D.C. Citizens Sue for Equal Rights

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Twenty Citizens of the District of Columbia, namely:

Lois E. (Lea) Adams,

Rev. Mr. Floyd H. Agostinelli,

Acie L. Byrd, Jr.,

Lawrence Alston Gray,

Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler,

Lawrence Benjamin Harris,

Richard Hebert,

Wimberly Higgs,

Bette J. Hoover,

Anise Jenkins,

Rahim Jenkins,

Marilyn Killingham,

Dujuan Ricardo (Rick) Malachi,

Lamont B. Mitchell,

Loree H. Murray,

Rev. Anita O'Brien-Russell,

Antoinette (Toni) Quick,

Sam Smith,

Manuel Uriarte,

Malcolm L. Wiseman, Jr.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States,

Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as The Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,

Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as The Sergeant At Arms of the U.S. House, and

The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,

Defendants

Case No. 1:98CV1665

Judge Louis F.Oberdorfer

filed June 30, 1998

three-judge district court requested

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, ask this honorable court to grant them relief from the actions of the Defendants, saying:

Jurisdiction

1. This is an action for declaratory judgements and injunctions to redress the deprivation of ights and privileges secured to the Plaintiffs by the fourth Clause of the Fifth Amendment (the Due Process Clause, incorporating equal protection guarantees) and by the first Clause of the Fourth Section of the Fourth Article (the Guarantee Clause) of the Constitution of the United States; jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 2201, and 2202.

Parties

2. Each Plaintiff is a private citizen suing in her or his personal capacity.

3. Each Plaintiff is a competent adult over the age of eighteen years of age.

4. Each Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.

5. Each Plaintiff is a permanent resident and domiciliary of the District of Columbia.

6. Each Plaintiff is a qualified voter in the District of Columbia.

7. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States is responsible for ratifying, approving, implementing, and enforcing Acts, Resolutions, or mandates of Congress, including those pertaining uniquely to the District of Columbia, which means pertaining to the place of residence and work of the Plaintiffs and affecting the lives and rights of the Plaintiffs.

8. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States is also charged to transmit to Congress the results of each decennial census of the population of the United States, specifying the number of Representatives in the United States

House of Representatives to be apportioned to each State, as a portion of the whole number of Representatives defined by Congress and insofar as Congressional legislation provides for numbers to any State in excess of the minimum number specified in the Second Section of Article One of the Constitution, which number is one.

9. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives is charged to certify to the chief executive of each State the number of Representatives apportioned to the State, as a portion of the whole number of Representatives defined by Congress and insofar as Congressional legislation provides for numbers to any State in excess of the minimum number specified in the Second Section of Article One of the Constitution, which number is one.

10. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives is also charged to keep a roll of all Representatives and Representatives-elect, comprised of those persons, and those persons only, who are elected in accordance with the laws of the United States, specifically in accordance with the apportionments to the States previously certified by the Clerk.

11. Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is charged to admit to the Hall of the House of Representatives only those Representatives upon the Clerk's Roll (and certain other staff and assistants) and to bar all other persons from admission during the sessions of the House.

12. Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (popularly referred to as the "Control Board") is an entity created by an Act of the Congress of the United States but is defined in the Act creating it as an entity of the government of the District of Columbia; it is comprised of five individuals appointed by the President of the United States.

General Factual Predicate to All Counts

13. By a series of acts taken between 1788 and 1791, the States of Maryland and Virginia ceded to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over an area amounting to 100 square miles straddling the Potomac River.

14. In 1791, Congress accepted the cessions and assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the area, since known as the District of Columbia and designated as the location of the permanent seat of the government of the United States.

15. From 1791 until 1801, despite the exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the District of Columbia, the residents of the District enjoyed all rights and privileges as citizens of Maryland and Virginia, respectively according to whether they lived north-east or south-west of the Potomac River, and of the United States.

16. Specifically, from 1791 until 1801, despite the exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the District of Columbia, the residents of the District of Columbia retained general rights to vote for state and national offices and to participate in the governments of their respective states and in the government of the United States, on the same terms and to the same degree as all other citizens of the respective states of Maryland and Virginia.

17. Specifically, from 1791 until 1801, despite the exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the District of Columbia, the residents of the District were apportioned to congressional districts and were apportioned to districts for statewide legislative offices in Maryland and Virginia, respectively.

18. In 1801, Congress passed acts which were taken to have the effect of terminating all rights of state citizenship for all residents of the District of Columbia.

19. In 1846, Congress reduced the size of the physical territory of the District of Columbia and retroceded to Virginia all that part of the original District of Columbia which lay south-west of the high tide line on the south-west shore of the Potomac River.

20. Retrocession of this area of the District of Columbia to Virginia had been specifically requested by the residents of the area beforehand and was ratified by them by popular vote, in order to be effective.

21. In 1871, Congress erected a form of government, loosely modeled on the governments erected previously for the continental "territories," to perform various functions for the entire remaining District of Columbia.

22. In 1874, Congress terminated this "territorial government" and replaced it with a "temporary" government of three commissioners appointed by the President of the United States.

23. In 1878, Congress made the "temporary" 1874 commission form of government permanent.

24. In 1895, Congress eliminated all remaining independent local governments and jurisdictional distinctions within the District of Columbia and placed all aspects of administration or governance of the entire District of Columbia, at all levels, under the rule of the appointed commissioners.

25. In 1973, Congress replaced the 1874 commission form of government with a government comprised of an elected Mayor and Council, supported by administrative agencies and offices (the so-called "home rule government").

26. When Congress created the home rule government, Congress retained for itself the power to alter or abolish the local government of the District at will, retained the power to veto the laws passed by the home rule government, retained the power to impose any law on the District which

Congress sees fit, retained the power to veto or amend the District's local governmental budget, retained the power to control the local courts (the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals), retained in federal hands the power to determine who will be judges in those courts, retained in federal hands (delegated to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia) the power to control prosecution of all serious misdemeanors and felonies, imposed certain fiscal burdens on the home rule government, and deprived the home rule government of the power to tax the income realized in the District by non-residents, among other things.

27. In 1995, Congress placed the home rule government under the supervision of Defendant Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (known locally as the "Control Board") and divested the home rule government of certain governmental functions.

28. In 1997, Congress divested the home rule government of almost all governmental functions remaining under control of the home rule government and placed them under the Control Board, leaving the home rule government with no actual power over almost all of the services, agencies, offices, and functions of local government in the District of Columbia.

29. Congress has also delegated to the Defendant Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Control Board) the responsibility of making recommendations to Congress what form of government Congress might or should impose over the District of Columbia, which means over the Plaintiffs, in the future.

30. Today, the Plaintiffs are not apportioned to congressional districts, they do not vote for any member of Congress, they do not vote for any member of any state government, they do not govern the jurisdiction of their residences themselves, they are not insulated from intrusions of Congressional power in matters properly within the exclusive competence of state governments by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, but they are subjected to whatever laws Congress chooses to impose and they are taxed by Congress to pay for these actions.

31. Since at least 1801, when the citizens of the District of Columbia first lost their political and civil rights, the citizens of the District, including these Plaintiffs, have repeatedly and in various ways petitioned the government of the United States and its officers and divisions for redress of these and other grievances.

32. Despite their repeated and various petitions and pleas, the citizens of the District of Columbia live under more pervasive, plenary power of Congress today than did their forebears in 1801, suffering even less freedom and democratic participation in autonomous local governments today than was the case in 1801.  

33. Since the Constitution was ratified, the Congress of the United States, by legislation, has acquired and defined territories which would become States, has admitted new States, has partitioned existing single States into two States, and has ceded to States sufficient jurisdiction over places called "federal enclaves," thereby increasing the populations of the States for the purposes of apportionment in the United States Congress.

34. Since the Constitution was ratified, the Congress of the United States, by legislation, has repeatedly defined, set, increased, and reset the number of Representatives comprising the United States House of Representatives in order to guarantee to the citizens of the United States representation in the United States House of Representatives under and in conformity with the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

35. The District of Columbia, presently, is neither a sovereign State nor a part of a sovereign State.

36. The entire area of the District of Columbia or the entire area of the District of Columbia other than the area defined in the United States Code and in the District of Columbia Code as the "National Capital Service Area" could, as matters of law and fact, be admitted to the United States as a sovereign State or could be unified with an existing sovereign State.

COUNT ONE:

The Defendants Violate the Plaintiffs' Rights to Equal Protection of the Laws

Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated by reference.

37. The Plaintiffs are entitled to all the rights in and protections of the Constitution, including the right to the equal protection of the law, also referred to as the right to equal treatment under the law.

38. Congress exercises plenary powers over places called "federal enclaves," which powers are identical in every way and degree to the plenary power Congress exercises over the District of Columbia.

39. Since the birth of the nation, Congress has assumed powers of legislation over more than five thousand federal enclaves of varying size throughout the United States.

40. According to the most recent counts, over one million citizens of the United States reside within these federal enclaves today.

41. By definition, virtually everyone living in a federal enclave hold or held some job with the federal government, exercises or exercised some role in the operations of the federal government, or is married to or is the child of someone who is or was directly involved with the federal government.

42. By definition, virtually all of the physical area of each federal enclave is devoted to and, directly or indirectly, used for the operations of the federal government.

43. For the first century and a half of the nation's life, almost all residents of the federal enclaves were subjected to the same denials of their rights as are suffered by the Plaintiffs.

44. Specifically, the residents of the federal enclaves were not apportioned to congressional districts, they did not vote for any member of Congress, they did not vote for any member of any state government, and they were excluded from all benefits of citizenship in a state, yet they were taxed by Congress to pay for these and other actions.

45. At the time the residents of the federal enclaves were subjected to these conditions, many hundreds of thousands of citizens of the United States resided within the enclaves where these conditions obtained.

46. Congress then took affirmative steps to attenuate if not terminate its exclusive jurisdiction or plenary power over all federal enclaves where any person resides.

47. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took, the citizens of every federal enclave are members of the political communities of the various states in which the federal enclaves are located.

48. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took, the citizens of every federal enclave are apportioned representation in Congress, resulting in the participation of the citizens who reside in the federal enclaves in all acts of Congress, through elected representatives.

49. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took, the citizens of every federal enclave are apportioned representation in state governments, resulting in the participation of the citizens who reside in the federal enclaves in all acts of their state governments, through representatives elected by them.

50. Congress took these actions, in part, specifically, to insure that the fundamental rights of the citizens of the enclaves to participate in all relevant political processes, to be represented in their governments under the terms of the Constitution of the United States and under the terms of the Constitutions of the various States, and to have full state and federal citizenship would be respected and fulfilled.

51. The actions which Congress took out of respect for the fundamental rights of the residents of the federal enclaves were taken to bring about a specific status which the residents of the federal enclaves had stated, specifically, that they wanted.

52. In no federal enclave has Congress imposed a unique, non-republican form of government.

53. In no federal enclave does Congress prevent the residents from electing representatives to the Congress of the United States.

54. In no federal enclave does Congress rule the lives of the residents directly and intimately, without the possibility of the intervening umbrella of state governments to exercise all non-federal governmental powers.

55. In no federal enclave does Congress fence the residents out of all other rights of state and national citizenship.

56. Congress retroceded the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River to the State of Virginia for most of the same reasons that Congress took steps to insure that the citizens of the federal enclaves would be treated as full citizens of the states adjacent to or within which the federal enclaves are located.

57. Since 1846, the former part of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River has been fully integrated into the political fabric of the State of Virginia.

58. Today, representation in Congress is apportioned to the citizens of that former part of the District of Columbia on the same basis as it is apportioned to all citizens who live within the federal enclaves, which is the same basis on which it is apportioned to all citizens of the United States other than those who reside within the District of Columbia.

59. Congress has not imposed on the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River any of the depredations which it imposes on the remaining portion of the District of Columbia lying north-east of the Potomac River.

60. No federal interest inheres in the place of residence of any Plaintiff, such that the federal government has any reason, much less a compelling reason, to deprive any Plaintiff of any rights, much less any fundamental rights, or to treat any Plaintiff differently than it has treated the residents of the federal enclaves or the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River, or to treat any Plaintiff differently than it treated the residents of the entire District of Columbia from 1791 until 1801.

61. No federal interest inheres in the person of any Plaintiff, such that the federal government has any reason, much less a compelling reason, to deprive any Plaintiff of any rights, much less any fundamental rights, or to treat any Plaintiff differently than it has treated the residents of the federal enclaves or of the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River, or to treat any Plaintiff differently than it treated the residents of the entire District of Columbia from 1791 until 1801.

62. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by excluding any Plaintiff from participation in the government of the United States through elected representatives.

63. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by subjecting any Plaintiff to unfettered governmental control by the Congress of the United States.

64. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by denying any Plaintiff the benefits of a state government insulated from Congressional interference in matters properly within the exclusive competence of state governments as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

65. It is within the power of Congress and Defendants Clinton, Carle, and Lovingood to treat the Plaintiffs in a manner identical to that manner with which these Defendants treat the citizens of the federal enclaves and the citizens of the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.

66. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever, much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any differently from the treatment accorded to all residents of the federal enclaves, the Plaintiffs' fundamental political and civil rights are denied, while the rights of the residents of the former federal enclaves are respected and they are treated as citizens of states and of the nation.

67. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever, much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any differently from the treatment accorded to all residents of the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River and now in the State of Virginia, the Plaintiffs' fundamental political and civil rights are denied, while the rights of the residents of the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River and now in the State of Virginia are respected and they are treated as citizens of the State of Virginia and of the nation.

68. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever, much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any differently from the treatment accorded to all other citizens of the United States, the Congress of the United States has fenced the residents of the District of Columbia out of all apportionments for representation in a congressional district or districts, although Congress has taken steps to include in congressional apportionments all formerly excluded citizens of the federal enclaves and all formerly excluded citizens of the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.

69. These actions of Congress violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

70. Specifically, the Congress of the United States, with the assistance of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as the President of the United States, has imposed Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority upon the District of Columbia, burdening the Plaintiffs, yet the Congress and the Defendant have not imposed a similar agent or instrumentality upon any federal enclave or upon the former part of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River, which actions of the Congress and all the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

71. Specifically, Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority is directed solely at the citizens of the District of Columbia, which includes the Plaintiffs, and is not directed at any resident of any federal enclave, preventing the Plaintiffs from electing representatives to Congress having full powers and rights under the Constitution, preventing them from enjoying the benefits of citizenship in a state, and trenching on other fundamental constitutional rights, which actions of the Defendant violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

72. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as the President of the United States has ratified, approved, implemented, and enforced Acts, Mandates, and resolutions of Congress which are directed solely at the citizens of the District of Columbia, which includes the Plaintiffs, and which are not directed at any resident of any federal enclave, preventing the Plaintiffs from electing representatives to Congress having full powers and rights under the Constitution, preventing them from enjoying the benefits of citizenship in a state, and trenching on other fundamental constitutional rights.

73. These actions of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as President of the United States violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

74. Specifically, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as the President of the United States has transmitted to Congress the results of decennial censuses of the population of the United States, specifying therewith the numbers of Representatives to be apportioned to each State.

75. Specifically, Defendant Clinton's calculations have accounted for and included the entire populations of all federal enclaves and of the former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River.

76. Specifically, such inclusions are for the purpose of apportionment of representation in the United States House of Representatives, under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, to the citizens of the federal enclaves and to the citizens of former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.

77. Specifically, Defendant Clinton's calculations have not accounted for and included the population of the District of Columbia for the purpose of apportionment, under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, of representation in the United States House of Representatives.

78. Specifically, these actions of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as President of the United States violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

79. Specifically, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives has certified to the chief executive of each State the number of Representatives apportioned to the State, which apportionments have included the populations of all federal enclaves and of the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.

80. Specifically, the apportionments certified by Defendant Carle have not accounted for and included the population of the District of Columbia and no representation under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States has been apportioned to the District of Columbia in the Defendant's certifications.

81. Specifically, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives has enrolled Representatives whose credentials show that they were elected in accordance with the laws of the United States, specifically in accordance with the apportionments to the States previously certified by the Defendant.

82. Specifically, Defendant Carle's Rolls include representatives elected from congressional districts which include the populations of all federal enclaves and from the congressional district including the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.

83. Specifically, Defendant Carle's enrollments have not included representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia, serving under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States or otherwise.

84. Specifically, these actions of Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

85. Specifically, Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives has admitted to the Hall of the House for sessions of the House Representatives on the Rolls of Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

86. Specifically, Defendant Livingood has enforced Rolls which have included Representatives elected from congressional districts which include the populations of all federal enclaves and from the congressional district including the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River, but which Rolls have not included representatives of the District of Columbia under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States.

87. Specifically, these actions of Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

COUNT TWO:

The Defendants Violate the Plaintiffs' Rights to Republican Forms of Government and Violate the Plaintiffs' Privileges to Rely upon the Defendants' Obligation to Guarantee to All Citizens Republican Forms of Government Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated by reference.

88. The Plaintiffs are entitled to all the rights and privileges in and protections of the Constitution, including the right to republican forms of government and including the privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

89. The Plaintiffs are entitled to other fundamental rights and privileges to participate in the political process, to be represented in government, to vote, to run for office, to have full state and federal citizenship, which rights and privileges are also inferred under the right to enjoy republican forms of government and under the privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

90. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the right to a state government insulated from Congressional interference in matters properly within the exclusive competence of state governments generally, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which right is inferred under the right to enjoy republican forms of government and under the privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

91. The home rule government (comprised of the Council of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the various administrative departments) does not constitute a republican form of government, because every action of the home rule government is subject to absolute review and veto by the Congress of the United States itself or by Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority acting as an administrative agent or instrumentality for the Congress of the United States of America and because the home rule government was created by an act of Congress and not by an autonomous act of the citizens of the District of Columbia and because the Congress of the United States holds the exclusive power to alter or abolish the home rule government at any time.

92. The Congress of the United States, when it exercises any power of government over or concerning the District of Columbia, is not a republican form of government, because the Congress of the United States is not elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

93. The Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority is not a republican form of government because it was not elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia, because it is not subject to their control, and because it was created by the Congress of the United States and is subject always to the power and control of the Congress of the United States.

94. Defendants William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as the President of the United States, Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives are all officers and agents of the government of the United States, since their powers arises directly from the Constitution of the United States or from Acts of Congress under powers presumed to arise directly from the Constitution.

95. Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority is an agent or instrumentality of the federal government, since it was created by an Act of Congress under powers purported to arise from the Constitution of the United States and all power it exercises follows only from Acts of Congress.

96. Therefore, all Defendants are obligated to guarantee to the Plaintiffs republican forms of government.

97. It is within the powers of the Congress and Defendants Clinton, Carle, Lovingood, and District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority to take steps to guarantee republican forms of government to the Plaintiffs.

98. All Defendants, however, in their various offices and through their enforcement of or compliance with various Acts, Resolutions, or mandates of Congress and by acts of their own in their official capacities, actively prevent institution of any republican form of government specifically for or over the District of Columbia.

99. A republican form of government specifically for or over the District of Columbia would be a government elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia, including by the Plaintiffs, as the citizens of a state or as the citizens of a portion of a state.

100. All Defendants, in their various offices and through their enforcement of or compliance with various Acts, Resolutions, or mandates of Congress and by acts of their own in their official capacities, actively prevent participation of the citizens of the District of Columbia, including the Plaintiffs, in the Congress of the United States by elected representatives, serving under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States.

101. The Plaintiffs could participate in the Congress of the United States by elected representatives, serving under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, if the District of Columbia were a state or a part of a state.

102. If the Plaintiffs participated in the Congress of the United States by elected representatives, the Congress of the United States would be, in relation to the District of Columbia, republican form of government.

103. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress, generally, violate the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America.

104. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress, generally, violate the Plaintiffs'privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

105. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance and efforts of the Defendants, has not apportioned representation in Congress to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

106. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance and efforts of the Defendants and others, could apportion to the citizens of the District of Columbia, including the Plaintiffs, representation in the Congress of the United States under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States if the District of Columbia were a sovereign state or a part of a sovereign state.

107. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress violate the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America.

108. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress violate the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

109. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance and efforts of the Defendants, has prevented the Plaintiffs from enjoying the benefits of a state government, insulated from Congressional interference in matters of local concern by virtue of the enumerations of power in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution and as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

110. These actions of Congress and of the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America.

111. These actions of Congress and of the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

112. Specifically, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as the President of the United States has ratified, approved, implemented, and enforced Acts, Mandates, and resolutions of Congress, which are antithetical to the principles of a republican form of government and all of which acts directly oppose and prevent the Plaintiffs from enjoying republican forms of government.

113. Specifically, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States has transmitted to the Congress the results of decennial censuses of the population of the United States, including the numbers of Representatives to be apportioned to each State, which apportionments have not included apportionments of representation to the District of Columbia under the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

114. Specifically, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives has certified to the chief executive of each State the number of Representatives apportioned to the State, which apportionments have not included apportionments of representation to the District of Columbia under the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

115. Specifically, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives has enrolled Representatives whose credentials show that they were elected in accordance with the laws of the United States, but the Defendant's Rolls have not included representatives of the District of Columbia under the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

116. Specifically, Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives has admitted Representatives on the Rolls of Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, which Rolls have not included representatives of the District of Columbia under the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

117. These specific actions of the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America.

118. These specific actions of the Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government.

Relief Sought

Therefore, in light of the facts stated herein and because the Plaintiffs have no alternative avenue for relief from these injuries than through this court, the Plaintiffs respectfully ask this honorable Court to set this matter for trial before a jury of the Plaintiffs' peers, and thereupon:

A. To issue declaratory judgments that:

1. The Plaintiffs and all citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to the equal protection of the laws, also expressed as the right to stand on an equal footing with all other citizens of the United States, and

2. The Plaintiffs and all citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to enjoy republican forms of government, such as are inherent in a federal system, which means that:

a. The citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to be apportioned to a congressional district or districts, such that they will participate in the government of the United States through duly elected representatives to the United States House of Representatives and therefore as well through duly elected representatives to the United States Senate, having powers and privileges identical to those of all other members of Congress, and that

b. The citizens of the District have the right to participate through duly elected representatives in a state government insulated from Congressional interference in matters properly within the exclusive competence of state governments, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and

3. The Plaintiffs and all citizens of the District of Columbia have the privilege of relying upon the obligation of all branches, officers, agents, and instrumentalities of the federal government to guarantee republican forms of government to them, which obligation "to guarantee" means taking overt steps forthwith to enable, facilitate, and apportion representation in such governments;

B. To issue further declaratory judgments that:

1. Imposition of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the imposition by the Congress of the United States of other instrumentalities and actions uniquely concerning the District of Columbia violates the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the federal enclaves, by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the former portion of the District south-west of the Potomac River and now in Virginia, and by treating the residents of the District of Columbia differently than the residents of the United States outside the District of Columbia, and

2. The failure of the Congress of the United States to apportion the citizens of the District of Columbia to a congressional district or districts, in accord with their expressed wishes and under the terms of Section Two of Article One and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, after taking steps to insure that the citizens of the federal enclaves and the citizens of the former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River have been apportioned to congressional districts, violates the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution, and

3. Imposition of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the imposition by the Congress of the United States of other instrumentalities and actions uniquely concerning the District of Columbia violates the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America and violates the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government, and

4. The failure of the Congress of the United States to take steps to insure that the citizens of the District of Columbia will be apportioned to congressional districts in accord with their expressed wishes violates the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America and violates the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of government;

C. To issue mandatory and perpetual injunctions directed to and with the effect that:

1a. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States and his successors and assigns shall not approve, ratify, implement, or enforce any Act, Resolution, or mandate of Congress (1) which applies to the District of Columbia and (2) which does not immediately apply in real terms (determined by whether any action, behavior, or expenditure of money is changed or affected) to the entire United States, and (3) which has not been previously ratified by the citizens of the District of Columbia by direct vote or by vote of their then elected representatives in the interim home rule government, effective until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia,

1b. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official capacity as The President of the United States and his successors and assigns shall not transmit to the Congress, on the basis of the decennial census or other enumeration, any number of Representatives to be apportioned to each State other than the minimum number of Representatives to which each State is entitled under Section Two of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, which number is one, until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia,

2a. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives shall not certify to any State any number of Representatives apportioned to the State other than the minimum number of Representatives to which each State is entitled under Section Two of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, which number is one, until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia,

2b. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives shall not enroll as members of the House of Representatives any more than the minimum number of Representatives to which each State is entitled under Section Two of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, which number is one member per State, until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia,

3. Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives shall not admit to the Hall of the House of Representatives for sessions of the House any more than the minimum number of Representatives to which each State is entitled under Section Two of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, which number is one member per State, until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in the United States Code on the date this suite was filed) is admitted as a sovereign State on equal footing with all other sovereign States of the United States of America or until such time as the District of Columbia (or all the District of Columbia other than the National Capital Service Area as defined in federal law on the date this suite was filed) is unified with a previously-existing sovereign State of the United States of America, on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions of that State, the choice among these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia;

4. The Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority shall take no further action or enter any further orders or directives concerning the District of Columbia, shall surrender all records to the government created by the Home Rule Act, shall offer to convey to the home rule government the contracts and services of all persons employed or contracted for services by the Defendant, and shall disband itself, leaving the government of the District of Columbia to the home rule government serving as an interim government of the District of Columbia to facilitate transition of the District of Columbia to the status of sovereign State or to unification with an existing sovereign State, the choice between these alternatives to be solely decided by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

D. To award to the Plaintiffs all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of this suit; and

E. To issue such other, additional relief as appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

George S. LaRoche,

counsel for all Plaintiffs