Congress Suddenly Interested in Respecting DC's Voters?

HT: Joe My God.

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Vincent Gray were called on the carpet by Congress for not allowing the majority of District residents to vote on the civil rights of a minority. Let's listen in:

At a hearing on proposed changes to the city's Home Rule Act, two Republicans on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee grilled Fenty and Gray about why the District will not allow a public vote.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the ranking member of the subcommittee that has oversight over District laws, noted that voters in 31 states have rejected same-sex marriage. "I'm disappointed the people are not getting an opportunity to vote on this issue," Chaffetz said.

Yes, you see, Congress -- Republicans in particular -- really care about respecting the wishes of DC's voters. That's why they've blocked attempts to actually giving DC voting representation in Congress. And why they feel they can waltz in and undo actual initiatives approved by District voters.

Case-in-point: Medical Marijuana. In 1998, 69 percent of DC's voters approved a ballot initiative authorizing medical marijuana. 69 percent.

And then, since Congress respects the will of the peeple so much, former Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia, stepped in, said no, and through an amendment killed the implementation of medical marijuana which had won approval from DC's Congressional subjects voters.

To the meddlesome members of Congress: if others can vote on my equal rights, I want the same opportunity. Fair is fair.

And it's great that you want to respect the will of the people of the District of Columbia. Do that all the time, not just when it fits your narrow social homophobic agenda.

DC Needs Pennsylvanians

Calling all Keystoners to contact Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and urge his support for the DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 1257).

Let's review the bidding:

• DC has no vote in Congress.
• Congress not only sets national policy, but also has the power to overturn laws passed by the elected DC Council, and even overturn referenda passed by the people of DC.
• If you live in DC, you pay federal income tax.
• DC citizens have served in every US war, including the current one to bring Democracy to Iraq.

The bill under consideration would add a voting representative for DC in the U.S. House.

The bill recently passed a key Senate committee and is heading to the Senate floor for a vote. Sen. Arlen Specter is being targeted by DC Vote dot Org as a key target. If you live in the Keystone state, do us in DC a favor and send him an email to Sen. Specter.

If you live in other states it's okay to send an email to your Sen. too.

And feel free to tell a friend.

Read this for more on my take on DC Voting rights and DC Statehood. And this.

Rally This Monday for DC Voting Rights

UPDATE: It looks like the rally went off well, despite the abnormal weather. It was the largest rally for DC voting rights. The people are speaking, Congress. Will you listen? Or like King George III will you turn a dear imperious ear?


An important event this Monday in DC:

The Rally in support of legislation giving DC citizens a VOTING representative in the US Congress will begin at Freedom Plaza (14th & Penn. Ave. ) at 2:30 pm THIS MONDAY. We will march down Penn to the Capitol Reflecting Pool for a rally with speakers beginning at 4 p.m. Without an actual vote in Congress, ALL of the rights gays now enjoy in DC are in jeopardy, as illustrated by the attempt of some in Congress to tell us what gun legislation we should have.

In case you don't know, the people of DC pay taxes but have no voting rights in Congress. Yet Congress can dictate the laws for DC, even overturn legislation enacted by our popularly elected city council and mayor.

I have yet to hear a rational argument against DC statehood. John at Average Gay Joe (who supports DC voting rights but not statehood) fears making DC a state would give it undue influence over the federal government:

The States do still have enough power that one lucky enough to host the Federal City would have undue influence that the others would not..

But how? Has proximity to DC given Virginia and Maryland undue influence over federal largess? West Virginia, which shares no borders with DC is one of the states that gets the most pork. And distance seemed no barrier to Alaska getting $223 million for its "Bridge to Nowhere."

The proximity argument may have made sense in the late 1700s when great distances and lack of instant communication may have given states with proximity to the national capital a leg up. But we have airplanes now. And email. And cell phones. And video conferencing.

Yesterday I wrote a check made out to the U.S. Treasury to pay my taxes. As a self-employed person, it was a huge chunk. I not only have no say in how that money is spent but people elected by other people who don't live here, some of whom in fact live as much as 7,000 miles away, can dictate laws under which I have to live.

It's wrong. Americans are dying to bring a little democracy in a place called Iraq. We could use a bit more of it in a place called America.

If you support DC statehood, or even just DC voting rights, and you don't live in DC, contact your Congressperson. Let them know.

More on the effort here.

The Case for DC Statehood

Bring up the idea of DC statehood and most people have a visceral reaction. DC Statehood? No way! Perhaps it has something to do the condescension many Americans have towards the inhabitants of the Federal City and the foibles of past elected officials (Marion Barry, anyone?). Although basic inability to elect competent leaders doesn't seem to an impediment for other states (Louisiana, anyone?).

John over at Average Gay Joe at least provides a substantive argument against making DC a state:

D.C. is the Federal City and the U.S. Government is entitled to hold more sway in its seat lest the State wherein it resided could have more influence in national politics than the others (see The Federalist No. 43).

My response is that this argument made sense 219 years ago when Madison wrote it but it no longer applies. In 1788 when Federalist No. 43 was written the states were sovereign and joined in a loose confederation with a weak central government. To win support for the new constitution meant soothing rival jealousies of the states. Creating an independent federal district not beholden to any single state made pragmatic political sense to gain support for the new national government. That no longer applies.

Nor does any danger that a state could gain supremacy over the federal government. Our national government and its dominance over the states is firmly established, by blood shed in the 1860s and by 150 years of precedent. Moreover, in the 18th century, given the lack of rapid communication or travel, geographic proximity could have provided an unfair advantage to those closest to the capitol. Modern communication and transportation remove those benefits.

Washington, DC has existed as a separate entity -- not part of a state -- since 1790. As a distinct geographical and political entity, it should be afford the right to apply for statehood if its inhabitants desire it, just as Puerto Rico should it wish to do so. Why should the people of Puerto Rico be given the opportunity to become a state and the people of DC not?

Another option is to pass a constitutional amendment that would give DC residents voting rights in Congress -- but that would create a special case, an exemption from existing constitutional law. It would give DC residents representation without the requirement for statehood. Why carve out that special right -- giving us the chance to become a state would seem to be the more conservative position.

Taxation without Representation (continued)

DC voting rights suffered a setback yesterday after Republicans threatened to gut DC's gun control laws by attaching an amendment to the bill that would have given us a vote in Congress.

The House was poised to pass a bill that would have given us a vote (and also adding a Congressional District in Republican Utah to balanced the addition of DC's Democratic vote).

The bill seemed likely to pass.

Then Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) proposed adding an amendment that would gut DC's gun control laws.

Now, I tend to be a strong 2nd amendment rights supporter and am generally pro-gun. But what business is it of this guy from Texas, to legislate gun laws in the District of Columbia?

This is precisely why DC needs statehood (or to recede back to Maryland). Any member of Congress can undo legislation duly enacted by DC's elected city government. We are a city with 535 Princes. It's undemocratic and unjust, especially at a time when DC residents are fighting -- and dying -- in Iraq to bring democracy there. We could use a little at home.

DC Voting Rights Watch

Marc Fisher in his column Raw Fisher explains the raw deal DC residents got with Congress' utterly meaningless move to allow DC's delegate to vote on amendments. Quote of note:

People who don't watch the sad saga of D.C. voting rights closely get all excited when the Democrats are in power because they think the Dems are the natural allies of District residents and will surely move to give Washingtonians their birthright and let them elect a member of Congress.

But that's not how it works, and House Democrats showed once again last week what they really think of the District. In a move calculated to make it appear as if the Dems really do care about D.C. voting rights, the House voted to let the non-voting delegate from D.C. cast a vote anytime it doesn't matter. That is, the delegate will be permitted to vote on amendments to bills--if and only if the margin of victory in the vote is large enough so that the D.C. vote would not alter the outcome. In other words, if and only if the D.C. vote is utterly meaningless.

As symbolic gestures go, this one would be harmless enough if it didn't also make it vastly more difficult for any real voting rights reform to come out of the House. But it does.

Why should DC citizens be given the right to vote? We pay the same taxes you do. Our sons and daughters bleed on the same battlefields as yours do. The precarious nature of the early federal government and the dominance and jealousies of the states that prevailed when the District was created have gone the way of powdered wigs and knee britches. Taxation without representation was unfair to the colonies more than 230 years ago and it's unfair still today on American soil.

Fenty Snubs Laura

Mayorlicious blows off the First Lady to sit with her during the SOTU, opting instead to attend as Speaker Pelosi's guest, because the prez doesn't back DC voting rights. Hmm, doesn't seem like a good way to try to influence a different outcome, does it, by essentially saying "F You " to a man's wife because you have difference of opinion with him? Presumably Pelosi is for DC voting rights so Fenty gains nothing for the cause by symbolically giving Laura Bush the finger.

For DC Citizens: Taxation without Representation

It's possible to be a U.S. citizen living in the United State and have no vote in Congress. Washington, D.C. is prevented, by the Constitution, from having voting Senators or a Representative.

I write this for the benefit of my non-DC area readers.

In fact, DC residents could not vote for president until after 1961. In 1973, Congress granted us the ability to elect our own mayor and city council. However, all laws are subject to the approval of Congress, who could step in at any time.

I make these points because we're going to a party tomorrow to welcome a couple who are friends of ours into the district. Today, the LTR and I put together a "Life in DC Kit" for our friends, including this bumper sticker:

You may also recognize this as similar to the DC license plate.

So, DC residents pay taxes, die in Iraq, etc., but have no vote in Congress. There was compromise legislation advanced in the last Congress that would have given our delegate in the U.S. House a vote on the floor (she can vote in committee) and added another (Republican) congressional district in Utah. That measure didn't get acted on in the final days of the last Congress -- hopefully it will move forward in the new one.

For more info, check out www.dcvote.org. If you live outside of DC, write your Congresspersons and tell them you support full Congressional voting rights for DC residents. We need some allies from other parts of the country.

If you happen to believe in marriage equality, the oversight of DC by Congress has been the chief argument against the DC city government approving same sex marriages for DC residents or recognizing the legality of same sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada. DC politicos and even local gay activists argued against DC taking a positive stand on marriage equality for fear it would piss off our Congressional overlords.

Likewise, in the late 1990s, a city referendum to legalize medical marijuana that passed overwhelmingly by city voters was overturned by Congress.

If taxation without representation was wrong for the American colonies in the 1770s, it's just as wrong today in 21st century. If we can be shedding American blood to promote democracy halfway around the world, we can surely be providing it to our own citizens here at home.