Would you support a Constitutional Amendment to grant the District of Columbia voting rights?

As most of you know, U.S. citizens residing in the District of Columbia do not have voting representation in Congress. This is because the District of Columbia is not a state and therefore does not qualify for representation under the U.S. Constitution. The only sure-fire way to allow residents of Washington, DC to have voting representation in Congress would be to pass a constitutional amendment to allow the District representation without making it into a full-fledged state. The arguments I have heard against such a proposal are wide-ranging. This is long, but I wanted to dismiss a number of tired arguments I've heard people make before: 1. The District's government is corrupt and inept and therefore doesn't deserve representation. --However, the District has had a balanced budget for the last decade (unlike most states) and has a higher bond rating as well. I'm not sure that makes the District government any more inept than, say, California, nor does that answer why people who live in the city don't deserve representation in Congress. 2. The District receives truckloads of federal money that the states don't get and the federal government employs everybody. --This is actually a myth. Local income and property taxes pay for city services in DC. DC residents also pay more federal taxes than people in 19 states. The federal government pays for about 10% of the city's total budget. However, this is not unusual as 32 states receive more federal spending than the residents actually paid in taxes. Further, only about 10% of federal government employees are in Washington; the rest of the country has far more federal employees than the District. 3. D.C. is too small, it wouldn't be fair to grant representation to a single city. -The District has more people than Wyoming. Further, being small doesn't make its citizens any less worthy of representation. If anything isn't fair, it's that California and New York have just as much representation in the Senate as South Dakota and Delaware (both of which also have fewer than a million people). 4. The District should just be given back to Maryland. -That would be fine except for one thing: Maryland doesn't want it back. Further, legal scholars say that would still require a constitutional amendment because giving the city back would violate the District Clause that created federal capital. 5. D.C. residents chose to move there so they can move away if they want voting representation. -Besides the fact that it's laughable that nobody be allowed to live in the nation's capital, over 50% of the people who live in the District are native residents; they didn't move there. Further, thanks to the "Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act", U.S. citizens can vote for Congress anywhere in the world, except residents of the District. That means that citizens who *chose* to move overseas, even those who have permanently left the country, still have the right to vote for a member of Congress. However, the people who live in the nation's capital are not afforded the same right. That is the most twisted logic imaginable. Can anybody tell me why there should not be a constitutional amendment to give the District of Columbia voting rights? "The number 1 recipient of Federal Tax dollars per capita is the District of Columbia." From DC Vote: "DC is often accused of being served on a silver platter, and residents sometimes wish this were true! But here are the facts: DC citizens pay “state-like,” or District taxes, to the tune of $5 billion per year. This money is sent to Congress, and is appropriated back to DC to pay for DC’s municipal budget—this process causes some to mistakenly believe the money is derived from Congress." http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/10MythsAboutDC.pdf "First, it is not a "state"." That's why this question is about creating a constitutional amendment. "Second, it is too beholden to the party in power." A number of cities and states are clearly dominated by one party, but that does not affect their representation in Congress.

Public Comments

1. I think this subject goes back to what the nation was founded on.. taxation without representation. If people in DC are taxed than they should be able to vote and have representation.... The U.S. House of Representatives has one non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia.
2. I can tell you why. It would be common sense or competent leadership to do so. That's why it'll never happen.
3. If the residents pay Federal taxes, they should be represented.
4. The number 1 recipient of Federal Tax dollars per capita is the District of Columbia. They sure are making out well for people with no representation.
5. They should be given voting rights but I'm sure the Republicans would oppose that as DC tends to vote 97% Democratic.
6. I support representation for the District.
7. Pass a constitutional amendment that states: "For the sole purpose of representation in Congress, residents of the District of Columbia shall be considered to be residents of the State of Maryland." Over and done with, and it avoids the issue of giving one party two eternal senators.
8. I agree with you. As a DC area native I always thought it was wrong for DC not to have voting rights. To The other answerer. DC has a NON-VOTING member of congress (ELeanor Holmes Norton) and NO SENATORS. DO YOUR RESEARCH
9. D.C. should NOT have representation in Congress. First, it is not a "state". Second, it is too beholden to the party in power.
10. Adam, I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I didn't fully realize the District didn't have voting rights until this past Thanksgiving weekend, when I took my daughter to DC to visit some of the museums and the Capitol. I saw the slogan on the license plates (Taxation Without Representation) and did a big DUH to myself--we have only fifty Senators... Anyway, yes, the residents of Washington DC should have representatives in Congress. It looks to me as if there are lots of regular people trying to make a living and get by there in the neighborhoods away from the governmental buildings--why shouldn't they have representation? And who is going to speak for all those homeless people I saw sleeping under the granite entrances at night or asking for money on 7th NW? I work in Manhattan, and you've got more homeless than we do from the looks of it! Go for it--I'll support you!