The Early 20th Century
Racial politics aside, many white Washingtonians regarded their lack of representation as an afront. In 1908, Theodore Noyes inherited the editorship of the Evening Star from his father, Crosby. A longtime proponent of economic development and beautification in the District, Noyes saw value in the city having a voting member in Congress. Without such, residents were “defective and delinquent Americans” and could expect little more than minimal congressional support.
A desire for more control grew as a result of the federal government’s failure to meet its fiscal obligations to the city. Described as a “half and half” plan, during the nineteenth century, citizens had agreed to give up suffrage for financial security; the federal government promised to pay half of DC’s annual budget. By the late 1930s, the federal government was paying less than 15 percent of the municipal budget. With this in mind, Noyes formed the Citizens’ Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia (JCNRDC), which appealed for representation in Congress and voting in presidential elections, driving “the suffrage movement for the next two decades.”[9]
With the Star’s support, other white organizations came out in favor of the suffrage movement including the “voteless” League of Women Voters, the Federation of Citizens Associations, and the Board of Trade. In April 1938, an unofficial referendum was held, drawing nearly 100,000 voters. Black and white Washingtonians alike endorsed suffrage, though the former supported it at 95 percent compared to the latter at 80 percent. Unsurprisingly, the racial divide persisted, as most Black Washingtonians supported both congressional representation and home rule, but privileged the latter. Many white voters supported home rule as well, but elites like Noyes and the BOT opposed it. The Federation of Citizen Associations felt similarly. “An umbrella organization” notes historian Lauren Pearlman, the FCA “used the defense of property values to maintain residential segregation.” In general, the FCA opposed any changes to governance that threatened white middle-class control.[10]
Home Rule opponents suggested that Black rule would lead to fiscal disaster, much like Reconstruction when the city overspent and fell into debt with its development and beautification projects. “Stimulation of racial politics in the nation’s capitol,” the Washington Post’s Merlo Pusey wrote, “is not a pleasant prospect.”[11] Noyes argued that the city’s Black population contributed to a reluctance to grant it a congressional representative: “We have had a hard time getting this Congress to discriminate between national representation and the Negro dominating in local suffrage.”[12]