D.C. with Utah -- that got us to this point.

_______________________

Washington: Hey Marc -- why, when we are asking for our most basic democratic rights, do people (including yourself) refer to us as "incessant whiners"? Is this what Jefferson was?

Marc Fisher: That's not how I see D.C. voting rights advocates; that's how many in Congress see them, and that's the voice I was employing in the lede of the Outlook piece.

_______________________

Baltimore: While I have not thought this through completely, as a Baltimore resident I may consider the addition of the District to Maryland in a retrocession move as helpful, because Baltimore then would have an ally in the rural/urban split on many issues. There are many other ways it would help Baltimore, such as an increase in the focus on public transport, etc. Just a thought.

Marc Fisher: I wish others in your city saw it with such a clear mind. All I hear from Maryland pols is a desire to protect Baltimore against the creation of a D.C. and suburban D.C. monolith that would diminish Baltimore's dominance in state affairs.

_______________________

Manassas, Va.: I've seen several articles that reference the constitutional amendment that was passed by Congress in 1978, but failed to be ratified by the states. However, they never mention how close it came to ratification -- did five states pass it, or 35? If the current bill does get passed and faces a court challenge, then the constitutional amendment route would be the obvious next step, and it would be useful to know more about the experience 30 years ago.

Marc Fisher: When the seven-year limit for winning ratification by the states expired, the D.C. voting rights amendment had won passage in only 16 of the 38 states required for the amendment to become part of the Constitution.

_______________________

Washington: The idea that the Constitution allows for representation for "States" as a way to exclude Washington is flawed. If the defenders of this constitutional idea were true to it in fact, then the commonwealths of Virginia and Massachusetts and the Republic of California would not have representation either, as they are not truly "states."

Marc Fisher: That argument has been used at various points in Congress and no one seemed terribly impressed.

_______________________

Washington: Marc, when is the Senate vote? Can we attend?

Marc Fisher: No date yet -- most of those I spoke to said it would likely come up in about two months. We'll certainly cover the story and let readers know the date, and all sessions of the Senate are open to public visitors, or you can watch on C-SPAN.

_______________________

Washington: The No Taxation scheme would in time pretty much drive out all the working-class and moderate-income residents of the District. Many of the people in this group are, like me, native Washingtonians. I can see Doug Jemal and his crowd being for this, but so many of us would be left/pushed out.

Marc Fisher: Well, it would cut both ways. You're right that property values would soar, displacing many people, though affordable housing laws could protect many residents from those changes. And the creation of such a tax haven would likely create many new jobs at all wage levels, so there would indeed be reason for people of low and moderate incomes to find a way to be here.

_______________________

The Solution:1. The District becomes tax-free, vote-free; 2. The District is swarmed with Republican tax-dodgers, property values skyrocket, gentrification gone mad; 3. Once the District is solidly "red," it goes back to Congress and bribes ... errr ... lobbies successfully for the vote.

Marc Fisher: Ha! Good one.

_______________________

Washington: Let me start by saying that I have not yet read the comments posted here, so I apologize if I am repeating comments already made. I just don't understand why we keep begging for scraps from a table that we are paying to set. Enough of this pitiful "please sir, may I have some more?" It's time we stopped asking and laid out an ultimatum: Either we get the vote or we stop paying federal taxes. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Even if they cut off federal funding, we could just use the money we would have paid in federal taxes to cover the shortfall. Do you have any idea how many residents and businesses would flock here if they knew they could live and work tax-free? Just ask New Hampshire!

Besides, there is no way the feds would give up our revenue (from what I understand we pay the highest per capita income tax in the nation). So I think if we do this thing the way tenants have renter strikes (put the tax money into an untouchable account) for the first year, they will cave and give us the vote. Just my 2 cents (.5 cents after taxes).

Marc Fisher: Getting revolutionary on us, huh? I'd love to see such a movement get going, but somehow, I don't think Congress, the IRS or the White House would just sit back and let that happen.

_______________________

Washington: Just a reminder to those participating here -- the president will veto the bill, and it's unclear if either chamber has the votes to override. Even if the bill makes it into law, it is likely to be immediately challenged in court, meaning a judge could order an injunction. For these reasons, I tend to disagree that now is the time for a D.C. congressional vote or votes. I believe that we will have to have enough support from the rest of the country to amend the Constitution before we will have any representation in Congress.

Marc Fisher: What is different about the country now from 1978, when not even half the states needed to ratify the voting rights amendment bothered to do so?

_______________________

Original L'Enfant Plan: I like this topic even if it some of our questions never get addressed. With that being said ... if the District reverted back to the original boundaries of the L'Enfant Plan, making Florida Avenue to Rock Creek Park, 15th Street N.E., 25th Street N.E. and the two rivers as the original boundaries, how would this impact the number of people actually residing in the original federal city, and what would be the racial breakdown? Any information on this topic?

Marc Fisher: Most retrocession concepts would whittle the District down to a federal core restricted to the Mall and the surrounding federal buildings, but if you wanted to go back to the city's original boundaries (what's now Florida Avenue was once known as Boundary Road), you'd probably have a city of about 50,000 residents inside those old borders. I doubt the racial makeup of that area would be much different from that of the city as a whole.

_______________________

Burbank, Calif.: I'm one of those who happens to think giving D.C. residents the vote would be unconstitutional, but why not give it a shot? After all, the Supremes sometimes surprise. I'm sure Clarence Thomas will go with the founders' intent, but it can be argued the "Federal enclave" that makes up the District has evolved so far from what the framers had in mind that their reasoning no longer applies. It's worth a try!

Marc Fisher: Right -- it's clear to me that a constitutional amendment would likely founder on lack of interest in much of the country. This is probably the only route with a realistic chance of success, though it remains something of a long shot.

_______________________

Washington:"Why do liberals go crazy over perceived damage to our Constitution..."

So, my getting partial voting rights is "damage" to the Constitution? Sorry, Baltimore, don't buy it. I have been a D.C. resident my whole life and the laws/acts/regulations of and by the federal government have been identical for you and me (besides the additional federal incursion in the my city's budget etc.). If you believe so greatly in a super-strict interpretation of the Constitution that you are willing to take my voting rights away, I'm not sure you deserve any either. Somehow I imagine if the show was on the other foot your interpretation of the Constitution would be very different.

Marc Fisher: We're pretty much out of time, so I'll just pop in a few other comments before we charge on out of here...

_______________________

Washington: One final comment from one with a vested interest: Your analysis was great and I'm glad to see The Post giving this issue some coverage, which is most desperately what it needs. Polls show the vast majority of Americans are on our side but are unaware of our situation.

Marc Fisher: Thanks, and yes, when asked the question, people tend to agree that all Americans should have the right to vote, but that doesn't make this an issue that would drive anyone's votes or get them to lobby their congressfolk.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, D.C.: I think it is disgusting that the best logic some D.C. voting rights advocates like Jack Kemp could come up with is that if the vote is rejected, then the GOP will continue to receive a small amount of the black vote. As a black person and a person in general, why does it matter what party helps pass the bill? Voting rights is voting rights -- forget about the racial element. I support the vote in Congress because it is the right thing to do, just like it was 30 years ago -- a population of nearly 586,000 in our own country never should have been disenfranchised to this degree. Black Democrats are not going to vote for the GOP en masse just because they saw GOP members vote for this issue. Does he think black people have the same thoughts? How insulting! The voting rights bill should have been passed years ago, absent of all these silly politics -- such as adding the at-large Utah seat.

Marc Fisher: No, Kemp doesn't think that passing this bill would win over black voters. But he does believe that not supporting this bill will cement black antipathy toward the GOP.

_______________________

Washington: Do you worry that by passing this bill, momentum for achieving full representation for Washington (equal to the full taxes we pay) will dissipate? It may be too easy for legislators to point to the single House vote and say "we gave you representation," even though we still won't have anyone in the Senate.

Marc Fisher: That's quite possible, no matter what voting rights advocates say about this being just a first step.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: "I cannot believe the Founders intended to deny 550,000 Americans representation." No, the Founders thought that citizens and their representatives would read the entire document and see it contained a mechanism by which it could be amended. This is another example of our representatives taking the easy route to "do the right thing" rather than do the difficult work that we pay them to do -- protect and defend the Constitution. In my opinion, turning the Constitution into a document with meanings determined by our 445 (soon to be 447) representatives (which thus dramatically can change every two years) will ultimately lead to the downfall of the republic.

Marc Fisher: But shouldn't the courts decide whether Congress has the right to do this as a matter of law?

_______________________

McLean, Va.: "So Congress says D.C. residents may sue in federal court and must pay income taxes -- all of which is ostensibly reserved for state residents."

This is at least partly incorrect. The 16th Amendment authorizing income tax reads in full: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Nothing in there about state residents. The right of people to sue in federal court also is not limited to residents of states except for diversity cases -- suits between citizens of different states. However, Article I grants Congress the power to constitute the inferior courts -- a power that includes setting jurisdiction for those courts.

I fully support Washington voting rights -- and I'm a Republican -- but I want to see it done constitutionally, via amendment. Fundamentally altering the structure of government is precisely what amendments are for -- and creating a new way to qualify legislators is a fundamental alteration. We needed an amendment to allow Washington and territorial residents to vote for president. This is no different. My preference would be an amendment granting legislative representation to the District and the power to Congress to allow legislative representation to all territories.

Marc Fisher: And just two more...

_______________________

K Street, D.C.: In your discussion of territories, you forgot to mention that creation of Jack Abramoff lobbying, the Northern Mariana Islands. Maybe if you agree to let Republican lobbyists on that island pick one member of Congress they'll let Washington pick one member.

Marc Fisher: I think the Marianas actually predated Jack, but I'm glad to hear that he remains all-powerful in the minds of some.

_______________________

Washington: I'd vote for you. Seriously. Holmes Norton doesn't do it for me. Fisher for Congress!

Marc Fisher: Thanks, but just give it a few days -- I'm sure I'll write something that will persuade you of the folly of that notion.

_______________________

Marc Fisher: Thanks, all, for coming along today. More on this topic as the bill moves along. The column is back in the paper on Thursday, which is also when we convene here for the weekly Potomac Confidential hour of collective yammering about anything that's on your minds.

And the blog is always there with new fodder for thought, including a new weekly feature, the Random Friday Question. Check it out, oddly enough, on Friday.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.