A Primer on Congress' Relationship with the District of Columbia

If you happen to have a chance, read this week's feature article in the Washington City Paper about Representative Connie Morella. It serves as an introduction to the peculiar idiosyncrasies of DC politics created by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. In particular, this passage...
[The Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.

Through much of DC history, there was little in what you can call "home rule". Currently, DC has a limited amount of home rule. The city budget has to be approved by Congress, which gives them too much opportunity to place controversial riders and line items into the budget, and to oppose decisions made by the city council.
When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he eyed the District as a laboratory for Republican ideas. He tried to force the city to allow school vouchers, and he and his colleagues prevented it from authorizing needle-exchange programs for drug addicts, adoption by gay parents, and domestic partnerships.

Ernest J. Istook, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, clearly tried to impose his ideological agenda on the District. As chair of the House D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee from 1998 to 2000, Istook made it impossible for the District to make marijuana available for medical reasons, fund abortions, or require health-insurance companies to cover birth-control prescriptions. He fostered the growth of charter schools in D.C. and almost unraveled the city's gun laws.

Neither Gingrich nor Istook are accountable to DC's populace, as they were elected by the citizens in Georgia and Oklahoma, respectively. Understandably, most residents don't care for this arrangement. I'll get more into this later...