March 22, 2006
Voting Rights License Plates: One Million and Counting
Well, we still don't have voting rights, but this is about as good as the news will get. According to D.C. Vote, as of March 10, some 1,033,119 D.C. license plates bearing the message "Taxation Without Representation" have been distributed to District motorists. The license plates were first introduced on November 4, 2000 at a ceremony in which D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and various council-members replaced their old plates with the new ones. I am happy to count myself as one of those million plus users of the protest plates.
And while we're pleased to hear the news, we're still concerned that there are motorists out there driving around with the traditional "Celebrate & Discover" plates. Beyond failing to protest the District's second-class status, these plates are about as creative as "Oklahoma is OK." They sure don't help the District's image any; that much is for sure. We also can't help but be a little peeved that President George W. Bush had the "Taxation Without Representation" plates on his official limo replaced with the traditional ones. Alas, we suppose he's done worse things since then.
As usual, congratulations to D.C. Vote for fighting the good fight for us.
|
I still think that "Taxation Without Representation" is about as meaningless to the majority of the country as "Celebrate and Discover" (my favorite is still "A Capitol City"). I imagine that most Americans would read this plate and think it has something more to do with history than advocacy (like if Pennsylvania used "Don't Tread on Me" for their plates to protest highway spending). I know people love the phrase for its catchiness, but I think a more explicit phrase would be better like "Citizens Without Representation" or "Citizens With No Voice" or something like that. Using a phrase so tied to the Revolution is bound to confuse the message.
Although if we're going to coopt a revolutionary phrase, I say we coopt New Hampshire (and P-Diddy) and say "Representation or Die".
not good news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4828116.stm
not good news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4828116.stm
Anything is better than those D.C. bicentennial tags that look like a 'missile command' screen shot.
I LOVE the reaction the new DC tags get in flyover country...you'd think you had a 'proud taliban parent' bumper sticker.
Could someone explain to me how, in a city of 553,523 people -- 443 thousand of us of over 18 -- we've gone through 1 million license plate numbers in a little over 5 years? My parents (in Massachusetts) have had the same license plate number for 30 years.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html
How does a city go through 2 license plates per capita in 5 years? This city has probably the highest population turnover in the country (and a not inconsiderable number of stolen cars as well). I'm a D.C. native who has left and moved back quite a few times,and I'm on my 5th or 6th set of D.C. tags. We are tag crazy in this town. Just think if all the DC residents with VA/MD tags got their cars properly registered...they'd be double-shifting in the penitentiary to keep up!
cars, taxis, services vehicles, etc. each have two plates. My question is, how do they have an odd number of plates issues?!
Oklahoma switched to plates that say "Native America" around ten years ago, IIRC. I bought my car in 1997 and my OK plate isn't "OK" at all. They were very proud of the "Native America" plates when they were introduced, because they were the first plates anywhere with five or more colors.
Anyway, I'm too cheap to pay ten bucks to replace my "Celebrate and Discover" plates. If they gave me the "Taxation" plates for free, I'd sign up, but why should I fund DC bureaucracy just so I can preach to the choir?
For what it is worth, we have had the same plates for over 10 years. I refuse to get the new flat plates...they look really cheap.
Is that 1 million figure for the set or the number of numbers that have been issued? It seems kind of high.
Can we stop acting like getting reprenestation is what people really want. If that was really true then why not just asked to be folded into VA or MD? We would get our two senators representating us plus a VOTING member of the House.
The reason we don't ask for this is because the liberals in the state movement want two Democratic senators and a Democratic House member. I'm not against having a Democratic Senate and House, but at least be truthful about what you want.
"The reason we don't ask for this is because the liberals in the state movement want two Democratic senators and a Democratic House member."
First of all, it's Hizzoner and Eleanor Holmes Norton who have been against any sort of compromise, not "the liberals."
Second, I don't recall ANYONE in the state movement specifying which party they prefer in the seats. Yes, the odds are heavily in favor of DC's Members of Congress being Democrats, but that's as far as it goes.
Third, even if some sort of compromise involving sharing representation with VA or MD were enacted, the new Reps would most likely be Dems, given the areas that would be encompassed. So "the liberals" wouldn't be sacrificing anything by that proposal.
MM,
What's "flyover country"? And where can I get me some 'proud taliban parent' bumper stickers? It would be fun to stick those on the pesky illegal church parkers.
Holmes isn't a liberal?
Folding DC into VA or MD would only give the state one House member instead of the state proposal which would give DC two senators and a House member. Liberals would be sacrificing two senators in that cause so it isn't prob. a win for them.
>Can we stop acting like getting reprenestation is what people really want.
Uuuh. Yes. That is what I *really* want. I want there to be a vote on something in the Senate that I support/am pissed off about and to be able to pick up the phone and say, Hey! Senator so-and-so, vote this way.
Yeah, I'm a liberal and I'd like some lefty representation, like the kind I left behind in my home state, but, frankly, I'd even take someone I disagree with. It is the principle of the matter. Half a million of our country's citizens lack the representation promised in our constitution. As for your suggestion of adding us to VA or MD, this is the first I've heard of such a suggestion and have no real problem with it other than there's no good reason DC, carrying it's own strong identity, should not be afforded statehood.
And ya know what? I seriously think the main reason many oppose adding DC as a state or affording us representation is that they like the nice round number of "50" and the nice even "100" senators in Congress.
Can DC residents still vote on American Idol?
How is returning DC to MD a form of compromise? That is where it came from (since the pieces contributed by VA were (thank god) returned to VA many years ago) and that is where it belongs. It’s probably the only politically palatable solution, since it would add maybe 1 rep to the House? Because lets face it, the Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail against the addition of a primarily Democrat state (particularly with those oh so valuable Senate seats).
Return DC to MD, no more unrepresented voters and DC benefits by being under the management of a larger umbrella organization (the State of Maryland, with the corresponding support structure, jails, schools (UMD), etc). Simply finish the process that was started when Arlington & Alexandria were returned to the Commonwealth.
Where in the Constitution does it say federally controlled land has to have a voting member of the House and two Senators? I believe James Madison, the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, voted for the creation of DC without representation. If the founding fathers thought they had the power to create a federal city without representation then I doubt there is any place in the Constitution that forbids it.
Ms, I guess I'm a liberal and have absolutely no problem having DC folded into Maryland (since that's where most of the district as it stands right now is carved out of). but guess what: Maryland doesn't want us. neither does Virginia. They'd have to spend a lot of money to pave the roads and improve the infrastructure, money DC doesn't have because it has a city's taxation base with 40% of the property exempted from property taxes (according to the GAO). So if you can convince those states that it would be right and proper to incorporate DC, I'd be all for it.
By the way, Wyoming or North Dakota -- one or both -- have smaller populations, so why do they warrant two senators and a representative but we don't?
Back to the plates- does anyone think it's odd that DC gives its drivers no choice in whether or not they would like a plate with "taxation without representation" printed on it? That slogan wasn't exactly chosen by DC drivers' popular vote.
tw: You do have a choice. While the "Taxation Without Representation" plate is the standard issue, you can request a plate that replaces the slogan with the District's Web site address instead.
or, you can be like the guy in the SUV i saw parked on 16th just south of scott circle last weekend, who put white tape over the top of the TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION letters. apparently, there's someone who dislikes our push for representation, and doesn't like 'celebrate and discover' either
tw - I think you can choose to have one that has www.washingtondc.gov instead.
ms - The history of what the founding fathers intended when they established DC is far from certain. There is evidence that people recognized the problem, but as I understand it there were bigger issues to resolve, i.e. the great compromise. It just seems to me to be completely and utterly incomprehensible that the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence would decide to recreate one of the very things they protested against the King over - representation. It simply goes against the most basic concept of a democracy.
* The license plate slogan is great because it provides the opportunity to educate non-Washingtonians about the issue. When I’m not in DC I’ve had a lot of conversations with strangers who ask about the plate. Most Americans are sympathetic when you explain that DC doesn’t have true democracy.
* Much of the resistance to retrocession (returning governance to Maryland) is from Maryland politicians. There’s no way Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who likes to say she’s a Baltimore girl, would ever approve this because it would completely shift political power to DC and away from Baltimore.
* Regarding the comments of MS, the issue is more complex than you portray it. The justification for the lack of democracy is addressed in Federalist Paper #43 where James Madison argued that if it did not control local governance Congress would be subject to undue influence by local and state authority. However, Alexander Hamilton disagreed. He proposed establishing local democratic representation as the capital’s population grew. When DC was founded in 1800 its population did not exceed 5,000. Today, District residents outnumber those of Wyoming.
If DC were to become a part of MD in terms of voting they most likely wouldn't up the number of representatives by one, they would wait until reapportionment and distribute Maryland's representatives including DC's population as part of Maryland's population.
I am going to remain ambivalant on DC representation until the DC Democratic party allows for open primaries. As it is, if you're not a registered Democrat, you have virtually no say in the governance of this city (the only smidgen of influence we have is over the two non-Democratic at-large councilmen, which in most cases will be the two people nominated by the Republicans, leaving little role for nonregistered independents).
I support the Democratic Party's right to decide how they choose their candidates, but I question their dedication to true democracy when the only election that matters in this town is restricted to registered Democrats. Until I can have a say on who is my mayor, I will remain ambivalent on DC representation.
"cars, taxis, services vehicles, etc. each have two plates. My question is, how do they have an odd number of plates issues?!"
motorcycles!
I am not sure where to start in correcting MM.
"Even if some sort of compromise involving sharing representation with VA or MD were enacted"
How can we compromise what is the most basic of American rights: that of equal representation under the law? Does MM contend that the Revolutionary War was fought to create a country that has more than one class of citizens? Maybe MM feels that since we live in DC, we deserve a little bit less representation than other US taxpaying citizens?
Ask President Bush if their should be two classes of Iraqi citizens who have democratic rights...those who live in Baghdad, the capitol city and those who live outside it's border? Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to understand or care about those people who live within walking distance of the White House. If the President is so intent on “the universal right to self-determination” than maybe he should act to fix the DC problem.
Another fact is that every other country but the US provides for representation for citizens in their capitol city. Maybe MM wants to start a campaign to have all the other countries disenfranchise their capitol city residents to prove that the US has the right approach?
DC Residents need to continue the fight for DC Statehood so we can join the country and have our views rightfully heard!
And while we are at it, why not place the words "No Taxation without Representation" on the DC Flag, until we become a state?
John, you got the wrong guy...although I am far too shallow to dwell on such matters as sovereignty and political franchise, and should therefore not care that you are pointing to the wrong poster, I feel I must. So go start correcting Matt instead ;-)
(oh, and for the record, I've been a member of the statehood party for over a decade)
MM
I agree with Reid here. I would like this movement for representation to turn its attention to offices we actually vote on.
Also, the point was made that VA or MD do not want us. Well, if Congress decides to fold DC into one of those states I believe they cannot veto that action. The nullification matter was settled back in the 1830s under President Jackson.
Actually John, I think you could very easily say the Revolution was fought to create more than one class of citizens. Besides the South's "peculiar institution", universal suffrage was hardly the stated or even implied goal of the founding fathers. I'm not saying that was the right thing, or that we should have stuck with it, I'm just saying the American Patriots' view of the citizenry (and non-citizenry) was not uniform.
And those who see no role in compromise in the extension of voting representation completely ignore the history of things like the Connecticut compromise, the Missouri Compromise, and 1850 compromise, to name a few.
Reid, how is it the Democratic Party's fault that Democrats are an overwhelming majority in DC? If you don't like that, try to reinvigorate one of the other parties. If you want to have a say in who represents the Democratic Party in the election, then register as a Democrat. Open primaries are simply an invitation for people outside a party to play games with its nomination -- Republicans trying to elect the most defeatable Democrat, and vice versa.
And people, please stop talking about Virginia. The Virginia land was returned in 1846 -- that's why the DC square has a bite taken out of it. So Virginia has nothing to do with this. Retrocession would be to Maryland.