September 6, 2005
William Rehnquist and D.C. Voting Rights
Opinions may vary on the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but in terms of local politics, he was a staunch supporter of voting rights for District residents. Thanks to the folks at DC Vote, who today issued a press release honoring Rehnquist, we find that the Chief Justice, while U.S. Assistant Attorney General in 1970, argued the following:
The need for an amendment [providing representation for the District] at this late date in our history is too self-evident for further elaboration; continued denial of voting representation from the District of Columbia can no longer be justified.We at DCist can only hope Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts, President George W. Bush, and members of Congress quickly recognize this self-evident rationale for full voting representation.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
And your point is??? Rehnquist wrote this while he was an Assistant Attorney General. Roberts is about to be a judge. DC voting is a Constitutional provision, and would change through a Constitutional amendment, not something Roberts would have anything to do with in his new role as a Supreme Court justice.
My point was not his position at the time he said it, nor the position Roberts is about to assume. Rather, I was trying to make the point that a prominent and influential conservative legal mind seemed to think that the case for D.C. voting rights was so self-evident that it didn't even demand further explanation.
Every conservative voice of support for voting rights is a good and powerful one, and one that we will happily endorse.
Cheers to DC Vote. Martin's absolutely right.
It was extremely smart of DCVote to write its release. The organization's mission doesn't include the pro-choice position on abortion, not gay rights or enviromental protection.
A bipartisan strategy for DC voting rights is not only smart, it's even right.
I'm no fan of Rehnquist either, but ... that's not the point.
It's about getting results and figuring out a path to help get us there.
Some proposed methods for giving DC voting rights don't necessarily require a constitutional amendment. And whether there's an amendment involved or not, I'm sure any solution that did happen would end up in the courts and likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
DC voting rights cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court before. In 2000, for example, the court refused to hear the case.
The two bills before Congress now, the DC FAIR Act sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and the No Taxation Without Representation Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton do not require a Constitutional amendment to be passed.
All Congress needs to do is pass simple legislation. The District Clause in the Constitution gives Congress the power to do anything it wants with DC. Congress could probably give DC 17 Senators and 107 Congressmen, but DC Vote is fighting to get equal voting rights in Congress, or at the very least, move incrementally toward that goal.