How long would the citizens of Pennsylvania or Maryland or Virginia be content if their voting rights were limited to casting a ballot once every four years for Presidential and Vice Presidential electors? INEQUALITIES AND INJUSTICES In his forthright message, President Johnson referred specifically to inequalities and injustices in voting rights in Alabama and other Southern States. How much greater would be the inequalities and injustices in those States if all of their citizens were stripped of all local, county and state voting rights, as are the people of the District of Columbia, and were limited in national politics solely to the right to cast a ballot once every four years for Presidential and Vice Presidential electors? Equal rights do not exist when citizens of Maryland, for example, select and elect their mayors, councilmen and other city officials, their many county officers, their legislative representatives, their governor and other State officials, as well as their United States Senators and Representatives, while their neighbors across the line, in the District of Columbia, have no voice whatsoever in selecting or electing the many officials who run their affairs, and have no opportunity to vote their approval or disapproval of vitally important questions affecting their lives. HIGH OFFICES BEYOND REACH OF DISTRICT CITIZENS Under the present form of government, no child born in the District of Columbia-no one of the thousands of children attending the schools of the District today can look forward, as other American children can, to becoming some day a member of the United States House of Representatives, or a United States Senator, or a Cabinet officer, or an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, or Chief Justice, or Vice President, or President of the United States. All these important positions of government-to which all other children of America and all other citizens of America may aspire-are beyond the reach and beyond the hope of the citizens of the District of Columbia. Never since Washington became the seat of government has a native-born citizen of the District of Columbia served in any of these capacities! AMERICA'S "NEVER-NEVER LAND" Never since Washington became the seat of government has the District of Columbia been represented in either the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives by a native son or a voting member. Never has a citizen of the District of Columbia been appointed to a place in the Cabinet of any President of the United States. Never has a citizen of the District of Columbia been appointed to a place on the Supreme Court of the United States. Rarely, indeed, has a life-long resident of the District of Columbia been appointed to an important post in the diplomatic service of the United States Government. AN IRONIC TRUTH Washington is a city where great reputations are made, where fame awaits the unknown and the obscure. Here, in the Nation's political arena, many of America's most illustrious statesmen gained national or world renown-Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Lincoln, Blaine, Garfield, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Wilson, to mention a few. Yet, because of the denial of full suffrage and national representation, the city of Washington has never contributed a single name to the galaxy of statesmen that has charted the course and shaped the destiny of this great nation. It may come as a shock to some that the District of Columbia, with its long history, cannot boast a single native-born citizen who ever attained national prominence as a statesman or as a political leader. This is not surprising, however, to anyone who is at all familiar with the nature of the District government and its stifling and repressive influence upon the citizenry. WHERE STATESMANSHIP IS STIFLED Through the years the District has produced its full quota of able men and brilliant minds, but, as voteless and voiceless citizens, they have been deprived of political opportunity; they have been denied the right to enter the arena of national politics or to participate in national affairs. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had the same form of government as exists in the District of Columbia, the world would never have heard of such men of history as Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams, Rufus Choate, Edward Everett, Charles Sumner, Henry Cabot Lodge, Calvin Coolidge, Leverett Saltonstall, John F. Kennedy and John W. McCormack. The people of Illinois are justly proud of the great names that embellish the history of the Prairie State Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Lyman Trumbull, Shelby M. Cullom, Elihu Washburne, Joseph G. Cannon, Charles G. Dawes, James Hamilton Lewis, Aldai Stevenson, Everett Dirksen and Paul Douglas, to mention a few. Yet, if the State of Illinois had a form of government similar to that which exists in the District of Columbia, the world today-outside of Illinois-would be totally unfamiliar with any of these names. "HOME RULE" IS NOT THE ANSWER President Johnson puts much emphasis on the need for preserving and fostering human dignity, and rightly so. He knows that human dignity will not be promoted in the District under any form of government that denies its citizens opportunities that are enjoyed by other American citizens. He knows that neither the present "commission" form of government nor the so-called "home rule" form of government will promote human dignity for the simple reason that either form is markedly inferior to statehood, and citizens of the District under either form will continue to be "second-class citizens" at best. In January, 1965, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, a true friend of the District of Columbia, introduced a "home rule" bill designed to restore "the right of self-government in municipal affairs to several hundred thousand fellow Americans." Under its provisions, residents of the District would elect a mayor and a District Council composed of nine members. Ordinances and resolutions passed by the Council and orders issued by the Mayor would be subject to Congressional amendment or repeal. Citizens of the District would be allowed to elect a nonvoting delegate to the United States House of Representatives. While the Morse bill, if enacted, would be "a step in the right direction," it would fall far short of providing residents of the District citizenship parity or the equality of opportunity to which they have a right to aspire. District residents would still be deprived of national representation, since they would have no vote in Congress. Discussing a somewhat similar "home rule" proposal back in 1888. Theodore W. Noyes, for many years editor of the Washington Evening Star and one of the city's foremost advocates of national representation, said: The District legislature would in any event act under the restrictions (imposed by Congress.) Its general laws would be mere petitions, void without the assent, expressed or implied, of Congress. A Delegate without a vote has little weight in a "log-rolling" body like the House of Representatives. The other officers would be petty town officials, and a voice would still be denied the city in the choice of executive and legislative officers of the nation. In short, the exercise of suffrage thus limited would be an expensive farce. Without national representation, suffrage is of no value; and, shut out from the bodies which make the laws and impose taxes upon it, representation of the District under the Constitution in its present shape can be only a sham. In a statement before the Senate District Committee in February, 1916, Mr. Noyes said: The genuine American birthright is not municipal self-government but national representation . . . through Senators and Representatives . . The limited privilege of voting for some or all of the branches of municipal government, operating by sufferance of Congress, though enjoyed (by the people of the District) from 1800 to 1874, was not viewed as constituting in the smallest degree the American political birthright. As we have seen, the un-American disfranchisement of the people of the Capital, meaning thereby their exclusion from national representation, was complained of as a grievance from 1800 . . . . It was even then proposed that the Constitution should be amended to permit . . . one Senator and one Representative. The District of Columbia and the City of Washington are unique with respect to their greatly restricted voting rights. Every nation of the world, except the United States, gives to the people of its capital the same national representation as that enjoyed by the people of other cities. Countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, which have copied our Constitution, including the establishment of a federal district for the national capital, give the people of these districts full representation in the national government. Is the United States Government less democratic, less republican, less devoted to the principles of representative government than Argentina, Brazil and Mexico? There are three ways to place the citizens of the District of Columbia on an equal footing-on a basis of equality-with all other American citizens, and, what is equally important, to give the children and the youth of the District, for the first time, the right to hope-like other young people-that some day they may occupy positions of high responsibility and influence in the affairs of government, national as well as local. These three ways are: (1) to grant full statehood to the District, by Constitutional amendment; (2) to grant citizens of the District home rule plus representation in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives on the same basis as States of similar population; (3) to return the District to the State of Maryland, just as the Alexandria-Arlington portion of the District was returned to Virginia 119 years ago. Until every citizen of the District is placed on a basis of equality with every other American citizen and given full and equal civil rights on the national as well as the local level, the words "Equal Justice Under Law," graven above the entrance of the Supreme Court Building, will continue to mock and to irritate the hundreds of thousands of District residents who are denied equal rights and equal opportunities. If there is one place within the wide bounds of this great nation where, more than in any other, the deepest interests of representative government call for the full exercise of the voting privilege and for the most active manifestation of responsible and enlightened citizenship, that place is the Seat of Government— the Capitol City of the United States. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. LUMLEY, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION The National Education Association, representing more than 1,030,000 professional educators, welcomes this opportunity to state its position on S.J. Res. 31 and S.J. Res. 80, proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States to provide for representation in the Congress for inhabitants of the District of Columbia. The rationale of this statement is based upon resolutions adopted by the NEA Representative Assembly in its 1967 Convention. Excerpts from pertinent resolutions follow: 67-1. “. . . Free public schools are the cornerstone of our social, economic, and political structure and are of utmost significance in development of our moral and spiritual values. The survival of democracy requires that every state maintain a system of free public education and safeguard the education of all. The public school system is not expendable.” and 67-27. "In order to safeguard the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia and to enable them better to discharge their obligations for the education of their children, the National Education Association supports home rule for the District of Columbia." Two fundamental principles are involved in the resolutions quoted above. First, "free public education" means public education free to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or creed. Implicit in this doctrine is the principle of public participation in the formation of public education policy. Second, Article I (Sec. 8) of the Constitution does not automatically disenfranchise citizens of the District of Columbia. Representation in Congress is a right guaranteed to all citizens by common law, and such representation is nowhere withheld from the residents of the Federal City by statute. Disenfranchisement is abhorrent to the Constitution, and its practice in the District of Columbia is partly an accident of history, partly the result of unfounded fears and overt prejudice. The National Education Association is concerned with S.J. Res. 31 and S.J. Res. 80 because they affirm the indispensable right of the citizen to his voice in government. They acknowledge, by implication, that the present form of government in the District is anachronistic and anomalous. In terms of social legislation, the District is a state. In terms of educational and welfare programs generally, the District government is a state government. As such it must eventually be responsive to its constituency to the same degree required by the states themselves. Until or unless such responsibility is imposed by clear legislation, home rule will be a wholly unrealized dream. We commend the sponsors of these resolutions, since these measures advance the cause of home rule and-more significantly-suggest Congressional recognition of the fact that District citizens will ultimately prevail in their effort to govern themselves. Regarding the relative merits of S.J. Res. 31 and S.J. Res. 80, we believe that the more precise language of the latter warrants its support by the Association. Of the two resolutions, S.J. Res. 80 offers greater promise of full representation; S.J. Res. 30 promises nothing more than capricious action, even though we cannot doubt the sincerity of its sponsors. Moreover, S.J. Res. 80 appears to be politically feasible while at the same time specific enough to provide representation in both chambers. We urge prompt, affirmative action on this resolution in the interest of social justice and Congressional integrity. Hon. JOHN MCCORMACK, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. NOVEMBER 6, 1967. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Because of hearings which this Subcommittee will be holding on Wednesday and Thursday of this week on the question of Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia, we have been requested to solicit from you for inclusion in our hearings a copy of a petition filed with your office by the People's Republican Committee of the District of Columbia. We have been advised by Mr. John Satterlee, Chairman of this Committee, that the above mentioned petition was filed on or about June 12, 1967, and embraced the following issues: (1) Election of the Board of Education for the District of Columbia; (2) Election of the President of the Board of Commissioners; (3) Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia. If you could supply us with a copy of this petition, it would assist us in making the Committee's views available in the hearing record. MR. SPEAKER: Transmitted herewith is a petition to Congress from 286 or our fellow citizens, the text of which is self-explanatory. It will certainly be of interest to you to know that the bulk of the signatures thereon were collected in only ONE DAY at our booth in front of the District Building on June 5, 1967, from approximately 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM, by only three volunteers. We take this step due to the fact that the D.C. Republican Committee (supposedly representative of the Republican Party in the District) has failed completely in its responsibility to muster local support behind these splendid Republican legislative proposals and has, instead, given its support in writing to a weak and unsatisfactory Democratic measure, in open and official collusion with the local Democratic Central Committee. We would not want it believed in Congress for an instant that responsible and loyal elements of the Republican Party in the District concur in this dastardly betrayal of both our Party and our people. While we realize the number of signatures does not constitute the millenium per se, as a one-day sampling of firmly committed public opinion it does represent a dramatic indication of the desire of our local citizenry for a reasonable degree of autonomy consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Should it become necessary, by a lack of prompt and suitable attention by Congress to our petition, to conduct a maximum effort along the lines of our one-day demonstration project, for example for thirty consecutive days in thirty separate locations, in conjunction with other groups seeking similar goals, we stand ready, willing and able to do so. But it is said, Mr. Speaker, "A word to the wise is sufficient." Most respectfully yours, JOHN F. SATTERLEE. A Petition to the Congress of the United States of America : We, the undersigned citizens resident in the District of Columbia, respectfully request the immediate enactment of the proposed legislation designated as H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316 and H.J. Res. 235. These measures, if duly enacted, will provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with full, voting representation in the body by which they are taxed and fulfill the principle of "government through the consent of the governed" while preserving intact the Federal primacy in the District of Columbia as required by the United States Constitution. (The above petition bore the names of 286 persons). GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN EASTLAND: At its meeting on Tuesday, March 5, 1968, the District of Columbia Council voted unanimously to urge the present session of the 90th Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment to provide for District of Columbia representation in Congress. I have the honor to transmit this resolution, Council Resolution 68-8, which is enclosed. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN C. SWAIM, Secretary of the City Council. RESOLUTION No. 68-8 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Councilman Turner presents the following resolution: Whereas the House Judiciary Committee has favorably reported an amendment to the Constitution to provide national representation in the Congress for citizens of the District of Columbia, and Whereas a similar Amendment is now pending before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Whereas the right to representation in the Congress of the United States is a just demand of the citizens of the District of Columbia: Be it Resolved, That the District of Columbia Council memorialize the present session of the 90th Congress of the United States to adopt an Amendment to the Constitution to provide for representation of the citizens of the District of Columbia in the Congress. Adopted at a meeting of the District of Columbia Council, March 5, 1968. JOHN W. HECHINGER, Chairman of the Council. STEPHEN C. SWAIM, Secretary. |