{ "id": "R40555", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R40555", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "date": "2022-03-21", "title": "Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "id": "R40555_10_2022-03-21", "retrieved": "2022-04-25T04:03:44.052900", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2022-03-21_R40555_8e0dd7eb52c4cba6a8a5bfc25671222182b69991.pdf", "sha1": "8e0dd7eb52c4cba6a8a5bfc25671222182b69991", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40555/10", "format": "PDF" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-03-21_R40555_8e0dd7eb52c4cba6a8a5bfc25671222182b69991.html" } ], "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40555", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "active": true }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 444545, "date": "2015-08-25", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:31:19.594766", "title": "Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status", "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nR40555\nSummary\nDelegates, representing territories that had not yet achieved statehood, have served in the House since the late 1700s. In the 20th century, the concept of delegate grew to include representation of territories where the United States exercises some degree of control but were not expected to become states.\nIn the 114th Congress, the U.S. insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the federal municipality of the District of Columbia are each represented in Congress by a delegate to the House of Representatives. In addition, Puerto Rico is represented by a resident commissioner, whose position is treated the same as a delegate.\nThis report provides historical background on the development of the position of delegate to Congress and on the rights of a delegate once seated.\nThe Constitution makes no provision for territorial representation, and early laws providing for territorial delegates to Congress did not specify the duties, privileges, and obligations of these representatives. It was left to the House and the delegates themselves to define their role. On January 13, 1795, the House took an important step toward establishing the functions of delegates when it appointed James White, the first territorial representative, to membership on a select committee. In subsequent years, delegates continued to serve on select committees as well as on conference committees. The first assignment of a delegate to standing committee occurred under a House rule of 1871, which gave delegates places as additional members on two standing committees. In these committees, the delegates exercised the same powers and privileges as they did in the House; that is, they could debate but not vote.\nIn the 1970s, delegates gained the right to be elected to standing committees (in the same manner as Members of the House) and to exercise in those committees the same powers and privileges as Members of the House, including the right to vote. Today, delegates enjoy powers, rights, and responsibilities identical, in most respects, to those of House Members from the states. Like these Members, delegates can speak, introduce bills and resolutions, and offer amendments on the House floor; they can speak, offer amendments, and vote in House committees. Under the rules for the 114th Congress, delegates may not vote when the House is meeting as the Committee of the Whole nor when the House is operating as the House of Representatives.\nThis report will be updated as events warrant.\nContents\nIntroduction\t1\nEvolution of Territorial Delegates\t1\nNorthwest Ordinance\t1\nFirst Delegate\t2\nUnincorporated Territories\t4\nDelegates\u2019 Rights and Responsibilities\t6\nCommittee Assignments and Voting\t6\nCommittee of the Whole Voting Rights\t9\n\nTables\nTable 1. Statutes Providing for Territorial Representation in Congress\t10\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t12\nAcknowledgments\t12\n\nIntroduction\nThe office of territorial delegate predates the Constitution, having been created by the Continental Congress through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Constitution itself is silent on the issue of territorial representation, but this statutory authority was extended under the Constitution, and territorial delegates have been a regular part of congressional operations since. Through most of the 19th century, territorial delegates represented areas that were ultimately on the way to statehood.\nWith U.S. acquisition of overseas territories following the 1898 Spanish-American War, however, Congress created the post of resident commissioner to represent those areas that had, by treaty or law, a different relationship to the federal government. Congress used the office of resident commissioner to permit representation in the House in only two instances. The Philippine Islands were represented by two resident commissioners until independence was declared in 1946. Puerto Rico has been represented by a single resident commissioner since 1902.\nFollowing the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union in 1959, Puerto Rico was left as the only territory represented in Congress. Beginning in the 1970s, however, Congress returned to the concept of delegate to provide representation to other territories and the District of Columbia.\nIn the 114th Congress, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia are each represented in Congress by a delegate to the House of Representatives. The delegates enjoy many, but not all, of the powers and privileges of House Members from the states.\nEvolution of Territorial Delegates\nNorthwest Ordinance\nThe office of delegate\u2014sometimes called \u201cnonvoting delegate\u201d\u2014dates to the late 1700s, when territories bound for statehood were granted congressional representation. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was enacted under the Articles of Confederation in order to establish a government for the territory northwest of the Ohio River, provided for a territorial delegate. Earlier, the Ordinance of 1784 had made provision for territorial representation in Congress, but it had never been put into effect.\nFollowing ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first Congress reenacted the Northwest Ordinance. The ordinance specified that the government of the Northwest Territory would initially consist of a governor and other officials appointed by Congress. According to Section 9, once the free adult male population in the district reached 5,000, qualified voters would be able to elect representatives from their counties or townships to a house of representatives. This territorial house, together with an appointed legislative council, would elect a delegate to Congress. As stated in Section 12 of the Northwest Ordinance:\nAs soon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, the Council and house assembled in one room, shall have authority by joint ballot to elect a Delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting, during this temporary Government.\nThe delegate\u2019s duties, privileges, and obligations were otherwise left unspecified.\nFirst Delegate\nIn 1790, Congress extended all the privileges authorized in the Northwest Ordinance to the inhabitants of the territory south of the Ohio River and provided that \u201cthe government of the said territory south of the Ohio, shall be similar to that which is now exercised in the territory northwest of the Ohio.\u201d\nFour years later, the territory south of the Ohio River sent the first territorial delegate to Congress. On November 11, 1794, James White presented his application to the House of Representatives for seating in the Third Congress. A House committee reported White\u2019s application favorably and submitted a resolution to admit him, touching off a wide-ranging discussion on the House floor about the delegate\u2019s proper role.\nAn immediate question arose as the House considered the issue: Should the delegate serve in the House or in the Senate? The Northwest Ordinance, which had been enacted by the unicameral Congress under the Articles of Confederation, had only specified a \u201cseat in Congress.\u201d Some Members of Congress argued that the proper place for Delegate White was the Senate since his method of election, by the territorial legislature, was similar to that of Senators. Others suggested that perhaps White should sit in both chambers. Proposals for seeking Senate concurrence in the matter of admitting Delegate White and for confining his right of debate to territorial matters were rejected. On November 18, 1794, the House approved the resolution to admit Delegate White to a nonvoting seat in that body. At least one delegate has served in every Congress since, with the single exception of the Fifth Congress (1797-1799).\nHouse floor debate surrounding Delegate White\u2019s taking the oath further revealed House Members\u2019 various perceptions of his status. Some Members believed that White should be required to take the oath. Representative James Madison disagreed:\nThe proper definition of Mr. White is to be found in the Laws and Rules of the Constitution. He is not a member of Congress, therefore, and so cannot be directed to take an oath, unless he chooses to do it voluntarily.\nDescribing Delegate White as \u201cno more than an Envoy to Congress,\u201d Representative William Smith maintained that it would be \u201cvery improper to call on this gentlemen to take such an oath.\u201d He characterized White as \u201cnot a Representative from, but an Officer deputed by the people of the Western Territory.\u201d In making the case that it \u201cwould be wrong to accept his oath,\u201d Representative Jonathan Dayton emphasized White\u2019s lack of voting power: \u201cHe is not a member. He cannot vote, which is the essential part.\u201d Representative Dayton compared Delegate White\u2019s influence in the House to that of a printer who \u201cmay be said to argue and influence, when he comes to this House, takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers.\u201d\nUltimately, the House decided that since White was not a Member, he was not required to take the oath. The decision not to administer the oath to Delegate White, however, did not become precedential. All delegates after White have taken the oath.\nCongress also granted, by law, to White the same franking privileges and compensation as Members of the House, and thus the White case did establish several precedents for the treatment of future delegates. In 1802, Congress passed legislation that extended the franking privilege to, and provided for the compensation of, \u201cany person admitted, or who may hereafter be admitted to take a seat in Congress, as a delegate.\u201d Like White, all future delegates would sit in the House. This practice was written into law in 1817. The law stated, in part:\n[S]uch delegate shall be elected every second year, for the same term of two years for which members of the house of representatives of the United States are elected; and in that house each of the said delegates shall have a seat with a right of debating, but not of voting.\nSubsequent statutes authorizing delegates also specified service in the House.\nThe question of what constituted a territory was raised in conjunction with the acquisition and control of Alaska. While the United States signed the treaty purchasing the land later known as Alaska in 1867, it was not until 1884 that Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation creating a form of government for the area. Benjamin Harrison, then a Senator from Indiana and later the 23rd President of the United States, managed the bill on the Senate floor and noted that Congress was intentionally not establishing a full territorial government for Alaska. Because of the small population in the area, there was not support for establishing a territorial government of Alaska, he said. The bill explicitly barred the seating of a delegate from Alaska.\nI want to say to the Senate that we are attempting here some legislation that is sui generis in some respects in the organization of this great Territory of Alaska. It was not believed that we should confer upon the few people residing there a full territorial organization. We have described the Territory as a civil district and have organized it for a government simple in form.... We have made it simple and inexpensive because we supposed it would better meet the views of those who feel the necessity for some form of government for Alaska, but do not believe we should go to the expense of a full Territorial administration.\nFrom the 49th Congress forward, bills were introduced regularly to grant Alaska a delegate, and in 1906, in the 59th Congress, Congress enacted legislation to do so.\nCongress enacted legislation in 1900 creating a territorial government for the Hawaiian Islands, which included a provision creating a delegate from Hawaii. There was no floor debate in either the House or the Senate on including the delegate provision in the bill.\nUnincorporated Territories\nAfter the U.S. acquisition of overseas territories following the 1898 Spanish-American War, the Supreme Court put forth a new concept of territorial status. In a series of cases known as the Insular Cases (1901-1922), the Court distinguished between \u201cincorporated\u201d and \u201cunincorporated\u201d territories. Incorporated territories were considered integral parts of the United States to which all relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution applied. They were understood to be bound for eventual statehood. The territories acquired during the Spanish-American War were considered unincorporated, not destined for statehood, and as such, only the \u201cfundamental\u201d parts of the Constitution applied of their own force. The political status of unincorporated territories, the Court said, was a matter for Congress to determine by legislation.\nCongress did grant representation to two of the territories acquired from Spain\u2014Puerto Rico and the Philippines. It did so, however, in a way that distinguished their situation from that of statehood-bound territories. Rather than authorizing delegates, Congress provided for resident commissioners to the United States from Puerto Rico and the Philippines who were to be entitled to \u201cofficial recognition as such by all departments.\u201d According to political scientist Abraham Holtzman:\n[N]o reference to Congress or the House of Representatives was made in the authorizing statutes. Apparently, it was Congress\u2019s intent that the mandate of these representatives be broader than service in the U.S. legislature.... This suggests a role for resident commissioners more akin to that of a foreign diplomat than that of a legislator. Nevertheless, the representatives from these two territories did serve in the House.\nThe resident commissioners from Puerto Rico and the Philippines did not initially enjoy the same privileges as the prior non-voting delegates, and they were not even allowed on the House floor. In 1902 and 1908, respectively, the House of Representatives granted them the right to the floor but not the right to speak. In 1904, the Puerto Rican resident commissioner was given the \u201csame powers and privileges as to committee service and in the House as are possessed by Delegates\u201d and was deemed \u201ccompetent to serve on the Committee on Insular Affairs as an additional member.\u201d The resident commissioners from the Philippines, however, were never permitted to serve on standing committees.\nThe posts of resident commissioners differed from those of delegates in other significant ways. Initially, the Philippines, owing to its substantially larger population and dispersed land mass, was authorized two resident commissioners who served for three-year terms. It was not until the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, setting a timetable leading to the ultimate independence of the Philippines, that the second resident commissioner position was abolished. The resident commissioner from Puerto Rico was initially chosen for a two-year term, but in 1917, Congress, at the initiative of the Puerto Rican government, extended it to four years beginning with the election of 1920.\nFor 11 years following the admission of Hawaii to the Union in 1959, the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico was the only territorial representative serving in Congress. Then, in 1970, the District of Columbia was authorized to elect a delegate. The delegates\u2019 ranks grew with the authorization of congressional representation for the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1972. And through further amendment of House rules, \u201ceach Delegate to the House\u201d was given the same committee assignment rights and committee powers and privileges as Members of the House. In 1978, the territory of American Samoa likewise gained the right to send a delegate to the House. According to the authorizing statute:\nUntil the Rules of the House of Representatives are amended to provide otherwise, the Delegate from American Samoa ... shall be entitled to whatever privileges and immunities that are, or hereinafter may be, granted to the nonvoting Delegate from the Territory of Guam.\nSimilar language was used again in the 110th Congress to authorize the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to send a delegate to Congress, beginning with the 111th Congress.\nDelegates\u2019 Rights and Responsibilities\nSince the first delegate was sent to Congress, the House has struggled with the role delegates should play. Some Members, noting that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, requires that the House be made up of representatives \u201cchosen every second Year by the People of the several States,\u201d have expressed concerns that allowing delegates to have the same rights and responsibilities as Members would be unconstitutional. Because delegates, by definition, do not represent states, Members have on several occasions debated what rights such delegates should exercise in the House.\nOne example of this debate is the variation in the role delegates have been allowed to play in committees. For significant periods, delegates were not appointed to standing committees and could not vote during committee consideration of measures or matters even on those committees where they were permitted to serve. Which committees delegates could serve on, and their rights on those committees, have been debated periodically in Congress over the last 200 years. This debate also spread to questions about whether delegates could vote while the House was acting as the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, a parliamentary device used by the House to facilitate debate and amendment of legislation. That question has been hotly contested in the House since the 103rd Congress.\nCurrently, delegates enjoy powers, rights, and responsibilities identical, in many respects, to those of House Members from the states. Delegates can speak and introduce bills and resolutions on the floor of the House, offer amendments and most motions on the House floor, and speak and vote in House committees. Delegates are not, however, Members of the House. They cannot vote on the House floor; consequently, they cannot offer motions to reconsider a vote during floor debate, and they are not counted for quorum purposes in the House. Delegates are currently not permitted to vote in or preside over either the Committee of the Whole or the House. \nCommittee Assignments and Voting\nThe House began to define the functions of delegates when, on January 13, 1795, it appointed White to serve as a member of a select committee to investigate better means of promulgating the laws of the United States. During several subsequent Congresses, the House continued the practice of allowing delegates to serve on select committees. William Henry Harrison, the first delegate to represent the Northwest Territory (and later, the ninth President of the United States), served on a number of select committees\u2014some of which had been created at his initiative\u2014that addressed issues such as public land laws and the judiciary in the territories. According to historians, in December 1799, Harrison became the first delegate to chair a select committee. An active participant in House debates, Delegate Harrison likewise served as a House conferee in disputes with the Senate.\nThe first regular assignment of a delegate to standing committee occurred under a House rule adopted in December 1871. The rule directed the Speaker of the House to appoint a delegate as an additional member of the Committee on the Territories and to appoint the DC delegate as an additional member of the Committee for the District of Columbia. Additional committee assignments were authorized in 1876, 1880, and 1887. Describing the concurrent development of the delegates\u2019 non-legislative role, historian Earl S. Pomeroy wrote:\nThe territorial delegate increased in stature appreciably between 1861 and 1890. Without the formal powers of a congressman, he acquired more of a congressman\u2019s influence and general functions. He was disseminator of information, lobbyist, agent of territorial officers, of the territorial legislature, and of his constituency, self-constituted dispenser of patronage. He interceded at times in almost every process of control over the territories, and generally no one challenged his right to intercede.\nAlong with the right to sit on a standing committee, the House has also debated what rights delegates could exercise once on the committees. Historians differ on whether delegates were allowed to vote in committees prior to the early 1970s. One account states that as \u201cadditional members\u201d of standing committees from 1871 through 1971, delegates did not have the right to vote in committee.\nSome evidence, however, suggests that delegates were allowed to vote in committee in an earlier period. According to a September 3, 1841, report of the Committee of Elections:\nWith the single exception of voting, the Delegate enjoys every other privilege and exercises every other right of a Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or special committee and vote on the business before said committees, and he may thus exercise an important influence on those initiatory proceedings by which business is prepared for the action of the House. He is also required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.\nEven if the delegates at one point had that right, they clearly did not have it in the 1880s. On February 23, 1884, a proposition was made in the House that delegates be allowed to vote in committee. The proposition was referred to the Committee on Rules, but no action was taken.\nThe right of delegates to vote in committee resurfaced as an issue in the 1930s. After a lengthy investigation, a House committee reported that neither the Constitution nor any statutes supported such a committee vote. Although a House rule provided for the appointment of territorial delegates as additional members on certain committees, the report noted that \u201cthe House could not elect to one of its standing committees a person not a Member of the House.\u201d According to the report:\nThe designation \u201cadditional member\u201d applied to a Delegate clearly indicates the character of the assignment. Expressly the Delegate shall exercise in the committee ... the same powers and privileges as in the House, to wit, the \u201cright of debating, but not the right of voting.\u201d\nIn the 1970s, the system of territorial representation in Congress underwent significant change as more territories were granted delegates and as delegates were given increased powers. In 1970, Congress enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act, which contained a provision to amend the House rule on delegates to read:\nThe Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico shall be elected to serve on standing committees in the same manner as Members of the House and shall possess in such committees the same powers and privileges as the other Members.\nThe provision was offered in a floor amendment by Puerto Rico\u2019s Resident Commissioner Jorge Cordova.\nMy amendment would abolish this privilege [service on a committee as an \u201cadditional member\u201d]. It would provide for the election of the Resident Commissioner to standing committees in the same manner as Members of the House are elected. This would mean, in effect, that the Resident Commissioner may be fortunate to secure election to one of the three committees on which he now serves. But my amendment would also provide that the Resident Commissioner have the same rights in committee as other members, which means, of course, that he would have the right to vote within the committee.\nRepresentative Thomas S. Foley, who later served as Speaker of the House, supported the amendment, claiming that the grant of voting rights in committee to delegates was within the power of the House.\nThe committees of the House of Representatives are creatures of the House of Representatives. They can be extinguished at will and created at will. It does not even require concurrence of the other body when we take such an action. Depriving members of the right to vote in a committee is fully within the power of the House, by abolishing the committee. Giving them additional rights to vote is within the power of the House by creating a new committee.... Nothing that the Resident Commissioner could do in a committee vote could become a final decision unless a majority of the elected Members of Congress supported his position. However, in the standing committee itself I think that the Member from Puerto Rico should have a vote. I think the House has the constitutional authority to give him a vote in that limited area.\nThe amendment was opposed by Representative B. F. Sisk, the floor manager of the bill and a senior member of the House Rules Committee. Sisk asked rhetorically whether the Cordova amendment \u201cwould be interpreted so that he would be entitled to vote in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.\u201d In response, sometime later, Cordova observed that \u201cThe amendment which I have offered refers expressly to the standing committees. I believe the Committee of the Whole House is not a standing committee.\u201d The Cordova amendment was agreed to by voice vote.\nIn 1971, the House rewrote its rules according the rights in committee set forth in the Legislative Reorganization Act to the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico as well as to the newly authorized DC delegate. In 1973, the House again changed its rules to provide for the election of all delegates to the House to standing committees, reflecting the creation of new delegate positions from American Samoa and Guam in 1972.\nCommittee of the Whole Voting Rights\nSince at least the 103rd Congress, there has been debate in the House on whether delegates should vote when the House is acting as the Committee of the Whole. Delegates were first granted this right during the 103rd Congress, and it has changed several times as majority party control of the House has changed. Delegates were permitted to vote in the Committee of the Whole in the 103rd Congress, the 110th Congress, and the 111th Congress. The House in the 114th Congress does not allow floor votes by delegates.\nIn the 103rd, 110th, and 111th Congresses, House rules also provided that, if the votes of the delegates were decisive\u2014that is, if the result of the vote would have changed but for the voting of the delegates\u2014then the Committee of the Whole would immediately rise, and the House itself, where delegates may not vote, would vote on the question. Once the question was settled, the Committee of the Whole would resume its work.\nFollowing initial adoption of the rule allowing delegates to vote in Committee of the Whole in 1993, a group of House Members filed a lawsuit challenging the change. They argued that the rule change violated Article I of the Constitution by granting legislative power to delegates who were not \u201cMembers [of the House of Representatives] chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.\u201d They took issue with the characterization of the Committee of the Whole as a committee and maintained, instead, that it was tantamount to the full House. In their complaint, the plaintiffs stated:\n[N]on-member voting in the Committee of the Whole impairs and dilutes the constitutional rights of the plaintiff-Representatives, both as Members of the House and as voters who enjoy the right to full, fair and proportionate representation in the House of Representatives.\nThey further alleged that the House did not have the authority to unilaterally expand the powers of the delegates.\nThe House defendants countered that the House of Representatives was constitutionally empowered to \u201cdetermine the Rules of its Proceedings.\u201d They argued that the Committee of the Whole, like other congressional committees, was an advisory body created by the House and was not subject to the requirements in Article I. They rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 contention that the Committee of the Whole effectively controlled action in the House, citing both the preliminary nature of its proceedings and the provision for an automatic revote in cases in which delegate votes were decisive.\nIn March 1993, Judge Harold H. Greene of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the changes to the House rules. As his opinion made clear, however, he did so only because of the automatic revote provision. \u201cIf the only action of the House of Representatives had been to grant to the Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico the authority to vote in the Committee of the Whole,\u201d he wrote, \u201cits action would have been plainly unconstitutional.\u201d His opinion further stated:\n[W]hile the action the House took on January 5, 1993 undoubtedly gave the Delegates greater stature and prestige both in Congress and in their home districts, it did not enhance their right to vote on legislation.... [B]y virtue of Rule XXIII they [the votes of the Delegates] are meaningless. It follows that the House action had no effect on legislative power, and that it did not violate Article I or any other provision of the Constitution.\nIn January 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the House rule changes.\nTable 1. Statutes Providing for Territorial Representation in Congress\nTerritory\nStatute\nYear\n\nNorthwest of the river Ohio\nSouth of the river Ohio\n1 Stat. 50\n1 Stat. 123\n1789a\n1790\n\nMississippi\n1 Stat. 549\n1798\n\nIndiana\n2 Stat. 58\n1800\n\nOrleans\n2 Stat. 322\n1805\n\nMichigan\n2 Stat. 309\n1805\n\nIllinois\n2 Stat. 514\n1809\n\nMissouri\n2 Stat. 743\n1812\n\nAlabama\n3 Stat. 371\n1817\n\nArkansas\n3 Stat. 493\n1819\n\nFlorida\n3 Stat. 354\n1822\n\nWisconsin\n5 Stat. 10\n1838\n\nIowa\n5 Stat. 10\n1838\n\nOregon\n9 Stat. 323\n1848\n\nMinnesota\n9 Stat. 403\n1849\n\nNew Mexico\n9 Stat. 446\n1850\n\nUtah\n9 Stat. 453\n1850\n\nWashington\n10 Stat. 172\n1853\n\nNebraska\n10 Stat. 277\n1854\n\nKansas\n10 Stat. 283\n1854\n\nColorado\n12 Stat. 172\n1861\n\nNevada\n12 Stat. 209\n1861\n\nDakota\n12 Stat. 239\n1861\n\nArizona\n12 Stat. 664\n1863\n\nIdaho\n12 Stat. 808\n1863\n\nMontana\n13 Stat. 853\n1864\n\nWyoming\n15 Stat. 178\n1868\n\nDistrict of Columbia\n16 Stat. 426\n1871\n\nOklahoma\n29 Stat. 81\n1890\n\nPuerto Rico\n31 Stat. 86\n1900\n\nHawaii\n31 Stat. 141\n1900\n\nPhilippine Islands\n32 Stat. 694\n1902\n\nAlaska\n34 Stat. 169\n1906\n\nDistrict of Columbia\n84 Stat. 848\n1970\n\nVirgin Islands\n86 Stat. 118\n1972\n\nGuam\n86 Stat. 118\n1972\n\nAmerican Samoa\n92 Stat. 2078\n1978\n\nCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands\n122 Stat. 868\n2008\n\nSource: \u201cNon-voting delegates to the House,\u201d Congressional Record, vol. 124 (October 3, 1978), p. 33287; P.L. 110-229.\nThis measure from the First Congress re-enacted the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, with the changes made necessary by ratification of the Constitution. The original Northwest Ordinance had been enacted under the Articles of Confederation.\n\nAuthor Contact Information\n\nChristopher M. Davis\nAnalyst on Congress and the Legislative Process\ncmdavis@crs.loc.gov, 7-0656\n\n\n\nAcknowledgments\nThis report builds on earlier reports on territorial delegates prepared by Andorra Bruno, former colleague Paul Rundquist, the late William H. Tansill, and Betsy Palmer. The listed author is available to answer questions about its content.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40555", "sha1": "bab8f8c49b6f5c9fe28af0ffe93467c136d19304", "filename": "files/20150825_R40555_bab8f8c49b6f5c9fe28af0ffe93467c136d19304.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40555", "sha1": "ba98995721a9e85b386ef1671061b132f894be61", "filename": "files/20150825_R40555_ba98995721a9e85b386ef1671061b132f894be61.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2658, "name": "District of Columbia Oversight and Representation" }, { "source": "CongOpsList", "id": 4137, "name": "House Committee System and Proceedings" }, { "source": "CongOpsList", "id": 4139, "name": "House Floor Proceedings" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc821276/", "id": "R40555_2011Jan06", "date": "2011-01-06", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110106_R40555_bdba37a05ab3aac09cb1eeab308ec77661e56ed8.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110106_R40555_bdba37a05ab3aac09cb1eeab308ec77661e56ed8.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Legislative Process" ] }