June 8, 2006
And Thus Starts the Battle Over Voting Rights
When it comes to fighting for District voting rights, activists face two main challengers -- the U.S. Congress and themselves. Members of Congress just either don't care much about whether or not the District's 600,000 residents have voting representation, or believe its a constitutional mandate written in stone that they shouldn't. They can be swayed. But many District-based voting right activists differ sharply on what the best approach to gaining voting rights is -- some side with the pragmatic and gradual approach, other demand full voting rights and statehood as a simple matter of principle. While both arguments have their merits, the disagreement between the two factions could fracture what small coalition exists to push voting rights in Congress.
On May 11, the pragmatic wing of the voting rights movement took a large step forward with the introduction of legislation that would grant the District one voting seat in the House of Representatives. The legislation, known as the D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, was endorsed by the House Government Reform Committee a week later, and know faces debate in the House Judiciary Committee. Its main sponsor, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), remains optimistic that it may reach the floor and, all heavenly powers willing, actually pass.
But even the prospect of one voting seat in Congress hasn't satiated the idealistic wing of the voting rights movement. On Monday, the Statehood Green Party issued a press release detailing 10 reasons they oppose the legislation. Stated party activist Gail Dixon in the release:
Don't be fooled -- the Norton-Davis bill is a symbolic piece of legislation dressed up to look like democracy. We call on Congress to grant us real democracy -- self-governance in the form of statehood. Democracy for D.C., with its African American majority population, is one of the last major legal civil rights hurdles.Many voting rights activists similarly fear that if Congress grants the District one voting seat, the movement for full statehood and budgetary autonomy will be set aside for decades to come, and other believe that there can be no compromise when it comes to the basic principle of equal representation.
While both tendencies in the voting rights movement are pushing for the same ultimate goal, they may eventually undermine each other. Should the existing legislation pass, it may well be true that any further steps towards full voting rights and autonomy will be shunted aside. Yet should the idealists gain enough attention, they may cause a split in the movement, thus lessening the movement's bargaining power before a reluctant Congress.
None of this is to say that these philosophical differences are new. Far from it. But with legislation moving its way through Congress, the differences are magnified. The ultimate danger is that members of Congress decide that since District residents can't even agree on what they want, the status quo should remain. Let's hope it does not come to that.
Picture snapped by rllayman
|
Yes. Yes. We must all speak in unison or the Republicans in Congress have won! I'm sorry. But just because the modern Republican Party has the message discipline of the 1930s Communist Party does not mean that its a good idea.
Actually the picture is one of mine. It was in Layman's photo stream so he could use it on his site.
The STG Party and all who oppose this measure are politically tone deaf. Once you a Member who can vote, your power to alter the course of events changes dratically.
These people are retarded beyond all fucking measure.
"Statehood Greens warn that H.R. 5388 will take pressure off of Congress to provide D.C. residents with real democracy, derail progress towards statehood,"
Oh yeah, because we're about to get those two Senate seats any day now. The pressure is overwhelming, due to the awesome political vice that is the Statehood Green Party.
"and ultimately place another Republican in Congress."
The extra seat given to Utah will disappear after the 2012 reapportionment and the redistribution of House seats will proceed through the traditional redistricting process. But DC will still get to keep their seat. Think beyond lunchtime, morons.
Just because we may win a House seat doesn't mean we have to or should stop fighting for Senate Representation as well. But we finally have an opportunity to make a real step forward to getting at least some of the rights we deserve. I’d hate to see the District lose this opportunity. Fortunately, the Statehood Green party is about as relevant to Congressional politics as a moldy ham sandwich.
Where the hell is their office at? That place is in desperate need for a good round of cock-punching.
Google's a beautiful thing.
Office Address:
1739 Irving
Street, NW Washington, DC 20010
Phone Number:
202-232-1724
http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/platform/
They're platform is pretty entertaining. Basically, free healthcare and housing for everybody, get rid of the roads in Rock Creek Park, get rid of the jails, 80% recycling by 2010. Don't say how they're going to pay for it, though. I imagine some sorta 90% tax on businesses, or magic fairy dust. Gotta agree on decriminalizing narcotics, though. Pretty much warmed-over Socialist Worker's Party rhetoric, but with cleaner HTML.
Let the cockpunchings commence!
Have these jokers ever head the phrase "incremental progress"? As in, there's no chance in hell that we're going from no representation to full statehood. However, with a single representative, we at least have some say in the Congressional process. That's a far cry from having a permignored non-voting delegate.
Many voting rights activists similarly fear that if Congress grants the District one voting seat, the movement for full statehood and budgetary autonomy will be set aside for decades to come
The realization of "full statehood and budgetary autonomy" is already decades down the road anyway (and don't kid yourself that they're not). Why should voting representation in Congress have to wait for those things to happen? We've waited two hundred years to get a vote, and now that we've got a chance we should pass it up and wait anywhere from 25-50 more years?