Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
The debate over voting rights for the District's delegate in Congress is bubbling up at the very beginning of the 110th Congress. Under the newly minted Democratic-controlled Congress, it seems we here in Washington are closer than ever to obtaining full-fledged representation in the House of Representatives.
This morning at the ceremonial swearing-in of the Congressional Black Caucus, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi specifically mentioned D.C. voting rights in her remarks, prompting a standing ovation from Caucus members and emphatic thank-you kisses blown from Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to the Speaker. Pelosi, after praising both new and old members of the caucus, said, "I want you to have my personal assurance that it just simply isn't right that the District of Columbia, with 700 people, does not have a vote in the Congress. And we will work to make that possible." Presumably Pelosi meant 700,000 people—which is about 150,000 too high—but we'll take it anyway. Maybe she was also counting Arlington County, which we'd be only too happy to take back.
Legislation to confer voting rights to the District delegate has not been introduced, but Norton and Virginia Republican Tom Davis have promised to reintroduce the Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act—the proposal that will also add a representative from Utah—early this year. Should we take odds on passage in 2007? Will the President bust out his veto pen if it makes it through? Let us know what you think.
Capitol photo from puckles.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think getting a House vote only by giving the other side of the political sile another House vote is kind of pointless, don't you? Maybe unconsitutional. Definitely pointless.
Hell, DC has more of a say now. Delegate Norton can at least vote in committee without the threat of an extra magical Republican Congressman. Now we're just adding another Republican to block whatever it is that Norton is voting for (or against). This makes no sense for the Democrats and no sense for DC.
That extra representative would cease to be "Republican" after the 2010 Census. Utah would receive its usual portion based on population. DC, however, would retain its representative permanently.
I tend to agree that the addition of a Utah representative is pretty much BS. Even though that person wouldn't assuredly be a Republican, it's pretty likely she would be. It seems to me that voting rights should be the matter of equal representation, not the partisan balance of the House.
However, without the Utah provision in there, it would probably have zero chance of passing the Senate, which would leave us with nothing. That hardly seems worth it either.
Gettting a House member would be a great first step for the District. In addition to giving us leverage on issues important for the city, it could open the door for untapped political talent. I think you would see a lot more qualified people running for city council and the mayor's office if those positions could lead to a congressional seat.
I've said this a million times, but here goes again: having a full house member can (eventually) be huge for DC. It's not just a question of math; the actual voting power of any one rep is pretty much meaningless. But the influence of one rep can be much larger than 1/437th. Hell, Pelosi's district only has one vote and look at what power they now wield. Once our rep has seniority and starts chairing committees or getting into the leadership, our voice will be much larger than 1/437th (I just personally hope that voice is not Norton's). Whether Utah has a new rep is mostly meaningless except in that rarest of rare situation when one vote is the difference between the balance of power.
The seats don't cancel themselves out. DC gains a hell of a lot more than Utah does. Fretting over which party gains more is counteproductive and myopic.
Hmm...maybe that's why Jim Graham insisted on getting the Alcohol Beverage Control board under his new committee chair assignment. He needs the campaign donations from bars and restaurants in order to run for Norton's seat if DC does get a permanent congressional vote.
The point of re-apportionment is not just to get an extra Democratic seat. The point is fair representation.
In the 2000 census, Utah missed an extra seat by less than 900 people, and yet some 11,000 missionaries were serving overseas. North Carolina ended up getting the extra seat, in part because it's 18,000+ military members overseas were counted.
The extra seat for Utah makes the bill politically palatable, but it also happens to be the right thing to do.
In principle, I can see that having a house seat would help DC - primarily due to the horse trading required to pass major legislation. "You want my vote on XXX? Great - give use XXX million $$ for DC public education".
However there will be a counter balancing force. DC gets huge amounts of money from the Federal government to offset the fact that it has no state population from which to draw revenue. I am convinced that one reason Congress is so generous is that DC has no voting representative, and is thus entirely dependent on Congress for structural funding. Once Norton is just another scamming Congresswoman, able to horse trade for Federal pork, I see future support dwindling for DC's Federal allotment.
Congress is so generous with DC is because only 40 percent of the land in Washington, D.C. is taxable, therefore DC loses out on potential tax revenue. If more land in DC were given over to DC or made taxable and could be developed into a steady stream of revenue, the federal contribution could be further reduced without harming the DC government operations.
Over 200 acres of land will be given over to DC soon, such as Poplar Point, etc etc.
But, Washington, DC is NOT ENTIRELY dependent on Congress. DC generates over $5 billion in local revenue every year. And, thanks to Mayor Willions, that revenue is increasing year-over-year.
And much of that land to be deeded to DC is parkland- "Greenspace". Some of it can surely be put to use as a direct revenue source, but not all, or even I suspect, most of it. Not in the short or mid-term, anyway.
Will Elenore's time as a non-voting congress member count toward seniority? I'm confused about that matter.
1. I'm sure Utahn soldiers overseas were also counted. 2. Missionaries don't "serve" anyone other than themselves and their church. 3. Soldiers were overseas serving in defense of their nation at the call of the country; it's not our fault missionaries go abroad to peddle their snake oil.
The point, though, is that in the next census Utah will certainly gain at least one seat. Giving them one more now is not a huge controversial deal. As stated, they were only 900 seats off.
Not to mention, whether they are only serving their "church" (which I don't believe - some of them were surely helping in ways that would be similar to the PeaceCorps) or not, they should still have representation. Just like DC should. If they were getting paid, they would still be taxed by the US, no?
One other quick point - one of the reasons that a vote in the House for DC hasn't gone further is the assumption that that seat will always be a Democratic vote. While that may be true, I don't think those advocating for a seat should take that as fact. For one, parties change and hopefully at some point politics in DC become mulitparty (even if its Dems v. Greens). For second, the debate should stay at what is the right thing to do. If its about political parties it will be tough to get 60 votes in the Senate.
DC is less solidly Democratic than some people may think. A good many Republicans and moderates of various stripes never bother to vote in DC because they've always assumed it's a waste of their time. You may be surprised at how many non-Democrats there are that actually live in DC.
Re: Norton's committee vote.
Her committee votes only count if they do not change the outcome of the vote. So its not worth much anyway.
Tim - Yes, they would be taxed, but only because our tax law is fucking insane. The IRS thinks you should owe taxes even if you don't live in this country anymore.
Fretting over which party gains more is counteproductive and myopic.
Thanks for that bit of maturity Reid; and no, I'm not being sarcastic.
One vote is not even close to "full fledged" representation. It's about 67% short, actually.
What do you do when your kid is nagging you and nagging you to buy a pony? You get them a puppy, or a kitten, and hope they forget all about it.
We're asking for a pony, they're dangling a kitten in front of our faces, and instead of acting like rational adults, we're allowing ourselves to be placated like 5-year-olds.
Sad, really.
Anyone who thinks full representation will come hot on the heels of 1/3rd representation is deluding themselves.
They're trying to buy us off. And at a steep discount at that.
Except that the kid has unrealistic expectations and is never actually going to get a pony anyway, so the kid should take what he can get. Regardless of whatever 'bone' they throw us now, the issue of fair and equal representation in the future will come up again. Be opportunistic and take what you can get when the political climate is right, because if you miss the right moment, it could be decades before the same opportunity comes forward.
I'd make sure my kid could care for a plant or goldfish before I got him a puppy.
To hell with one lousy vote, statehood ain't all its cracked up to be either...Secesion is the only real choice for DC residents.
I would rather have a exemption from federal income taxes like the territories do than a silly single vote in Congress.
Geez, I would save $1,800.00 a year but a vote would not put $1,800 a year in my pocket.
Geez, I would save $1,800.00 a year but a vote would not put $1,800 a year in my pocket.
But it will put a whole lot more than $1800/year in someone's [cough - Eleanor Holmes Norton] pocket.
I strongly feel the bill to give the District a full vote in the House is a major step forward. We shouldn't rest until we have votes in the Senate as well, but getting everything you want in one stroke rarely happens in Congress. It's not perfect, as it's sort of "taxation with 1/3 representation", but it's better than nothing.
And as for Utah, yeah it's a compromise. Yes, it's likely going to result in another Republican member. But that's going to happen in 5 years regardless, we might as well get ours while we can. If we dump Utah now, even in a Democratic congress, there is no way this is getting done.
I was sworn in as the District's U.S. "Shadow" Representative on Wednesday, and in my speech I stated nothing would make me happier to never have to swear in a "Shadow" Representative again.
I'm actively trying to lobby myself out of a job!
Rep. Panetta - Thanks for stopping by. It's nice to know that we (regular joes and janes) are not just here arguing amongst ourselves and that someone who is a position to address the issue of representation in the District is listening.
Best regards,
Hill Rat
Voting rights are good for DC. All the statehood people are wildly off in their political calculations. This is the deal we've got; you've done a crap job of getting us anything more. We'll take the offer. Thanks to Davis and all the other reps who have made it happen (some of them republican).
As far as whether we "deserve" it, I don't think I've ever heard an argument that Illinois or Louisiana, for example, should be denied a rep on the basis of political corruption, or whatever. That's a stupid argument that serves to put forward prejudices, rather than demonstrating in any way that DC is not somehow "fit" to have a voting rep. The purpose is democratic representation, not handpicking a chaste and industrious federal government.
Thanks for participating in the forum, Rep Panetta.
The "District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006" wasn't quite equal -- when only Utah would gain an extra Electoral College vote. As we debate this topic of (full) congressional voting rights, let's not forget that the District doesn't have budget, legislative, or judicial autonomy either. And D.C. no longer receives a federal payment. It receives federal funds just like many of the states do. Participating in U.S. democracy shouldn't depend on balancing D.C. residents with citizens from any state. Either we are U.S. citizens that deserve, and are entitled to, (full) congressional representation, or we are not. (The U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document.) U.S. democracy shouldn't just be "exported" world-wide. True democracy begins at home! And Lastly, I would prefer that our DC Statehood Delegation do exactly what they were elected to do -- lobby for statehood.