Leading up to the American Revolution, the cry of “taxation without representation” galvanized colonists against the British Empire. This very slogan now echoes in Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, emblazoned on license plates as a potent symbol of its residents’ ongoing struggle for equal rights. D.C. residents pay federal taxes, just like any American citizen, yet they lack voting representation in the U.S. Congress. This isn’t a recent development; it’s a deeply rooted issue woven into the very fabric of the city’s history and governance. Why is it that the citizens of Washington D.C., the heart of American democracy, are denied full democratic participation? The answer lies in a complex history of political maneuvering, racial biases, and constitutional interpretations that have shaped the District of Columbia’s unique and often disenfranchised status.
After Reconstruction, Congress Abolishes D.C.’s Government
Washington, D.C., the land of the Nacotchtank people, also known as the Anacostans, predates the United States itself. These native inhabitants were displaced by British colonists, and their territory eventually became part of Maryland and Virginia. In 1790, these states ceded land to form the District of Columbia, chosen as the permanent capital of the newly formed nation. At the time, the population was sparse, around 3,000, deemed too small for statehood. Initially, white male property owners in D.C. continued to vote in Maryland or Virginia, maintaining their previous representation.
The U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, laid the groundwork for D.C.’s unique status. It stipulated that the seat of government would be a “District (not exceeding ten miles square)” under the “exclusive legislation” of Congress. James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers, articulated the rationale behind this arrangement. He argued that a separate federal district would prevent any single state from gaining undue influence by hosting the national government. This was intended to ensure neutrality and prevent state-level interests from overshadowing national ones.
In the early 19th century, Congress began experimenting with different models of governance for D.C. These models allowed residents to elect some local leaders, but simultaneously stripped them of the right to vote for president or elect voting members of Congress. This marked the beginning of a long history of limited self-governance for the District. However, the situation took a dramatic turn in the 1870s, during the Reconstruction era, when Congress completely dismantled D.C.’s local representation.
During Reconstruction, Black Americans constituted a significant portion of D.C.’s population, approximately one-third. Following the Civil War, in 1867, Black men in D.C. gained the right to vote in local elections. They quickly became active participants in the city’s political landscape and began to hold positions in local government. This rise in Black political power alarmed many in Congress. In response, Congress took decisive action to suppress this emerging political force. Through new laws passed in 1871 and 1874, they effectively dismantled D.C.’s local government. These laws vested the power to appoint D.C. leaders solely in the hands of the President—an office for which D.C. residents still could not vote. While the President could consult with Congress on these appointments, the lack of voting representation for D.C. residents in Congress meant they had no meaningful way to influence these crucial decisions about their own city’s governance.
It’s important to note that these changes did not affect the voting rights of presidents, congressmen, and many federal staff members, as they typically remained registered to vote in their home states. The restrictions on voting and self-governance were specifically targeted at the full-time residents of D.C. John Tyler Morgan, a former Confederate soldier and a U.S. Senator from 1877, openly revealed the discriminatory intent behind these actions. He infamously stated that Congress had to “burn down the barn to get rid of the rats…the rats being the negro population and the barn being the government of the District of Columbia.” This chilling quote starkly illustrates the racial prejudice that underpinned the disenfranchisement of D.C. residents, particularly Black residents, during this period. These actions mirrored the broader pattern of voting restrictions implemented across the Southern states after Reconstruction, aimed at systematically suppressing Black political power.
Civil Rights Era Brings Change
The system established in the 1870s, which denied D.C. residents the right to vote for their local government, congressional representatives, and the president, persisted for almost a century. Throughout this period, Washington, D.C.’s Black population continued to grow. In 1957, D.C. became the first major city in the nation with a majority Black population. By 1970, the Black population peaked at over 537,000, constituting 71 percent of the city’s total population. Ironically, while D.C. became a center of Black culture and political life, its residents remained politically marginalized within the national democratic framework. Many Black residents, seeking full political participation, migrated to the surrounding suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, where they could exercise their full voting rights.
The Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century became a catalyst for change in D.C.’s fight for equal rights. Black D.C. residents, inspired by the broader movement for racial equality, actively campaigned to challenge their city’s unequal status. They achieved a significant victory with the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961. This amendment granted D.C. residents the right to vote for president and vice president. In 1964, D.C. held its first presidential election since 1800. The city overwhelmingly voted for Lyndon B. Johnson, the incumbent president, over Barry Goldwater, a Republican senator from Arizona who had opposed the Civil Rights Act earlier that year.
However, this victory came with limitations. Despite D.C.’s population surpassing that of states like Wyoming and Vermont (currently nearly 706,000 residents according to the most recent census), the 23rd Amendment stipulated that D.C. could not receive more presidential electors than the least populous state. Consequently, since 1964, D.C. has always been allocated only three electoral votes, the minimum possible, regardless of its population size. This meant that while D.C. residents could now participate in presidential elections, their voting power remained disproportionately small compared to citizens in states with similar or even smaller populations.
Self-governance remained another major battleground. Decades after Reconstruction, racial prejudice and political resistance within Congress continued to block meaningful self-determination for D.C. As late as 1972, some members of Congress openly expressed racist sentiments against granting D.C. greater autonomy. John Rarick, a House member from Louisiana, infamously warned that allowing D.C. to govern itself could lead to a “takeover by the Black Muslims,” as reported by the Associated Press. Such statements highlighted the persistent racial biases that fueled opposition to D.C. self-governance.
Despite this resistance, D.C. residents achieved another milestone with the passage of the Home Rule Act by Congress in 1973. This act granted D.C. the right to elect its own mayor and city council. In 1974, Walter E. Washington was elected as D.C.’s first home-rule mayor. While the Home Rule Act was a significant step forward, it still imposed considerable limitations on D.C.’s autonomy. Congress retained the power to review and reject any laws passed by the D.C. mayor and council. This congressional oversight has been frequently used to overturn D.C. laws on a range of issues.
In 1971, D.C. also gained a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. This delegate can serve on committees and participate in floor debates but cannot vote on the final passage of legislation. In 1978, there was a serious attempt to grant D.C. full voting representation in Congress. Congress passed a constitutional amendment that would have given Washington, D.C. two voting senators and a voting member in the House. However, this amendment ultimately failed to be ratified by the required 38 states by its 1985 deadline, stalling the momentum for full congressional representation.
Could D.C. Become the 51st State?
Since 1980, the movement for D.C. statehood has gained significant traction as the primary strategy for achieving full congressional representation. Advocates for D.C. statehood have drawn parallels between their struggle and the ongoing fights for representation in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Similar to D.C. residents, citizens in these territories pay federal taxes but lack voting representation in Congress and cannot vote in presidential elections.
A central argument for D.C. statehood is that there is no valid constitutional impediment to it. D.C., a city of 68 square miles, has a larger population than both Wyoming and Vermont, demonstrating its capacity to function as a state. Statehood advocates argue that the Constitution’s mandate for a federal district does not preclude granting statehood to the residential and commercial areas of D.C., while maintaining a smaller federal enclave for government buildings under congressional control. Susan Rice, former national security advisor to Barack Obama, articulated this point in a New York Times op-ed, stating, “Opponents of Washington statehood make specious legal arguments, claiming that the Constitution mandates complete federal authority over the district and thus precludes statehood…But the Constitution merely states that the federal enclave cannot exceed 10 square miles; it does not prohibit carving out a limited area for government buildings that remains under federal control, while making the rest of the district into a state.”
Numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to make D.C. the 51st state. In a historic move, the House of Representatives passed a D.C. statehood bill on April 22, 2021, for the second time. However, despite this progress in the House, none of these bills have yet passed both houses of Congress, facing significant obstacles in the Senate. Despite these setbacks, politicians and activists remain committed to the fight for D.C. statehood. For them, statehood is not just a political aspiration but a matter of fundamental fairness and equal representation for the residents of Washington, D.C., finally resolving the enduring issue of “taxation without representation” in the nation’s capital.
