Towards Equal Footing Responding to the Perceived Constitutional, Legal and Practical Impediments to Statehood for the District of Columbia Acknowledgements This writing, the product of a series of writings by me, first began in 1975. From the moment I settled in Washington, D.C. in 1970, it struck me as strange that by virtue of the routine act of crossing an invisible line, coming within the boundaries of the nation’s capital and making it my home, most of the rights I had enjoyed, as a citizen of the state of Indiana, were lost. In the shadow of one of the greatest icons of democracy, the Washington Monument, that simple act of moving --- an act carried out by thousands and thousands over the years --- has made our lives difficult and different from the lives of every other citizen in America. That simple act caused us to become second-class, non- voting citizens unable to participate fully in our federal government. Currently, close to 600,000 taxpaying Americans who reside in the District of Columbia --- more than the number of those who reside in the state of Wyoming and close to the number who reside in nine other states --- bear all the burdens of citizenship, yet do not share in the benefits, particularly, the right to vote in the same manner as all other citizens. In 1978, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 554 by a two-thirds vote. The Resolution proposed that the District of Columbia would be treated “as though it were a state,” for the purposes of electing Senators, Representatives, the President and Vice-President and members to the Electoral College. As the principal author of that Resolution; as one who labored with many others for the seven years following passage of the proposal to secure ratification by thirty-eight states, only to fall short of our goal; as the principal staff author of the very first D.C. statehood bill, following the District of Columbia’s historic Statehood Constitutional Convention, House Resolution 51, introduced before Congress in 1987; and as a forty year resident of the District of Columbia, this is a subject that has claimed much of my attention and a great deal of my interest. Over the years, I have written about this contradiction. America seeks to “extend the perimeters of democracy around the world,” as former President Reagan often stated, yet democracy comes to a screeching halt within view of the White House. I have joined many and many have joined me in these writings, far too many to mention here. In my most recent writings, during this decade, I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Lauren O. Ruffin, Howard University Law School, Sue-Yun Ahn, Columbia Law School and Dekonti Mends-Cole and Justin Hansford, both of Georgetown University Law Center. The Instant Composition The instant composition is the product of many additional minds, hands and hearts. Vision, thought and stimulation has been provided by a group of passionate young people who have brought renewed energy and inspired new hope for this cause. Following the Introduction, in the Section on Historical Perspectives, Michael Liszewski undertook significant research and writing, with assistance from Chantal Khalil. Born in Washington, D.C., Michael is a second year law student at the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, the District's only public law school, where he is President of the Drug Policy Reform Group and has helped restart the school's ACLU Club. Prior to law school, he worked as a community organizer in southeast Baltimore, where he specialized in running after-school reading, sports, art and employment programs for neighborhood youth. Chantal is enrolled as an undergraduate at New York University, where she is majoring in International Relations, Pre-Law and Economics, with plans to attend law school upon graduation. Richard Cuthbert and Michael Greenwald undertook significant research and writing for the Section on Constitutional Issues and Concerns of D.C. Statehood. Richard is a second year law student at American University’s Washington College of Law. Michael is a junior at Washington University in St. Louis. In the Section on Financial Implications, Daniel Fitzgerald and Sarah Ramuta with assistance from Bertram Lee, Jr. undertook significant research and writing. “Danny” is a senior at the University of California at Santa Cruz, majoring in Community Studies with a focus on social justice issues. He aspires to be a human rights attorney and law professor. Sarah is a junior at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is studying English and Political Science and plans to attend law school upon graduation. And, Bertram is a lifelong resident of Washington, D.C., a sophomore at Haverford College in Pennsylvania, with plans on attending law school. Ian Cooper, with the assistance of Fidel Castro and Amy Menzel, undertook significant writing and research for the Section on International Law and Politics. Ian, a senior majoring in Classics and Trachtenberg Scholar at The George Washington University, is a lifelong Washingtonian. He plans to attend law school upon graduation. Fidel is a third year law student at the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law. Amy is a senior at the University of Utah, where she is majoring in Speech Communications and Community Studies. Upon graduation, she plans to work for an advocacy group, providing a voice for the voiceless. Attorney Ann Loikow, Chair of the D.C. Statehood Yes We Can Coalition, wholly prepared the very informative and useful Appendix, TIMELINE: 209 Years of the District of Columbia’s Efforts to Restore Self-Government. Ann resides in the District of Columbia with her husband and daughter. 2 I also wish to acknowledge the invaluable guidance given me in my early writings by Professor Jason Newman of the Georgetown University Law Center and former Congressman Walter E. Fauntroy (D.DC). Both gave me needed direction while allowing sufficient independence, thus creating the room to develop. Finally, I wish to thank my daughter, Sia Tiambi Barnes, an editing genius, for her keen eye, sharp mind and giving heart. Johnny Barnes September 2009 3 Preface and Outline of Contents This Article is designed to assist readers in understanding the complex relationship between the Federal Government and the American citizens who happen to reside in the Nation’s Capital. Throughout the muddied history of the District of Columbia, this relationship has been masked under false promises, mounting legal complications, and an unwillingness of the courts to provide the rights that these citizens deserve. The relationship, unique around the world, is a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma --- If we had political standing and sovereignty, we could have senators, representatives, and local autonomy. If we had senators, representatives, and local autonomy, we could have political standing and sovereignty. The challenge, however, is how to initiate this cycle, because currently, the District has neither the chicken nor the egg. As an Assistant Attorney General for the United States, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated; “The need for an amendment [providing representation for the District] at this late date in our history is too self-evident for further elaboration; continued denial of voting representation from the District of Columbia can no longer be justified.” Unfortunately, the promissory note that Rehnquist once issued has never been collected. This abandoned promise of the United States still persists as the greatest stain on our country, and now is the time, more than ever before, when we should insist that this promise be fulfilled. The Introduction (Page 5) presents the reader with the current status of the people of Washington, D.C. and indicates how this status makes them unequal to other citizens around the world. This section is followed by an extensive Background (Page 7), which discusses Admitting a New State (Page 8) paying particular attention to how other states have been admitted and how the District of Columbia is different, yet the same for such purposes and The Current Situation (Page 10) in Washington, D.C. as a result of the status of the District. After laying this foundation, the Article provides a thorough examination of the issues surrounding D.C. Statehood. This examination occurs in four main sections, starting with Historical Perspectives (Page 15). The first part of this section opens with Selecting a Site (Page 17), which describes the decisions that resulted in the creation of the District of Columbia and how those decisions impacted the 3,500 individuals living in the sparsely populated wilderness chosen to become the federal Seat of Government. Effects of the Selection (Page 21) examines the thinking and reasoning of those who made the decisions regarding the District of Columbia and what those decisions meant. Scope of the Selection (Page 25) provides a look into the promises, commitments and expectations that developed as a result of these decisions. The precedent established by the Act of Congress that returned a portion of the District to the state of Virginia is explored in Resizing the District (Page 26). To conclude our section on history, we ask an important question in Impact of the Selection (Page 30): with the Federal Government’s endless wake of actions that run counter to the promise of political standing and sovereignty, why should we accord full representation to the expanding population of the District of Columbia? 4 The second section, entitled The District of Columbia as a State (Page 32,) begins with the response of Federal Courts to appeals for equality in The Courts Close Their Doors On Equal Footing For D.C.