Is an amendment necessary?

If the Constitution already states that Congress shall "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, it would seem Congress has the power to bestow voting rights on the District without an amendment. An amendment, however, is desirable for embedding these equal rights in the guarantor of personal freedoms, the Constitution. While legislation is malleable and negatable, a Constitutional amendment is much less so, requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify. And there, of course, is the rub.

In 1978, Congress passed the DC Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment, which would have granted all requisite voting rights to DC. By 1985, however, when the amendment expired, only 16 of the required 38 states had ratified it. President Ronald Reagan was the first post-war president not to support DC voting rights, viewing the District as a "welfare child", and his lack of support likely contributed to states' failure to ratify.

An amendment would certainly solidify the rights due DC. But amending the Constitution is a formidable task, and said document already entrusts governance of the District to Congress. Thus, it is the duty of Congress to respect the fundamental principles of the United States and grant DC citizens their voting rights.