May 11, 2006
New Voting Rights Legislation Introduced
Pretty much everything has been proposed to get the District its long desired voting rights, but not much progress has been made since the city's residents were disenfranchised in 1801. Will today be the day that changes? We can only hope so.
At 9:15 a.m. today, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton formally introduced new legislation that would grant the District one full voting seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Called the D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006, the legislation will add two seats to the House, one for the District and one for Utah. The measure is similar to one introduced last year known as the D.C. Fairness in Representation Act of 2005, but differs slightly in that the expansion will be permanent and Utah's new seat will be statewide, thus avoiding a redistricting process that Democrats fear would cost them their one seat in the state.
The compromises seem to have garnered more bipartisan support than earlier attempts, with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), both members of Davis' Government Reform Committee, joining in the press conference. D.C. Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka had this to say of the legislation:
We applaud legislators on both sides of the aisle for coming to a consensus on a bill that brings democracy to America’s capital. The bill’s introduction keeps DC’s denial of democracy in the spotlight where it should be, and it helps shape the debate on this important voting rights issue.Of course, this measure is sure to spawn debates over the value of only gaining one seat in the House while leaving the larger questions regarding voting representation in the Senate, statehood and budget autonomy unanswered. Honestly, at this point, we're ready to offer Marion Barry up for symbolic sacrifice to get Congress to move on anything resembling voting rights.
|
Marion Barry? I think we'd have more luck with a box of crullers. Perhaps throw in one of those boxes full of piping hot starbucks.
Can't we offer him up for symbolic sacrifice regardless?
All of DC's steps towards full democracy have been incremental (our vote for President in 63, home rule a decade later) and we should support this incremental step as well.
Right on, Sam. A Senate seat and/or full statehood become suddenly less 'radical' if DC gets representation in the House.
I don't understand why the people of DC think they deserve a voting Member of Congress.
First of all has anyone ever even listened to Eleanor Norton talk? I thank goodness everytime she opens her mouth, that all she can do is opine, and not vote!
Second, if you want your Member of Congress to have a vote, move to a state! Its not like you moved here under the pretense that you would have a voting Member, then it was taken away.
Besides, like DC is doing so bad without a voting Member, for everyone $1 you pay in your "taxation without representation" you get $6 back in Federal funds. Compare that to about $.75 for Ohio or California. Doesn't sound like you're doing to bad.
I think this idea has the best chance of gaining enough traction to actually happen of anything I've heard yet...I'm cautiously optimistic. Might as well start thinking about trashing my StH/G card, since our closed primaries might actually start to mean something now!
My estimation of Tom Davis just went up a couple of notches...must go buy a Virginia ham.
Ben, Some people live here because they can't afford a car and rely on public transportation. Some people did not "move here" and remain because of family responsibilities, lack of financial resources, or for other difficult reasons that you apparently aren't able to understand. Others come here, yes because of work, but choose not to live in a state like Virginia, and send their tax dollars to raving mad right-wingers.
Ben said:
"Second, if you want your Member of Congress to have a vote, move to a state! Its not like you moved here under the pretense that you would have a voting Member, then it was taken away."
I was born in DC, I did not move here, and I do not understand why I should have to move to a state to vote. Your cherrypicking of net Federal revenue flows (California) doesn't really advance your argument, either...how about Alabama, West Virginia, or Maine, to name but a few (all get more back than they send in)
Ben,
You do realize that much of the $6 DC gets back in federal funds goes towards maintenance and upkeep of federal properties. Add in the fact that DC cannot tax federal land (42% of the total acreage) and you can see where the federal funding imbalance arises.
Dearest Ben,
I'm sorry that your distaste for the District is so great that you think we are undeserving of democracy. Yes we get $6 in federal funds for every $1 we pay. But much of that gets spent on the city's obligations as the nation's capital. Those dollars pay for the presidential motorcades and the MPD security presence at a plethora of events. They pay for jersey barriers and street re-routes when additional security measures are deemed necessary. In short, a good chunk of those 6 dollars goes into 'federal city' type programs that never affect most residents. Moreover our tax dollars are spent on a myriad of other federal programs that we have no say in whatsoever because we have no voting member.
I'm sorry you dislike Eleanor. But have you watched C-SPAN lately? Many voting members of Congress are even more painful to listen to. Perhaps more people would run if the position actually meant something, and the competition would produce increasingly good representation. Or maybe it wouldn't but we haven't taken away voting rights from Texans for electing Tom Delay or Ohioans for electing Duke Cunningham. Democracy doesn't mean we have to elect someone YOU like.
I'm sorry that you think we are so dumb to have moved to a place with no representation. But what of those off us who were born here? Should we be forced to choose between the city where are families have lived for generations and the right to live in a democracy? I think not. People also move to DC aware of the relatively high crime rate. Does that mean we should not try to prevent/solve for crime because people were stupid enough to move to a place that has some?
Why don't you go spend some time in Zimbabwe or Belarus amongst others who think the right to vote and the right to democractic representation is a joke.
Ben - I kindly invite you to get back to work stuffing envelopes for the Heritage Foundation. What an ignorant load of dreck.
~
I wish there were a way to get more journalists interested in this issue. They're all aware of it, and having watched the many failed attempts at getting DC the vote, they're bored with it - so no coverage. I'd bet, though, that something north of 95% of the US population isn't aware of this obscenity, and would be favorably inclined toward securing DC voting rights if they were informed about it. But with no popular coverage, no one cares. Or, more accurately, has a chance to care.
I don't understand why the people of DC think they deserve a voting Member of Congress.
That's because you're an idiot.
First of all has anyone ever even listened to Eleanor Norton talk? I thank goodness everytime she opens her mouth, that all she can do is opine, and not vote!
Oh gee, that makes perfect sense. Maybe we should disenfranchise anyone who voted for Bush, then?
Second, if you want your Member of Congress to have a vote, move to a state! Its not like you moved here under the pretense that you would have a voting Member, then it was taken away.
This makes no sense. Simply being a resident of the District is not a good enough reason to not allow people to have federal representation. Why should American citizens, living on American soil, not be allowed to vote?
Besides, like DC is doing so bad without a voting Member, for everyone $1 you pay in your "taxation without representation" you get $6 back in Federal funds. Compare that to about $.75 for Ohio or California. Doesn't sound like you're doing to bad.
Is 42% of Ohio or California controlled by the federal government, which pays no local taxes?
I think we need to keep a clear distinction between talking about whether Washingtonians have representation and whether Congress has complete dominion over the city.
The question of how much money, etc., the federal government gives Washington or how much Washington and the federal government are one in the same goes more towards the question of what amount of autonomy the city should have, in my opinion.
The question of representation is different. I think this is a reasonable compromise, and I think Norton showed how useless she is by the fact that she didn't back it until it was going to pass without her.
If only Washingtonians had as much dedication to the spirit of enfranchisement when it came to voting for the city council and mayor.
"I think we need to keep a clear distinction between talking about whether Washingtonians have representation and whether Congress has complete dominion over the city."
ergh? what are you trying to say here?
ergh? what are you trying to say here?
I believe he's saying that the issues of voting rights and home rule are seperate issues and effort should be made not to allow them to become intertwined as many people in favor for voting representation are not in favor of home rule, etc.
neat.
Ben could not be more wrong. DC, as concluded by the non-partisan US General Accounting Office, suffers from a structural deficit of $470 million to $1.1 billon a year.
For more:
http://letsfreedc.org/funding_dc/structural_deficit.php
or click on my name.
The numbers Ben uses is based on the amount of money the federal government SPENDS in DC each year. On appropiations and wages, etc, however, as at least 2/3 of federal workers live outside DC we actually see very little of that money in tax receipts. It is a completely bogus calculation.
Regardless money and democracy should not be linked although far too often they are.
Comments like Ben's should normally be ignored, but just incase anyone thinks there is a whiff of "truthiness" about his statistics, please note that the $6 DC "gets back" in Federal funds, includes all federal funds paid out by the Federal Government in DC, including salaries paid to federal employees -- even the parasitic suburbanites drive in everyday and gridlock the city but pay no taxes in DC. Comparing DC to Ohio in terms of federal money paid out is simply bogus.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Yes, thank you, Chris_s, that is what I was trying to say. A lot of the things that people are arguing over (amount of untaxable land, federal payments, etc.) have more to do with the relationship of the District government with the federal government.
This bill is about the relationship of Washington residents with the federal government.
Ok, so someone please give me a legal or constituational reason why DC deserves a member that gets a vote on the House floor.
They already get the right to vote in Committee, speak, manage bills on the floor.
Plus don't give me the "we can't participate in democracy" argument, you still get the right to vote for many other things.
I"m sure most if not all of DC's problems can be traced back to the representation you elected to city government, not the fact that your Rep can't vote on the house floor.
nonsense - give me a legal or constitutional reason why DC does NOT deserve a member that gets a vote on the House floor.
Here are the international laws and treaties the US is in violation of:
http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/section.cfm?trellisID=13
DC does not have a vote in committee and can not manage bills on the house floor.
But it does seem Ben that we disagree on what democracy means. I would define it as all citizens of a country being represented in their government. You seem to have another definition.
Ah, the brilliant "you can only have a democracy if you elect people who I like" theory of government. Masterful response. My hat is off to you, Ben. You've changed my mind, I'm leaving DC for...hm, so many dictatorships to choose from...I'll have to think about it and get back to you.
The reason that DC residents deserve a vote on the House floor is because we are US citizens, we pay federal taxes, and this is a representative government. Period, the end.
MM's question raises a point.. is this plan Constitutional without an amendment? Yes, the Houses have control of their own rules.. but does that go so far to say that the House can authorize someone who is not defined as a Member under Art I Sec 2 with a vote? Does anyone know if this has been tested before? Wiki says "Most legal experts believe that even this compromise would require a constitutional amendment," but without a cite.
I still get squeemish when DCvote activists appeal to fundamental rights, etc. It's not that I don't think they're right in saying the fundamental doctrines of the American system would require the vote, it's that I think it obscures the fact that representation and statehood, etc, have never been wholly, or even mostly, idealistic things.
Nobody would believe that the towns that make up South Dakota are owed two Senators under some idealistic notion (as opposed to, say, making North Dakota and South Dakota one state). But most would agree that the citizens of South Dakota are deserved some form of senate and house representation. It was luck of history and the result of compromise that South Dakota ended up a state of its own rather than the southern half of a larger state. It had nothing to do with fundamental principals of democracy.
So, while I agree with the use of idealistic language to advocate for DC representation generally, I oppose the use of it to argue for specific results, such as getting two senators for a medium sized city that but for luck of history would be a southwestern part of Maryland.
It all depends on which legal expert you listen to! Rep. Davis has a collection of them, including Ken Starr(!), who believe that it is constitutional.
Past Supreme Court rulings strongly suggest that the power lies in Congress.
Another aspect of the plan I find interesting is the use of a Rep at large for Utah. Has that ever been used before (with the exception of one rep states)? Is that potentially unconstitutional? Would it continue in perpetuity, or only until the next apportionment?
My guess is that it is perfectly constitutional, under the same doctrine that states are allowed to set their own congressional districts. Although would it violate some constitutional doctrine, seeing as every Utah citizen would be represented by not one but two reps?
Well I don't really value Ken Starr's opinion on anything.. but I do agree that SCOTUS has been very deferential to the Art. I Sec. 5 powers in the past. This would appear to stretch those powers just a bit further than they've been tested in the past, though. As for the Utah arrangement, it's unorthodox, but I don't see any reason why it would be unconstitutional.
Aye Carumba!
Utah's at large rep would only last until redistricting after the next census I believe.
Okay, who wants crullers? Speak up! Cruller train leaves the station in 5...4...3...2...
Marion in another late night fender bender last night.
http://dcbubble.blogspot.com/2006/05/night-owl-marion-barry-in-traffic.html
like keith richards, barry is the sort of man who always appears to be under the influence. maybe he is always under the influence.
What would prevent the Utah state legislature from immediately redistricting the new rep into a new district, and by doing so gerrymander out the only Democrat? I don't think Congress can force a state to set up districts in a particular manner. Maybe the House would refuse to recognize the new rep if Utah were to do that, but I'm not sure what would happen.
Basically: how can Congress' plan be binding on Utah?
Basically, it can't be legally binding, but Congress can guarantee such huge penalties if Utah should violate the agreement that they would never do so. That's the way our government works - look at instances like federal education subsidies, school lunch programs, student loans, etc. You're free to do whatever you like, but if you don't follow their rules, wave those dollars bye-bye.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think. Many of those expenditures are required by federal law, which would require overturning the law to deny funding. Also, denying funding would require a resolution of Congress, which I don't think would happen over something like that.
hey i hate myself
I think DC residents would be better off with a rep in the House and being allowed to vote for Senators in the state of their choosing. If you were born in MD/DC, you'd vote for senators there. If you're family's from NY or CA, you'd vote there. That effectively dissipates the DC voting bloc (predominately Democratic not Republican) among the 50 states, so conservatives on the Hill would stop whining about adding another liberal sway vote to Congress. But I can't imagine the DC Dem machine getting behind that.
The No Taxation Without Representation arguement falls apart when you say, "OK, let's make DC a Federal-tax-free zone." No vote? Fine, you don't pay Fed taxes. But again, I can't see the local politicians would get behind that either.
Retrocession is a pretty dead issue as well, seeing as MD doesn't want anything to do with the lousy schools or the indigent population (regardless of the fact that they keep moving to PG County anyway). But doesn't DC make a ton of cash from the tourism trade? Wouldn't that money go to Annapolis coffers if the non Federal portion of DC was annexed by MD?