The Twenty-Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote in presidential elections; therefore, the district was granted electors in the Electoral College. The granted number of electors, however, could not exceed the number of electors in the least populous state. Prior to the ratification of the amendment, citizens residing in the District of Columbia could only participate in presidential elections if they were registered to vote in one of the states.
The Citizen's Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia was an organization founded in 1926, which lobbied for the passage of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution. Theodore W. Noyes, a writer for the “Washington Evening Star”, helped found the Citizens' Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia and published a variety of articles in support of D.C. voting rights. After World War II, an obvious divide developed between those who supported representation for the District and those who did not. While the debate about District voting rights endured, comparisons were being drawn between the representation issue and the civil rights movement. Because the government had been making significant strides to eradicate segregation and reaffirm equality within the United States through Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the majority of the population in Washington D.C. was African American, granting the District of Columbia voting rights seemed fitting.
After being introduced by Tennessee Democratic Senator Estes Kefauver, amended by New York Republican Kenneth Keating and Florida Democrat Spessard Holland, and reconstructed by the House Judiciary Committee, Congress adopted the Twenty-Third Amendment. Subsequently, President Eisenhower, and presidential candidates Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy endorsed the amendment during the ratification campaign. The basis of support for the Twenty-Third Amendment was developed off of the American ideal of equality. Considering that residents in the District of Columbia were loyal citizens, required to pay taxes and serve in the military, supporters of the Twenty-Third Amendment believed that they deserved equal representation in the government. The basis of opposition for the Twenty-Third Amendment was that the District was not a state, so it should not be granted exclusively delegated state rights. Additionally, certain states were worried about the civil rights movement and how D.C. voting rights would give more power to a majority African American population.
The interpretation and understanding of the Twenty-Third Amendment has changed very little over time. Nevertheless, its passing has inspired movements for increased political representation in the District of Columbia and other United States territories. Attorney General of Guam v. United States was a ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that used the Twenty-Third Amendment to support the claim that residents of Guam, a territory of the United States, should have the right to vote in Presidential elections. In 1970 and 1973 Congress accepted the District’s pursuit for more autonomy by passing the District of Columbia Delegate Act and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The District of Columbia Delegate Act authorized voters in the District of Columbia to elect one non-voting delegate to represent them in the United States House of Representatives, and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act included the power to elect a Mayor and a Council. In 1978, Congress adopted “The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment,” which proposed that the District would be “treated as though it were a State”; the District would have been given voting seats in the House of Representatives and Senate if the proposal had not expired after the seven-year ratification period. Presently, the District of Columbia is not represented congressionally, but the ratification of the Twenty-Third Amendment still paved the way for the possibility of better representation for all United States territories.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment:
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states and Congress from levying a poll tax or other tax as a voting requirement in federal elections.
The United States government entered into the Reconstruction era following the Civil War in 1863, attempting to transform the southern states and ascertain the rights of former slaves. Once the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude," southern states manufactured new obstacles, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, to suppress black voter participation. The poll tax issue was overlooked by the federal government for many years. Although Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed his support for the abolition of poll taxes during his presidency, he did not pursue the matter any further because he needed the Southern Democrats to support his New Deal plan. The House made an effort to abolish the taxes in the early 1930’s by passing the 254-84 Bill; however, senior senators from the south were quick to stop the process. President Harry S. Truman even created the President’s Committee on Civil Rights to investigate matters concerning equal rights, including the poll tax, but the Cold War pushed those investigations aside. It wasn’t until John F. Kennedy became president that civil rights and the poll tax issue were given proper attention, and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was taken into consideration.
The basis of support for the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was that everyone deserved an equal opportunity to vote in federal elections, but there would be no infringement on state rights; the amendment only extended to federal elections and still permitted poll taxes in state and local elections. Evidence of the impact poll taxes had on Black voters was not so disproportionate to white voters, and most states had already abandoned poll taxes. The basis of opposition for the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was that voter qualifications were an area exclusively reserved to the states, and they didn’t want the federal government having the power to interfere in state electoral processes. Those opposed to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment were often racist, confederates who wanted poll taxes to suppress Black voter registration and turnout.
Ever since the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified, its legacy has lingered in litigation involving voting rights. As opposed to the Supreme Court cases, Breedlove v. Suttles and Butler v. Thompson, which affirmed the constitutionality of poll taxes, Harman v. Forssenius was the first case that upheld the Twenty-Fourth Amendment against a Virginia law defended by perceived loopholes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was henceforth created to remove potential loopholes and prevent racial discrimination in voting. Eventually, the ruling of 1966 Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections found poll taxes in all state and local elections to be prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause. While the Twenty-Fourth Amendment has had little direct impact since Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, it established the foundation for all contemporary lawsuits against voter restrictions.