Constant Conservative

You’ve no doubt heard of the bill which would give Washington DC a voting representative in the US House of Representatives. It is patently unconstitutional since DC is not a state. Law professor Joerg Knipprath has an excellent, detailed explanation of why this bill does not pass constitutional muster. Here’s an excerpt, but you should read it all (it’s much better than the stuff I put together):

Further, when the residents in the District were granted the power to participate in the election of presidents, the 23rd Amendment’s language made it crystal clear that the District is not a state. The amendment refers to the “District” that is to be entitled to electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators it would have “if it were a State.” Moreover, “they shall be considered, for the purposes [of such election] to be electors appointed by a State.” That is not language that recognizes the District to be a state. Of course, the whole amendment would have been unnecessary if the District were a state.

It is noteworthy that it was considered necessary to have a formal constitutional amendment to give District residents the right to vote in presidential elections. A mere Congressional statute would not have been enough. Further still, the 23rd Amendment only gives the District votes in the electoral college. It does not give the District the right to participate, as states do, in voting pursuant to the 12th Amendment in the House of Representatives if no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote.