Unlikely Allies Supported Granting Partial Congressional Representation to Washington, D.C.

By: Miriam Edelman

In the late 2000s, some D.C. leaders and Members of Congress across the political spectrum supported legislation, such as H.R. 1905 – District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007, that would have given the District of Columbia and Utah each a vote in the House of Representatives. However, such compromise legislation would not have affected the Senate. DCNOW’s blog piece, entitled “D.C.’s Centuries-Long Disenfranchisement Is Unfair,” is about that legislation.

This piece does not support H.R. 1905 or any type of compromise, but it shows that as recently as 2007, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress and the general public all supported the idea of giving at least some voting representation in the U.S. Congress to D.C. residents. More specifically, the groups include:

-          Democrats

-          Republicans:

o   Who are in office and support President Donald Trump

o   Who are in office but have voted to remove Trump from office and/or who are willing to vote against him

o   Who are out of office but oppose Trump

-          General Public

Democrats

Democrats are the minority in both Congressional chambers. Many Democrats disagree with policies of Republicans and President Donald Trump.

Two of the Democratic proponents of the compromise legislation were the current (2025) House of Representative and Senate D.C. statehood bill sponsors. On May 15, 2007, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) testified at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, supporting S. 1257. Key points of her testimony were:

“We are deeply grateful to the Utah delegation and its Governor for their steadfast determination to join with us after the state barely missed getting a seat according to the 2000 census, most likely because Mormon missionaries were temporarily out of the state on religious missions. As Governor Jon Huntsman said, ‘The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for the last 6 years. I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation at all for over 200 years.’ In fact this bill was born bipartisan, initially not from me or any D.C. resident. Rather, it was an outlander, my regional colleague, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Tom Davis, who was moved by his personal sense of right and wrong when he was chair and used his insider political knowledge, his stature as a leader of his party, and his chairmanship to start us down the bipartisan path which must be traveled to expand representation in Congress.”

“We are late in relieving our country of the unique standing as the only nation that denies representation to the citizens of its capital. If ever a case has been made, the case for representation of every citizen, excluding none, in every nation's legislature has been made here and around the world, ironically and most recently by the words and actions of this country. For most Americans, the case is made when they understand that the No Taxation Without Representation slogan of our own American Revolution of 1776 has yet to apply to the citizens of the nation's capital, which ranks second in federal income taxes that support the government of the United States. For others, the case is closed at the funerals of District residents who have died fighting for the vote for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, as Washingtonians have in every war, including the war for the "Republic for which we stand."”

“A vote for our capital also will erase the slander that the founders of our country who staged their revolution because they were denied representation would then almost immediately deny representation to the residents of their own capital city. Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former assistant attorney general for constitutional matters, has wiped away the major argument, that because the District is not a state its American citizens cannot vote in the House, by detailing the many ways in which "since 1805 the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District as a state and Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority." The personal favorite of District residents is the 16th Amendment which requires only that citizens of states pay federal income taxes. Why then have District residents continuously been taxed without representation?”

“S. 1257, it must be said, will finally erase a history of wrong. As our country has unequivocally embraced equal rights regardless of race or color, the denial of a vote to the residents who live in our capital, where Black people are the majority, carries unintended messages around the world.”

“You have asked constitutional scholars to speak on those issues, but as a lawyer who practiced constitutional law, I would like to summarize my thoughts on the bills constitutionality as well. It is not surprising that unprecedented bills would attract claims of unconstitutionality, beyond those that are often offered as little more than political cover by opponents. There is some respectable opinion against the bill on constitutional grounds, but fortunately, the District has the better side of the case. Conservative scholars Kenneth Starr (former Court of Appeals Judge) and Professor Viet Dinh (former Assistant Attorney General under Attorney General Ashcroft) have both testified that our bill is constitutional. Although the District of Columbia is not at state, as Professor Dinh testified, the District meets the constitutional standards for House representation because "since the birth of the Republic, courts have repeatedly affirmed treatment of the District as a ‘state' for a wide variety of statutory, treaty, and even constitutional purposes." Judge Starr testified that the District Clause, which gives Congress authority "[to] exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," is "majestic in its scope" - and authorizes Congress to enact our bill. Most telling is the certainty that the framers did not and could not have intended to deny voting rights to the residents of the new capital. In accepting the land for the District, the first Congress, by law, guaranteed that the existing laws of the donor states, Maryland and Virginia, would be observed until jurisdiction passed to Congress, which would then "by law provide" the laws for the District. Until the day that Congress took jurisdiction, for ten years, citizens living in the District continued to exercise their congressional voting rights "not because they were citizens of those states - the cession had ended their political link with those states. . ." Dinh testified, "[but because] their voting rights derived from Congressional action under the District Clause recognizing and ratifying the ceding states' law as the applicable law." Particularly considering that veterans of the revolutionary war who fought to get representation were living on the land ceded in the constitution for the new capital, it is unthinkable that Maryland and Virginia would have agreed to the sacrifice of the basic rights of their citizens as they donated the land or that the constitutional framers would have required it.”

Another Democratic supporter of H.R. 1905 was then-Representative Chris Van Hollen. On April 19, 2007, on the House Floor, Van Hollen said:

“It is long past time to pass this legislation. It is not a question of politics or political advantage, it is a question of civil rights—it is a question of whether we believe that those people who live in the city that houses our Democratic institutions, who often work in the Federal government, deserve equal representation in our legislative body.”

“There is simply no excuse to deny the hundreds of thousands of residents of our Capital City the right to equal representation in the United States Congress. They are citizens in every way. They pay the same federal taxes as anyone else, can serve in the armed forces, and are subject to the same laws of the land. What a terrible message we send when the people in the capital of the world’s greatest democracy do not have a vote in the people’s House.”

“I have the privilege or [sic.] representing the district right next to Washington, DC, and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border from my district into Washington, DC, you go from a district where you have voting representation to one where you do not.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bipartisan compromise that extends full voting rights to our neighbors here in the District. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally end taxation without representation.”

DCNOW’s blog’s piece, entitled “New Leader of Senate’s D.C. Statehood Bill: Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD),” is about Van Hollen.

Republicans

Although most Republicans publicly support Trump, a few Republicans office-holders have voted against Trump, even voting to remove him from office. In addition, some Republican former elected officials oppose Trump.

In Office and Support Trump

One of the current Republican Members of Congress, who are strong Trump supporters, is Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA). Issa is such a supporter of Trump that he nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize on March 4, 2025.

Issa was a strong proponent of the compromise Utah-D.C. compromise bills. He was one of the six Republican co-sponsors of H.R.1433 - District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. On April 19, 2007, on the House Floor, Issa voted for H.R. 1905 – District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007 – that would have given both Utah and D.C. a vote in the House.

In Office but Has Voted to Remove Trump from Office and Has Made Major Votes Against Trump

One of the current Republican elected officials who has voted against Trump in key votes is Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). In February 2021, Collins was one of seven Republican Senators to vote to convict Trump. Collins also voted against some of Trump nominees, including Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director nominee Kash Patel. On July 1, 2025, Collins also voted against H.R. 1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a major priority of Trump. Trump’s White House referred to the bill as “President Donald J. Trump’s landmark legislation in what has been called the “biggest legislative win of President Trump’s two terms.”

Collins, who was a member of the relevant Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, supported the Senate version of the compromise Utah-D.C. legislation. On the Senate Floor on September 18, 2007, she said:

“After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia--citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for the House that meets in their midst.”

“S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah. That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State performing their religious duty as missionaries.”

“As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution. Those powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing that  our committee conducted on this bill.”

“We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves, including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal-representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights cases.”

“I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars, have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge. Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our Federal courts.”

“My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate.”

“This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House representation to population, but it links Senate representation to statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation.”

“The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to-conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is not a partisan measure.”

“I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of fundamental fairness for American citizens.”

“Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds, that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.”

Later that day, on the Senate Floor, she voted for cloture on S. 1257. Thus, she voted for the compromise legislation.

Out of Office but Oppose Trump

A few prominent former Republican elected officials oppose Trump. Mike Pence was Trump’s Vice President (VP) for Trump’s entire first term in office and was loyal until practically the end. However, Pence refused to help Trump overturn the 2020 election. In the 2024 Presidential election cycle, Pence ran for President against the President he served with, a rare incident in U.S. history. Pence did not endorse Trump in 2024.

Pence was a Republican supporter of the UT-VT legislation. In early 2007, Pence wrote the following piece, entitled “Why I Voted for D.C. Representation in the House:”

“Last week in the House Judiciary Committee, I voted in favor of legislation granting the residents of the District of Columbia the right to full voting representation in the House of Representatives. I believe this legislation is a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. While many have focused on the political consequences of such a move, the only question for a Member of Congress on such matters is this: what does justice demand and what does the Constitution of the United States permit Congress to do to remedy this wrong?”

“The fact that more than half a million Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be addressed. At the time of the adoption of our present system of government, the federal city did not exist apart from a reference in the Constitution. When the District of Columbia opened for business in 1801, only a few thousand residents lived within her boundaries. Among the founders, only Alexander Hamilton would forsee the bustling metropolis that Washington, D.C. would become and he advocated voting representation for the citizens of the District.”

“The demands of history in favor of representation for the Americans living in Washington, D.C. is compelling. In establishing the republic, the single overarching principle of the American founding was that laws should be based upon the consent of the governed. The first generation of Americans threw tea in Boston harbor because they were denied a voting representative in the national legislature in England. Given their fealty to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a throng of Americans in perpetuity.”

“But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to act. Under the principles of limited government, a republic may only take that action which is authorized by the written Constitution.”

“In this regard, I believe that the legislation moving through the Congress is constitutional. And I am not alone in this view. In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth Starr, former independent counsel and U.S. solicitor general observed, ``there is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy they founded''.”

“Opponents of D.C. Voting understandably cite the plain language of Article I that the House of Representatives be comprised of representatives elected by ``the people of the     several states''. If this were the only reference to the powers associated with the federal city, it would be most persuasive but it is not. Article I, Section 8, CI. 17 provides, ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.”

“Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984, that the Seat of Government Clause, gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our nation's capital. Scalia added that this provision of the Constitution ``enables Congress to do many things in the District of Columbia which it has no authority to do in the 50 states. . . . There has never been any rule of law that Congress must treat people in the District of Columbia exactly the same as people are treated in various states''. United States v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1984)”

“And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of Americans in the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the federal courts even though Article III expressly limited the jurisdiction of the federal courts to suits brought by citizens of different states. As Judge Starr observed, ``the logic of this case applies here, and supports Congress's determination to give the right to vote for a representative to citizens of the District of Columbia''.”

“None of which argues for the District of Columbia to ever be granted the right to elect members of the United States Senate. In the most profound sense, from the inception of our nation, the House of Representatives was an extension of the people. I believe our founders left us the tools in the Constitution to ensure that all the American people have a voice in the people's house.”

“The Senate, from the inception of our nation, was an extension of the states. Senators were appointed by state legislatures until 1915. The Senate was and remains the expression of the principle of federalism in the national legislature and should ever be so. If the people of the District of Columbia would like two seats in the United States Senate, they will have to become a state.”

“The old book tells us what is required, ``do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God.'' I believe that justice demands we right this historic wrong. The American      people should have representation in the people's house. I believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all       Americans regardless of race or political creed. And I believe humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent with our constitution, laws and traditions. The D.C. Voting bill meets this test and I am honored to have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect union.”

On April 19, 2007, on the House Floor, Pence said:

“I do rise in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.”

“The fact that more than half a million Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong.”

“The single overarching principle of the American founding was that laws should be based upon the consent of the governed. The first generation of Americans threw tea in Boston Harbor because they were denied a voting representative in the national legislature in England. Given their commitment to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a throng of Americans in perpetuity. But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to act. Under our system of government, Congress may only take action which is authorized by the written Constitution. I do believe in my heart that H.R. 1905 is a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong, and I am not alone in this thought.”

“Judge Kenneth Starr, the former Independent Counsel and U.S. Solicitor General observed: ‘‘There is nothing in our Constitution’s history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy that they founded.’’ None other than Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984 that the seat of government clause of the Constitution gives Congress extraordinary and plenary power over our Nation’s Capital. Judge Starr observes: ‘‘The logic of that case and that reasoning applies here.’’”

“Congress has used this power in the past. It was in a 1949 case that the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the Federal courts even though article III expressly limited jurisdiction to the courts to suits brought by citizens of several States.”

“None of which argues for the District of Columbia ever to be granted the right to elect Members to the Senate. In a real sense, the House is derivative of the people, the Senate is derivative of the State.”

Later on April 19, 2007, on the House Floor, Pence voted for H.R. 1905.

General Public

The general public supported a D.C. representative (61 percent support) more than it supported the compromise bill (49 percent support). The Washington Post poll of April 22, 2007, asked:

“On another subject: as you may know, Washington, D.C. has a delegate in Congress, but that person is not allowed to vote on laws. Would you support or oppose new legislation giving D.C. a full voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives?”

“One proposed law would give overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. a full voting member in the House, while also giving the heavily Republican state of Utah another congressional seat. Would you support or oppose this proposal?”

According to the poll, a plurality (49 percent) supported the compromise bill while 37 percent opposed it and 14 percent did not have an opinion. Meanwhile, 61 percent thought that D.C. should have a voting representation in the House.

The poll showed that feelings about the compromise bill varied based on political party. While almost 70 percent of Democrats wanted D.C. to have voting representation, just 47 percent of Democrats supported the compromise bill. Meanwhile, 52 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Independents supported the legislation.

Interestingly, the support of Republicans in general went against Republicans Congressional leaders’ opposition to the legislation. As the Washington Post reported:

“Republican House leaders opposed the measure, arguing that it violates the constitutional requirement that House representatives come from states. Some Republicans also worried that it could establish a precedent leading to the District eventually getting two senators.”

“The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is also against the legislation.”

D.C.’s democracy organizations disagreed about the compromise bill. DC Vote supported the bill. Its Executive Director Ilir Zherka said the following about the bill: “When presented with a bill passed by the Congress that extends to people the most basic right of our American democracy, we are hopeful that President Bush will sign that bill into law.”

Meanwhile, other D.C. democracy advocates opposed the bill. Some said that when many Americans have two Senators and a Representative, the legislation would make D.C. residents “one-third citizens” with just a single House vote. Stand Up! For Democracy in D.C. Coalition and the DC Statehood Green Party felt that only statehood for D.C. would work.

The U.S. coming together to support D.C. with the compromise bill is reminiscent of Democrats and Republicans platforms of decades ago calling for Congressional voting representation for D.C. residents. DCNOW’s blog’s post, entitled “Blast from the Past: Republicans Supported Washington, D.C., Autonomy,” mentioned these platforms.

Closing Thoughts

Looking forward to the U.S.’s 250^th birthday, D.C. should unite Americans again. Fundamentally, D.C.’s disenfranchisement is a civil rights issue, not a Democratic partisan platform. Let’s together make the U.S. the best by finally granting statehood to D.C. A compromise will not be sufficient.