Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Reacting to changes in society that the founders could not have anticipated, the 23rd Amendment provided representation in the electoral college to residents of Washington D.C. in presidential elections.
The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
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; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
To get an idea of how they might have made this oversight, we should look at what the founders envisioned for the seat of government. They would have anticipated an essentially agrarian society, a federal government with limited power, and therefore a city that would not draw any particularly large number of people. Many of those who would be drawn there would, in their expectations, have been temporary residents – members of Congress and federal employees – who would have the right to cast their votes in their states of residence.
Those who would live their permanently would likely have been farmers. The Constitution stipulates that the capital city not exceed 10 square miles which is 6400 acres. In 1865 freed slaves were initially promised 40 acres and a mule. I think it is safe to assume that, as this was a promise to ex-slaves, 40 acres was not a particularly large amount of land for one family. in other words, if the entire city were populated by farmers it would have a population of no more than 160 families – and representatives in Congress were to represent at least 30,000 people according to the Constitution. It is understandable that they would not think it necessary to give those few people a vote in the electoral college.
In many ways the 23rd Amendment was a half measure. Considering the expanded (and expanding) breadth of congressional authority (especially over Washington D.C.) it is very reasonable for the residents of Washington D.C. to desire a voting representative in the House. In order to achieve that we will need to pass another constitutional amendment.
Perhaps it is because they have been breathing the capital air too long (and because previous attempts to amend the Constitution have been rejected for overreaching by seeking full statehood) the residents of D.C. have spent their energy trying to circumvent the Constitution in their efforts to gain that otherwise well-deserved voting representation.
5 replies on “Constitutional Amendment 23”
The Founders also had dealt directly (in Philadelphia and in New York) with local authorities attempting to exert power over federal authorities using local and state laws. The provisions in the Constitution were an attempt to prevent this kind of thing from happening in Washington, D.C.
While it is now claimed that this could never happen, we cannot be sure that this is the case. For this reason, the nonresidential areas of the city that host mostly government properties would still need to be exempted from any state.
As you have mentioned previously, the most reasonable (but not problem free) approach would likely be to return the residential areas of the district to the states from which they were taken.
I had not taken into account that the founders had solid experience behind them prodding them to do everything possible to make sure that the seat of government was immune from local manipulation. It’s true though, they didn’t just make up these rules out of thin air. That’s why I would never back an amendment giving Washington D.C. full statehood.
I had never really paid much attention to this Amendment, and quite frankly I would probably have flunked a test if it required me to name the 23rd Amendment. But after reading it and the above posts my thought is this is an excellent example of what Amendments really should do. It clears up something that nobody really had any concept would create a problem. I also think it points to the inspiration and intelligence in the Constitution relative to having a geographical area immune to the impact of the states’ influence. Just another example of the genius of what the Founding Fathers gave us, and which after 200+ years we sometimes take for granted.
The Founders actually created a provision directly incongruous with their own fundamental principles when they wrote the District Clause. “…Just power derives from the Consent of the Governed…” is one of the most fundamental principles of American society, part of the social contract under which we operate. To deny the equal application this principle to every American is to create a tear in the fabric of American Society. In order to form a more Perfect Union, we must mend this tear before it grows larger.
As with so many things the founders were balancing competing interests on this issue. Of course every citizen should be represented, but the founders already had experience with local governments exerting undue control over the central government when the central government was residing within their jurisdiction – that is why it was necessary to have a district that would be independent of any state and fully within the control of the federal government.
They attempted to mitigate any potential disenfranchisement by specifying that the place for the federal seat of government would be limited in size (allowing it to be large enough for the future needs of a growing nation) and specifying that it would be on land donated by the state(s) who had previously controlled it. The federal government did not seize the land from Virginia and Maryland – they accepted a donation.
Should the citizens of D.C. have a voting representative in Congress? Yes, I’ve been very clear on that. Should the Constitution be ignored to achieve that? No, because the rule of law is even more fundamental to a healthy nation than universal suffrage. We did much better with blacks, women, and people under 21 not being allowed to vote than we can ever do if we shove the Constitution to the side whenever we find it inconvenient to adhere to what is written there.