Photo: Flickr/Mr. T in DC

Fifty years ago, the states ratified the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the District of Columbia to appoint electors for President as if it were a state. Yet while District residents may vote for President, they remain without representation in Congress.

Writing in the New York Times, Northwestern’s Kate Masur argues that race and partisanship are the principal reasons why the District lacks representation:

The 23rd Amendment is a reminder that support can be rallied for greater democracy for the district. And yet, in our polarized political climate, the powerful argument for voting representation in Congress seems perpetually stymied.

One problem is indifference; most Americans are unaware of the capital’s anomalous status, the city’s “Taxation Without Representation” license plates notwithstanding. A second is partisanship; to establish a vote in Congress for Washingtonians, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, Republicans would have to place a moral imperative ahead of partisan interests.

Another is race. A half-century after the dawn of the civil rights era, many Americans still have a hard time seeing African-Americans as citizens entitled to the rights that so many white people take for granted. For residents of a place once known as “Chocolate City,” these attitudes are a sadly familiar obstacle to equality.

Even if Masur is right that partisanship and race define the politics of granting representation to the District, Congress still has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. As Andrew Grossman and I explained two years ago, “Congress lacks the constitutional authority to grant the city a representative by legislation; the District of Columbia is not a state, and representation is limited to states alone.”

This is not to say there’s no moral case for representation. The District’s status violates the principle of consent of the governed.

Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem that do not violate the Constitution. For example, Grossman and I argued that

Congress could propose an amendment granting the District a representative in Congress, perhaps using the 1978 proposal noted earlier as a model. Adding such representation directly to the Constitution would by definition avoid running afoul of the nation’s supreme law. In addition, the amendment solution would retain the Founders’ intention that the capital city remain subject to the “exclusive legislation” of Congress–even as it grants the city’s residents a more direct voice in that legislation.

Another, less constitutionally problematic approach would resolve the “taxation without representation” complaint by eliminating federal taxes for the District.

No matter the solution, it’s important that it be consistent with the Constitution. Even a powerful moral grievance is no excuse for ignoring the nation’s highest law.

If only it actually worked that way. All too often, the negotiators don’t split the difference during the House-Senate conference, particularly when it comes to spending. Instead, they pick the higher spending number, increase it, and call it a compromise.

Consider the funding earmarked for intercity rail in the economic “stimulus” bill. As passed, the House bill would spend $1.1 billion on Amtrak and high-speed rail, and the Senate version $3.1 billion. When negotiating the final version of the legislation, House and Senate negotiators came together and “compromised” on $9.3 billion–a figure three times higher than the largest amount in either bill.