Government and Contemporary Issues of Washington

Unlike any other part of the United States, Washington lacks full political representation.

While its political structure has changed over time, the city has remained subordinate to the federal government.

This situation is sustained under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which states, “The Congress shall have power … to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district … as may by the cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government.”

The idea of exclusive jurisdiction solidified in 1783 when Congress, then meeting in Philadelphia, faced angry veterans of the American Revolution who demanded back pay.

When Pennsylvania authorities failed to intervene to protect the Congress, many members insisted that any permanent seat of government should be under congressional control.

From that virtually forgotten experience, Washington remains without direct representation in the national government that oversees much of its operation.

The Constitution, however, did not prohibit the establishment of a lower government body to deal with local affairs.

In 1802 Congress authorized an appointed mayor and an elected city council for Washington.

In 1820 it broadened the franchise and made the office of mayor subject to popular election.

In 1871 Congress substituted a largely appointed territorial government—although city residents still voted for a house of delegates—as an instrument to consolidate the cities of Washington and Georgetown with Washington County.

When the experiment generated costs that Congress found too expensive, it eliminated popular election in Washington in 1874 by placing local government under a three-person commission appointed by the president.

Initially this system was favorably received for replacing partisan politics with professional management. However, flaws of the commission became apparent over time.

In 30 investigations conducted between 1934 and 1941, Congress found that power and responsibility were poorly divided between commissioners and different federal agencies, and that political whim controlled most actions.

Starting in 1949 and lasting for more than a decade, the Senate voted repeatedly to grant Washington local elections. However, the House District Committee refused for more than 20 years to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

Finally in 1973, Congress authorized the popular election of a mayor and city council for Washington.

In 1974 the Home Rule Act, which established the mayor and city council, became law.

The act, though restoring popular elections, retained considerable power for Congress to review legislation and authorize Washington’s budget.

It also prohibited the city from taxing federal properties or income earned in the city by people who commuted to work from outside the district. These restrictions remain a cause of tension between city officials and Congress.

In the mid-1970s local activists started an effort to secure Washington’s independence.

They argued that the Constitution dictates only a maximum size for the federal district, not a minimum size.

Therefore, they suggested that the federal district shrink to the area between the White House and the Capitol and that the residential portion of the District of Columbia become a new state, New Columbia.

Congress, however, failed even to vote on the proposition until 1993, when the House of Representatives rejected the measure, 277-153.

Further efforts by city residents to secure representation in Congress were rebuffed when a three-judge panel ruled in 2000 that it had no means to remedy their exclusion.

Marion Barry dominated local Washington politics during the last quarter of the 20th century. He served as mayor all but four years from 1978 to early 1999.

During his early years in office, Barry established a reputation as an able administrator and a defender of home rule who was committed to solving the city’s social problems.

In later years, scandal touched his administration, and in 1990 he lost a bid for a council seat after he was arrested and convicted of smoking crack cocaine.

After serving six months in prison, he made a spectacular comeback, securing election first to city council in 1992 and then as mayor in 1994.

Barry’s return to power sparked immediate controversy. However, it soon became clear that the city faced an even greater crisis in a projected budget deficit of more than $700 million in 1995.

With the city unable to secure loans from the private sector to pay its debts, Congress intervened by passing the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.

This measure established a control board with significant powers, a move Congress justified on grounds that poor management and overstaffing had jeopardized the city’s credit.

Under terms of the act, the president appointed five people to the board to bring the city’s finances under control. Congress directed the control board to cut jobs.

Barry, however, refused to cooperate with the control board, and instead chose to stress the city’s needs.

He claimed that Washington’s problems derived more from inadequate revenues than high costs, and he urged the federal government to pay more toward Washington’s obligations.

He recommended that the federal government assume many of the costs of state functions borne by the city since 1974, but his proposal received no sympathy in Congress.

However, two years later, without input from the mayor, President Bill Clinton incorporated Barry’s approach in his proposed federal budget.

In 1997 the national government raised its share of Medicare and highway costs in the city, assumed responsibility for funding Washington’s pension plan, and took over operation of the District’s prison system.

In accepting these measures, Congress insisted on exercising greater influence in Washington. It empowered the control board to choose its own city manager and to extend its operational control over all but a small portion of daily operations.

Under the terms Congress set in establishing the control board, these powers were to revert to the city only after it achieved four balanced budgets in a row.

After the election of Anthony Williams, who replaced Barry as mayor in early 1999, Congress restored the authority for the city’s day-to-day management to the mayor and city council.

In 2001 the city government announced that it had balanced its fourth consecutive budget, and the control board ceded the rest of its powers back to the government.