Rather than comply with the US Constitution and return most of the District of Columbia to Maryland, some folks want to get creative:
After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in the nation’s wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington residents are close to getting a full-fledged representative in the House.
The turning point in this long battle for enfranchisement may be an unlikely partnership with the people of Utah.
The new Democratic majority, in the first months of the new Congress, is expected to take up a bill that would increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah, a Republican stronghold, and the District of Columbia, dominated by Democrats.
Utah is a state, the District is not.
Congress also gave the district limited home rule in the 1970s, and in 1978 approved a constitutional amendment extending voting rights. The amendment died when it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Most — but by no means all — scholars say an amendment is unnecessary. The Constitution says that the House shall be composed of members chosen by "the people of the several states." But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted by some to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights.
The "people of the several states" run Congress. Congress runs the District, suggesting the latter is subordinate to the former.
Lost in all this hubbub is this fact: The District has something far more valuable than representation, it has a monopoly on hosting the federal government. Let’s give the whole District back to Maryland and move the capital somewhere new. St Louis is pretty close to the middle of the country.
