During the Revolutionary War, the battle cry of the American colonies was “No taxation without representation.” That ideal was incorporated into the American Constitution by way of a representative democracy in which leaders were elected by and represented the people.

This is true for any American citizen over age 18 — with the exception of convicted felons in some states — in all but one segment of the population: the residents of the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia has no senators and has only a nonvoting member of the House of Representatives. Historically, this has been because the Constitution states that representatives in the House shall be apportioned “among the several states.” As the district is not a state, it cannot have a representative.

This logic made sense in the 1780s. The district was created as the national capital so that no state could lay claim to it. The people who lived in the district were basically politicians, and they only lived there when they were there on political business.

But as time changed, trends changed. In 2007, the District of Columbia had an estimated population of 588,292, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That meant there were 588,292 people who had no representation in Congress.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the U.S. Congress controls the district’s operating and capital budget. Like most states, the district’s executive — the mayor — develops a budget and submits it to the legislature — the Council of the District of Columbia — for approval. However, unlike states, the district’s budget must also be approved by Congress as an appropriations bill.

In the past several years, there have been a few attempts to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. However, Republican majorities and a Republican president made that difficult.

Now, with a Democratic majority and a Democratic president, the possibility of passing the bill seemed imminent. But then Senate Republicans tacked on an amendment to eliminate the possibility of the district ever banning any type of firearms.

The matter of representation should never be politicized. It shakes the core of our foundations as a representative democracy. It questions our ideals of fairness and equality. And it questions the ability — or in some ways, even the right — of the district to handle its own affairs.

No senator would ever stand for an amendment to a bill that ever restricted a specific state’s right to make decisions for itself. A bill that targeted Arizona or Michigan or Georgia for something like this would not be stood for. Why should the district be any different?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution, but I also believe in the representative democracy that it created. It is unlikely that the framers would have imagined that the district would come to be like a state — but it is even more unlikely that they would have imagined that an entire party would want to block the right of that “state” to have representation in Congress.

Janne is a criminology and criminal justice graduate student and can be reached at janne.gaub@asu.edu.