District seat rests on solid constitutional foundation

On Feb. 26, the United States Senate passed a bill that would give one seat in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia and another seat to Utah, the state next eligible under the 2000 census. We live in a country committed to the rule of law, and Americans rightly expect that such legislation be consistent with the Constitution. We believe it is.

The bill calls into question two relevant constitutional provisions. Critics of the bill focus on the House Composition Clause, which states that the House of Representatives "shall be composed of members chosen … by the people of the several states." This provision does not itself grant House representation to the District, which did not yet exist when the Constitution was drafted. This observation, however, begins rather than ends the constitutional discussion. The real constitutional question is not whether the Constitution itself gives a House seat to the district but whether Congress may by legislation provide for the district what the Constitution provides for the states.

That question is answered by the other relevant constitutional provision, the District Clause, which gives Congress legislative authority over the district "in all cases whatsoever." This is perhaps the most complete, all-encompassing, no-exceptions language in the entire Constitution. It stemmed from the conviction of America's founders that the district should be beholden exclusively to Congress for any and all purposes.

This power is greater than the Utah Legislature has over Utah, greater than Congress has over legislation affecting all the states. It is truly majestic in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that "Congress can provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end."

Similarly, the Supreme Court has held many times that Congress may use this extraordinary legislative authority to provide for the district what the Constitution provides for the states. The Constitution, for example, authorizes federal courts to consider lawsuits between citizens of different states. The Supreme Court has held that while this provision does not itself cover the district, Congress may do so by legislation.

The legislation today granting a House seat for the district follows the same pattern as these and many other precedents. In fact, a federal court held in 2000 that while the Constitution does not itself grant congressional representation to the district, that goal could be pursued in "other venues" including, the court said, "the political process." That pursuit resulted in the legislation passed just days ago by the Senate, which fits squarely within what courts have said Congress may do.