Adam Eidinger rolls a joint of medical marijuana. He is the chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign and also a daily user of marijuana, mainly to alleviate a painful arthritic condition called ulnar drift. (The Washington Post)
Congress has been setting its sights on Washington, D.C. in recent months. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) warned D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in February that she would violate federal law by allowing marijuana to become legal. A month later, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill a month later eliminating the District of Columbia’s gun control regulations and its authority to enact such regulations. And last week, the House, seeking to protect the religious convictions of local employers, passed a joint resolution to overturn a District law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of reproductive health decisions.
It might seem odd that Congress is paying so much attention to the laws of one city. But Congress’ concern with the District is nothing new. As my coauthors and I note in our book Washington 101, Congress’ intervention in the affairs of the nation’s capital is a regular occurrence, dating back at least to the 1830s.
There are three reasons why D.C. is a perennial target of Congress. First, it has considerable authority over the city. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia. And the Home Rule Act, which established local government in the capital, requires that Congress approve the city’s appropriations and gives it the power to overturn local laws within 30 days.
Second, Congress has little incentive not to intervene in D.C. affairs. Washingtonians who dislike it have no U.S. Senators to represent their interests, and they elect a single, non-voting delegate to the House. Outside of the city, few seem to find Congress’ interventions troubling.
Finally, and perhaps most important, targeting Washington’s laws allows legislators to take positions on issues. As David Mayhew noted in his famous book Congress: The Electoral Connection, position taking is a key tactic of incumbents seeking reelection. Lawmakers who are pushing back against D.C. aren’t having much luck in actually repealing city laws, but they have succeeded in publicizing conservative policy positions to voters.
The resolution eliminating the city’s discrimination law offers a classic illustration. The measure had no chance of being enacted, but as Representative Tim Meadows (R-NC) explained, it was still worth voting on because “I think it’s important to show the will of Congress.”
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who introduced a companion measure in the Senate, has demonstrated his conservative bone fides, which might also prove helpful in his presidential campaign. (Perhaps Senator Rubio, another presidential candidate, was thinking the same thing by introducing his gun rights bill.)
Bills and resolutions negating D.C. laws rarely pass. If Congress really wants to block the city’s laws, it can add riders to the District’s appropriations bill preventing their implementation, something it does quite often. But the result affects only those who live in the capital, not the constituents that actually vote for the members targeting D.C. laws. As Mayhew observed, this sort of legislation is commonly produced when members focus primarily on getting reelected.
To be fair, position taking isn’t always (or only) what motivates Congress’ interest in local matters. It may reflect the strong personal preferences of lawmakers themselves. Sometimes Washingtonians themselves request it: a number of Catholic institutions in D.C. wrote to Congress urging the anti-discrimination law be overturned.
Nonetheless, as long as reelection remains central to legislators – and federal statute allows them to intervene in local lawmaking – Washington, D.C. will continue to be a tempting target for Congress.
Matthew Green is an associate professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. His book Washington 101: An Introduction to the Nation’s Capital, written with Julie Yarwood, Laura Daughtery, and Maria Mazzenga, was published by Palgrave Macmillan Press.
