Back to Mark David Richards home page
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
History of Research on National Representation for D.C. The 1999 Surveys Awareness of D.C.s Political Status Support for Equal Voting Rights for D.C. in Senate and House of Representatives Methods to Achieve Equal Voting Rights in Senate and House of Representatives Discussion Tables History of Support for D.C. Home Rule, Local Self-Government D.C. Public Opinion: A Review Three new surveys of American public opinion on D.C. political rights confirm previous research showing large majorities of Americans support equal Congressional voting rights for D.C. citizens. The new surveys show that 72 percent of U.S. adults, 69 percent of college graduates who are registered to vote, and 82 percent of progressive state and local elected officials believe D.C. citizens should have equal voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The surveys found more support for an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment than for statehood or a merger with Maryland. History of Research on National Representation for D.C.In 1996, Edward M. Meyers published "Public Opinion and the Political Future of the Nations Capital." Myers used focus group research to explore the issue. He found widespread support for voting representation for D.C. residents in Congress, with a majority favoring voting membership in the Senate. In 1997, a poll by Mark Richards, a D.C. sociologist and professional pollster, found support for equal Congressional voting rights. In a representative telephone survey of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. adults, the large majority of Americans (79%) agreed that "U.S. citizens who are residents of Washington, D.C. should have voting representatives in the U.S. Congress, like other U.S. citizens." Fifty percent strongly agreed. Fifteen percent disagreed. The 1999 SurveysIn 1999, Mark Richards designed three studies, using three separate opinion interviewing services to conduct the telephone interviews:
Awareness of D.C.s Political StatusThe new study shows (see Figure 1) that over half (55%) of college graduates who are registered to vote were not aware that D.C. citizens do not have equal voting rights in Congress46 percent said D.C. citizens already have equal voting rights in Congress, and 9 percent were not sure. (This question was only asked of the college educated sample.) Figure 1: Awareness of D.C.s Unequal
Political Status
|
Total % | |
|
7 |
|
4 |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
|
<1 |
In the survey of state and local elected officials associated with progressive organizations, we asked those who said D.C. should NOT have equal voting rights in the House and the Senate (18%) if they would support or oppose allowing D.C. to vote in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives; allowing D.C. to vote in the House only, but not in the Senate; or keeping D.C. as it is with no voting rights. Most who opposed equal voting rights did not support partial voting rights either.
"Do you support of oppose the following: [For each one] Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose ?"
Support % | Oppose % | |
Allow D.C. to vote in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives | 29 | 58 |
Allow D.C. to vote in the House only, but not the Senate | 20 | 68 |
Keep D.C. as it is with no voting rights | 68 | 26 |
Although many Americans were not aware that D.C. citizens do not have political equality, when asked if they support equal voting rights for D.C. in the Senate and the House, citizenswith or without factsresponded that they do, in overwhelming numbers. This was true across ideology and political party lines, too. D.C. can argue its case for political equality knowing that the "court of public opinion" is mostly with them. In fact, support for D.C. equal voting rights is so high there is hardly room to go upalthough there is some evidence that a portion of those who disagreed that D.C. should have equal voting rights could change their mind to support D.C., if D.C. went through the process to become a state, pass an Amendment, or retrocede.
The majority said they would support an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment for D.C. Americans were more divided on statehood and retrocession. While there is a good base for D.C. to build on, many Americans will need to be convinced of why D.C. should be a state or merge with Maryland. Because many people have not thought about this issue, their opinions are likely to be fluid and changeable.
It is the authors opinion that consensus among D.C. citizens is needed (perhaps 70 percent support in each Ward) if D.C. is to achieve any one of the possible approaches. In February 2000, a majority of D.C. citizens (58%) supported statehood, according to Washington Post polls. Fewer (19%), supported retrocession, according to a 1994 Wirthlin poll. The idea of an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment has not been tested, to the authors knowledge.
US Adults (1011) |
College Graduate Voters (500) |
Progressive State and Local Elected Officials (174) |
|
Women | 52 | 52 | 41 |
Men | 48 | 48 | 59 |
18-34 | 30 | 12 | 4 (35 or less) |
35-54 | 39 | 45 | 54 (36-550 |
55+ | 27 | 42 | 41 (56+) |
Caucasian | 76 | 92 | 39 |
African-American | 11 | 2 | 19 |
Hispanic | 8 | 1 | 31 |
Asian | 1 | 1 | 3 |
American Indian | -- | <1 | 8 |
Liberal | -- | 12 | 30* |
Moderate | -- | 42 | 62* |
Conservative | -- | 45 | 8* |
Democrat | -- | 23 | 80 |
Independent | -- | 29 | 7 |
Not registered | -- | 0 | 0 |
Republican | -- | 41 | 13 |
New Party | -- | -- | 4 |
Green Party | -- | -- | 1 |
State legislator | -- | -- | 43 |
Local elected official | -- | -- | 45 |
Judicial | -- | -- | 7 |
Tribal government | -- | -- | 5 |
*Political philosophymore to the left, in the center, more to the right
U.S. Adults | College Graduate Voters | Progressive State and Local Elected Officials | |
TOTAL | 72 | 69 | 82 |
Women | 76 | 77 | 92 |
Men | 67 | 6- | 76 |
Caucasian | -- | -- | 81 |
African-American | -- | -- | 94 |
Hispanic | -- | -- | 73 |
American Indian | -- | -- | 92 |
Liberal | -- | 80 | -- |
Moderate | -- | 79 | -- |
Conservative | -- | 57 | -- |
Democrat | -- | 81 | -- |
Independent | -- | 71 | -- |
Republican | -- | 61 | -- |
Northeast | 76 | 75 | 91 |
North Central | 71 | 72 | 81 |
South | 73 | -- | -- |
|
-- | 69 | 87 |
|
-- | 65 | 65 |
West | 69 | 54 | 89 |
Occupation | |||
|
-- | 66 | -- |
|
-- | 72 | -- |
|
-- | 71 | -- |
|
-- | 67 | -- |
|
-- | 72 | -- |
|
-- | 69 | -- |
State legislator | -- | -- | 87 |
Local elected official | -- | -- | 76 |
% Support Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment
(Among Those Who Said They Support Equal Voting Rights)
US Adults % | College Graduate Voters % | Progressive State and Local Elected Officials % | |
TOTAL | 82 | 88 | 85 |
Women | 86 | 91 | 82 |
Men | 78 | 83 | 89 |
Caucasian | -- | -- | 83 |
African-American | -- | -- | 94 |
Hispanic | -- | -- | 90 |
American Indian | -- | -- | 75 |
Liberal | -- | 87 | -- |
Moderate | -- | 92 | -- |
Conservative | -- | 82 | -- |
Democrat | -- | 92 | -- |
Independent | -- | 92 | -- |
Republican | -- | 83 | -- |
Northeast | 86 | 86 | 87 |
North Central | 79 | 91 | 92 |
South | 84 | -- | -- |
|
-- | 87 | 90 |
|
-- | 83 | 87 |
West | 80 | 91 | 78 |
Occupation | |||
|
-- | 91 | -- |
|
-- | 87 | -- |
|
-- | 89 | -- |
|
-- | 86 | -- |
|
-- | 84 | -- |
|
-- | 87 | -- |
State legislator | -- | -- | 83 |
Local elected official | -- | -- | 88 |
% Support D.C. Statehood
(Among Those Who Said They Support Equal Voting Rights)
US Adults % | College Graduate Voters % | Progressive State and Local Elected Officials % | |
TOTAL | 57 | 43 | 65 |
Women | 61 | 47 | 67 |
Men | 54 | 38 | 64 |
Caucasian | -- | -- | 65 |
African-American | -- | -- | 82 |
Hispanic | -- | -- | 63 |
American Indian | -- | -- | 50 |
Liberal | -- | 47 | -- |
Moderate | -- | 43 | -- |
Conservative | -- | 41 | -- |
Democrat | -- | 52 | -- |
Independent | -- | 38 | -- |
Republican | -- | 40 | -- |
Northeast | 55 | 43 | 67 |
North Central | 52 | 41 | 77 |
South | 65 | -- | -- |
|
-- | 44 | 65 |
|
-- | 43 | 61 |
West | 54 | 51 | 63 |
Occupation | |||
|
-- | 48 | -- |
|
-- | 38 | -- |
|
-- | 37 | -- |
|
-- | 47 | -- |
|
-- | 44 | -- |
|
-- | 32 | -- |
State legislator | -- | -- | 67 |
Local elected official | -- | -- | 66 |
US Adults % | College Graduate Voters % | Progressive State and Local Elected Officials % | |
TOTAL | 57 | 63 | 35 |
Women | 56 | 62 | 30 |
Men | 64 | 65 | 39 |
Caucasian | -- | -- | 40 |
African-American | -- | -- | 21 |
Hispanic | -- | -- | 32 |
American Indian | -- | -- | 50 |
Liberal | -- | 57 | -- |
Moderate | -- | 60 | -- |
Conservative | -- | 70 | -- |
Democrat | -- | 65 | -- |
Independent | -- | 64 | -- |
Republican | -- | 65 | -- |
Northeast | 65 | 57 | 36 |
North Central | 62 | 67 | 31 |
South | 54 | -- | -- |
|
-- | 57 | 40 |
|
-- | 72 | 50 |
West | 60 | 69 | 29 |
Occupation | |||
|
-- | 68 | -- |
|
-- | 63 | -- |
|
-- | 63 | -- |
|
-- | 63 | -- |
|
-- | 49 | -- |
|
-- | 65 | -- |
State legislator | -- | -- | 33 |
Local elected official | -- | -- | 36 |
Year | Source | |
1949 | Gallup | July 2-7, 1949, 1,500 in-person interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 2.5 percentage points. |
"At present, people who live in Washington, D.C. cannot vote for their city officials since they are appointed by the President of the United States. Do you think the people of Washington should elect their city officials or should they continue to be appointed by the President?"
1965 | Harris | September 1965, 1,250 in-person interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 2.8 percentage points. |
"As you know, the city of Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) can vote in Presidential elections, but does not elect its own city Government. Congress is soon going to vote on whether or not to give the city of Washington home rule. Would you favor or oppose home rule for Washington, D.C.?
1997 | Richards | September 12-14, 1997, 1,049 telephone interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 3.2 percentage points. |
"I am going to read you some statements about Washington, D.C., where the federal government has authority to decide how that city is governed. For each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. First Residents of Washington, D.C. should have the right to elect their own local officials to run their city government, like other U.S. cities."
An Amendment would not make D.C. citizens equal in the same way as citizens of states, but it would be a great improvement. The 23rd Amendment (March 29, 1961) gave D.C. the right to a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State. The 23rd Amendment, which limits D.C. to electors equal to the smallest state, is a limited Amendment, what Historian Constance Green and many D.C. citizens call the half loaf.
In August 1978, Congress approved the 27th Amendment by 67-32 (one vote more than the two-thirds majority needed) proposing to give D.C. voting representation in both houses of Congress. Congress allowed D.C. seven years to get the Amendment ratified by 38 states (three-fourths of the 50 states). Time ran out on August 22, 1985, during the Reagan years, when only 16 states had approved. The campaign had little budget, was opposed by the Statehood Party as well as conservatives like Judith Best and Orrin Hatch). Best called the Amendment nominal statehood. Some have said that the Amendment was approved by many in Congress because they knew it would not be approved by the states.
Timothy Cooper, President of Democracy First, advocates the Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment, but not a more limited Voting Rights Amendment. He has discussed possible wording with Constitutional lawyers, including Professor Raven-Hansen. He proposes the following Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment wording: The residents of the District of Columbia shall be treated as citizens of a state for all constitutional intents and purposes. This amendment would include full voting representation under Article 2 of the Constitution and the 17th Amendment, the right to a republican form of government under Article 4, the right to 9th and 10th Amendment powers and privileges, and the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. An amendment would be tremendously hard to pass and would require a significant amount of resources, but this opinion research shows that an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment would likely be more politically persuasive to the U.S. public than statehood or retrocession.
Some oppose an amendment because it would be less than equal to the rights enjoyed by citizens living in a state ("not a whole loaf"), and it could be reversed.
This author is not aware of opinion studies among D.C. residents that examine support for an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment.
D.C. citizens have made great efforts to become a state. In 1969, the D.C. Statehood Committee was formed by Doug Moore, Chuck Stone, Jesse Anderson, and other African-American activists. Sam Smith first explained statehood in the D.C. Gazette in June 1970 (The Case for Statehood). In the fall of 1970, the Statehood Committee established the D.C. Statehood Party. Julius Hobson, Sr. was the first statehood candidate. He ran against Walter Fauntroy (of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference) for the Districts non-voting Delegate seat and won 15,000 (12%) votes.
In 1980, D.C. citizens approved a Citizen Initiative to call a statehood conventionsixty percent voted in favor of the Statehood Initiative. Philip Schrag provides a detailed account of the Constitutional Convention (Behind the Scenes, 1985). A majority of all but one Ward supported the Initiative: only 38 percent of Ward 3 approved. In November 1981, forty-five delegates were elected to draft the Constitution of New Columbia within ninety days on a $150,000 budget (compared to $1,500,000 for the Hawaii Convention in 1967). The restrictions were placed on the Convention by the D.C. Council. Participants included three Council membersHilda Mason (S), David Clarke (D), and Rev. Jerry Moore (R), and School Board member Barbara Lett Simmons. The media largely ignored the elections to the convention, and The Washington Post noted that few of the citys top elected officials seemed interested. Voter turnout was very lowsix percent.
The Constitution was controversial, especially the bill of rights which included the right to work and to strike. One delegate termed it the bill of lefts. A Congressional appropriations rider made it illegal for the District to use its own public money in support of the Constitution, and The Post editorialized in opposition. The Constitution was ratified by vote on Nov. 2, 198252.8 percent approved. It was approved by a majority in all Wards except Ward 3 (19.4%) and Ward 2 (48.6%).
In 1993, Congress voted on and rejected D.C. statehood by 63 votes (277 against, 153 for, 4 not voting). A bill can be reintroduced. (It took Hawaii 56 years to achieve statehood.) Polls by The Washington Post show that majorities of D.C. residents support statehood.
February 2000
Support for D.C. statehood is increasing after several years of division in the District.
In 1994, the Federal City Council sponsored a poll by The Wirthlin Group. They found majority support for statehood in the District, but not in the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia.
Retrocession was discussed numerous times in the early 19th century (1803, 1804, 1818, 1834, 1846) by the citizens of the two cities that preceded Washington City and the District of Columbia: Georgetown (originally in Maryland) and Alexandria (originally in Virginia). Washington City was never interested in retrocession. In 1846, foreshadowing the Civil War, the Virginia legislature voted in support of accepting the Virginia portion of the District back into that state. The federal government voted approval, with the stipulation that citizens of that part of the District vote approval in a referendum, which a majority did (763 for 222 against). Citizens of the country portion were excluded from the vote, were very upset, and protested with no result.
There has been disagreement about the wisdom of having retroceded the Virginia portion. Lincoln urged reclaiming it in 1861, but after he was assassinated the issue was not discussed. In 1875, an attempt was made by an individual in Alexandria to get a decision by the Supreme Court, but the court held that since U.S. and Virginia were the parties to the act and both were satisfied, it was not competent for a private litigant to question the constitutionality. In 1886, the Senate Committee on D.C. considered whether the Virginia portion could be restored to the District (the McMillan plan revived interest). But, the Justice Department wrote that the constitutionality had not been determined. In 1902, a joint resolution was introduced in both houses of Congress directing the Attorney-General to bring suit to determine the constitutionality. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee determined that it was a political, not a judicial question, a fait accompli.
Today, if the Maryland legislature voted in support of retrocession, if the Congress and President supported retrocession, and if D.C. citizens approved of it in a referendum, D.C. could unite with Maryland. The Committee for the Capital City is promoting this approach as "reunion." Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening wrote in opposition to retrocession: "I am adamantly in opposition to retrocession... It would be a difficult adjustment for many who have invested heavily to suddenly find all the rules changed. For three hundred years, the economic and political power center of Maryland has been the greater Baltimore area. That has been slowly changing over the past half century, with the Washington suburbs growing in population and influence. To suddenly add the District of Columbia to Montgomery and Prince George's counties would make them the new center of power in Maryland, without the opportunity for the rest of the State to adjust to this change. Ironically, the new power base in Maryland would be created by people who are not Maryland residents. One can only begin to imagine the economic, social and political chaos this would create. No one will be better off as the result of retrocession, either in the short term or long term."
A 1994 study of 1,003 D.C. adults and 513 suburban adults in Montgomery, Prince George, Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax counties (October 25-November 5), sponsored by the Federal City Council by The Wirthlin Group, found little support for retrocession.
Question: "A few possible solutions for the issues facing D.C. are being considered today. For each one of these possible solutions that I read, please tell whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove . Giving land back to Maryland."
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)