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.