1. Gives DC permanent voting rights and strengthens democracy
2. Would no longer have any denial of representation to DC citizens who for FAR to long without representation.
3. Equality for all
Richard L. Hasen, a Professor of law and political science said:
The lack of voting rights for residents of Washington, D.C., is an example of what law professors call "constitutional stupidities." Given this country's commitment to equal voting rights for all, there's no legitimate policy reason to deny congressional representation to the District's residents.
This would be constitutional if done by an amendment!
Rights Denied. The Most Precious of all rights is denied to citizens of Washington DC. Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated in the Court majority of Wesberry vs Sanders:
"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges that right.”
My second point is Taxation without representation.
Impact 1: Inconsistency among American principles
Impact 2: DC has no voice in matters of Life and Death
Some people say DC has to be a state to get representation. This argument is false for several reasons:
1. Not if done by an Amendment. Actually before the 23rd Amendment only states could receive elctoral votes (Vote for President). But the 23rd Amendment gave DC voting rights for President nonetheless.
2. DC citizens are US citizens. Enough said
Denying the 646,000 law-abiding, tax paying residents of the District of Columbia full representation in both houses of Congress is in violation of Article 21 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States declares itself as the champion of democracy yet refuses to give DC residents their constitutional rights simply because they're not in a state. There is no reason why almost 700k American citizens should be denied full representation. The constitution is not an excuse because since 1789, the constitution underwent change 27 times. DC residents also cannot simply "move to a state" just for representation as they have jobs and lives in the District. Moving to another state, especially with today's economic climate is easier said than done; many DC residents (specifically in the poorer parts of the city) live below the poverty line, so "moving to a state" without causing further economic strain is not possible. Retrocession won't work because neither DC or Maryland want this. DC should not be treated as a colony; the founding fathers fought for taxation with representation.
D.C. Residents pay federal taxes, fight in America's wars, and obey laws. Anyone who says D.C. Residents should just "move to a state" clearly is not paying attention to the housing market and the economy. Saying "no" to D.C.'s voting rights is flat out wrong given how much D.C. Contributes to the United States. The Constitution should not be used as an excuse to block D.C.'s voting rights because the founding fathers knew the Constitution wasn't perfect, therefore the Constitution allows for "amendments" or changes.
To the nay-sayers: how would you feel if you didn't have a voting Representative in the house and two Senators? How would you feel if Congress was given ultimate authority over your state and (before January 1, 2014) controlled your budget, your tax dollars, and told you how you should spend it regardless if it harms you or not?
I think that D.C. residents shoudl definitely have representation in the Senate and the House. I think that it is only logical for people who live in the District of Columbia to have officials who represent them and their community. I think that they shoudn't be excluded just because they live in the capital.
Members of the Senate and the House are elected by their constituents in the states that they come from. Since Washington D.C. is not a state, it should not have representatives in the house and the senate. If someone deeply wanted to vote for a house member or a senator, then they could move to that state. Being a resident of D.C. is not something that people are forced to do and the rules are that representatives in congress come from states. Since D.C. is not a state, they don't get real representation. If somebody chooses to live there but feels that they are not being given the right to participate in democracy along with everyone else, they could move to a state where they would be allow to participate in congressional elections. Washington D.C. by definition is the nation's capital and our founding fathers specifically chose not to put it in any state so that there would never be favoritism or politics controlling the nation's capital.
No, DC residents should not have representation in the Senate and House, because all they would do is vote to give raises to government workers. Those who benefit from the government with its lavish salaries and handouts, should not be voting on what the rest of us have to pay in taxes to support them.
Washington D.C. is not a state. Only US states are represented in the house or senate. To give a single city representation in the federal government is wrong, especially the city where the federal government resides. It would probably give Washington D.C. power similar to that of a full fledged state in congress and the senate, and since it is also the city in which the senate and congress reside, it has a conflict of interest.