April 20, 2007
'I Will Not Yield': Voting Rights Bill Moves Forward
We've all heard the news -- yesterday the House passed legislation granting the District a voting seat in the chamber. While the measure will face a tough fight in the Senate and an all-but-assured veto from President Bush, its victory in the House represents a moral victory for a movement that has pushed and prodded in every way to correct a longstanding injustice.
And as it moves to new political ground and a new political fight, we felt it only appropriate to quote D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. In the midst of yesterday's relatively subdued debate, she gave word to the District's second-class status, angrily refusing to yield to a colleague. "I will not yield, sir," she firmly stated in response to Rep. David Dreier's (R-Calif.) request. "The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding," she bellowed. "To the people who would deny us the vote, I yield you no ground."
Though she was reminded to direct her comments to the Speaker of the House, not directly at a fellow member, it was classic Norton. The anger was raw, real and unrehearsed. It represented 16 years of fighting for the cause, seeing it through ups and downs and changes of government that provided both hope and concern. And for what is the first big victory for the voting rights movement in years, it may become a defining expression.
|
i hope someone refuses to yield to her sometime. far be it for her to actually follow rules.
Norton's performance was awesome!
Unless this is the first House debate you've ever watched, you'd see that it is not unusual for members to refuse requests to yield when they control the floor, particularly during a contentious debate. Eleanor was not breaking any new ground here.
There is no new ground on earth. Makes a great story though. Thanks Martin.
I love how Mr. Austermuhle (can I call you Martin?) mocks the idea of retrocession into Maryland but seems pleased with moral victories that won't actually lead to DC having any representation. Moral victories? Fuck that. I want to actually have Senators and stuff.
Really, people who support this doomed legislation can not see the forest for the trees.
I think Jonathan R. Rees is still pissed off and extremely bitter about losing the Ward 3 City Council race. There is no surprise why that happened, and the fact that he lost miserably explains even more about him.
He does not deserve to be a part of our local politics. His negativity is extreme and his posting is disruptive. With nothing else better to do, he blogs everywhere in the city so he can be heard.
Jonathan, I am sorry your parents didn't love you enough to give you the attention you needed as a child, but you should seek another avenue to direct your frustration in life.
Ms. Norton's speech was on-point. It's up to us to make "no taxation without representation" more than a cheap slogan. Ms. Norton has the sound, but as a city we're not showing much in the way of fury.
I see the forest, I also see me paying all the same sorts of taxes as MD or VA residents, more so in most cases, and yet have no Congressional voice. People DO live in the District, not just work there, and should have a say in things. Don't want to give us the vote, fine, then we should be exempt from getting taxed. Period.
I say we all (dc residents) stop paying federal taxes.
The idea of retrocession deserves all the mockery and contempt we can muster, as does any ahistorical reading of the Constitution. A vote in the People's House helps protect us from the whims of that body, at the very least. God knows we need that. It is well worth the effort.
Moral victories are nice to a limited extent, but it it's going to take a Dem in the White House in '08 (or Rudy G.) to get another bill like this signed.
Win or lose this round, there's certainly momentum now. Though I have to say that I'm a little worried about how giving Utah an extra rep would hold up in court.
I say we all (dc residents) stop paying federal taxes.
Works for me. I seem to recall Sen. Lieberman proposed this idea a couple of years ago, repealing the federal income tax for DC residents unless/until full representation is granted. Though I'm not sure it was part of any actual legislation.
As nice as been Fed Tax Free would be, it'd be nicer to, as Mike says, have protection from the "whims" of the House.
DCers need to be clear on where their interests lay and who their friends are. Most of the powerful in DC are either short-timers or don't use DC as their residence. They're just here to work. They'll go home eventually. Perhaps they care, but they're essential outsiders among us and through inaction and unserious action demonstrate a lack of concern in our rights and welfare.
Phil, the DC seat is the one to worry about for constitutionality. The only possible issue for the Utah seat (which is only Utah's until after the 2010 census, when Utah will get its fourth seat regardless of whether this legislation passes) is the fact that it's at large. But Ohio had a similar at-large seat for years with no constitutional challenge.
The legislation doesn't mention Utah or treat any state specially. It increases the size of the House by two, giving one seat to DC and the other to whichever state gets it by the normal apportionment process. That state happens to be Utah during this decade. Congress clearly has the power to set the size of the House. It used to increase it regularly until it decided to stop at 435.
KCinDC, the legal scholars on DC's side say that you shouldn't take the Constitution literally when it says "the several states" when referring to representation in the House. I am more worried about the "at-large" nature of the possible Utah seat rather than the wording of Art. I, Sec. 2 because I don't see any way around it, as House seats are meant to be apportioned only: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand * * *." I don't see why they can't simply just carve out a new district in another red state rather than going with this "at-large" scheme.
*correction in my above post: should say "possible Utah seat because I don't see any way around the wording of Art. I, Sec. 2, as House seats are meant to be apportioned only:...".
Phil, I believe an earlier version of the bill would have required Utah to carve out a 4th congressional district, but the Democrats were afraid that Utah would redistrict in such a way as to endanger the safety of Jim Matheson, the state's only Democrat in the House. So, that's what led to the at-large scheme.
KC, when and for how long did Ohio have that at-large district? I'm still skeptical that the courts would endorse it today, since it would give everyone in the state 2 voting members in the House.
Phil, I don't understand your argument that the at-large seat is unconstitutional. As far as I can see, the Constitution only says how many reps each seat should get, not anything about districts within a state. This would be following the normal rules to give Utah 4 seats. I suppose an argument could be made that Congress has no authority to impose the at-large seat, since the districting should be up to the state to decide, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
I'm the only one on my block who isn't a lawyer, but even I know that the "several states" language has been ruled to include DC for the purposes of legal proceedings, commerce and, yes, Federal Income Taxes. Representation in The People's House is no different.
The Constitution rests atop centuries of legal precedent and history. Don't pretent otherwise when it suits your partisan agenda.
Phil, I don't understand your argument that the at-large seat is unconstitutional.
It's about one person, one vote. An at-large seat gives Utah residents one person, two votes. Simple as that.
The bill will be found to be unconstitutional. But the plan is to pass it first, then let it go to the courts, where it will be struck down.
A token vote in the House does nothing for DC except give the appearance of representation, while continuing the denial of democracy to the residents of DC.
Congress, as written in the constitution, will still have full control over DC. That means even with the token vote in the House, Congress will still control and approve DC's budget. That still means that if DC residents pass their own legislation Congress can still render it void (like medical marijuana). You will still not to get to vote for your own District attorney, nor will you have any representation in the Senate.
The only way to circumvent the District Clause in the Constitution is to shrink DC to the "National Capital Service Area" (nicely drawn the other day using Google Maps! Also drawn in 1980 and available to view at the LOC) and either make the remaining portion of land it's own state (which DC residents have already voted in favor of) or retrocede to Maryland.
America's history is that of self-determination. That is why I advocate for Statehood. While it appears to the most politically impossible route, it's the route that has been used throughout history.
1/3 representation will do little for the residents of DC but give the appearance of democracy, and that is why this bill is a sham.
Phil, I don't understand your argument that the at-large seat is unconstitutional.
It's about one person, one vote. An at-large seat gives Utah residents one person, two votes. Simple as that.
The bill will be found to be unconstitutional. But the plan is to pass it first, then let it go to the courts, where it will be struck down.
A token vote in the House does nothing for DC except give the appearance of representation, while continuing the denial of democracy to the residents of DC.
Congress, as written in the constitution, will still have full control over DC. That means even with the token vote in the House, Congress will still control and approve DC's budget. That still means that if DC residents pass their own legislation Congress can still render it void (like medical marijuana). You will still not to get to vote for your own District attorney, nor will you have any representation in the Senate.
The only way to circumvent the District Clause in the Constitution is to shrink DC to the "National Capital Service Area" (nicely drawn the other day using Google Maps! Also drawn in 1980 and available to view at the LOC) and either make the remaining portion of land it's own state (which DC residents have already voted in favor of) or retrocede to Maryland.
America's history is that of self-determination. That is why I advocate for Statehood. While it appears to the most politically impossible route, it's the route that has been used throughout history.
1/3 representation will do little for the residents of DC but give the appearance of democracy, and that is why this bill is a sham.
DGB, I tried to link to the Wikipedia article, but of course commenting on DCist has gone to hell in recent months because of draconian spam-fighting measures (something other sites seem to be handling more intelligently). I'll try this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio's_At-large_congressional_district
Where in the Constitution does it say that someone can't have two House members to vote for?
The argument on the other side would be that the three non-at-large members would be representing effectively 1-1/3 congressional districts worth of people each, while the at-large rep would have 4 districts worth of constituents. So each person's influence over their rep would be diluted, so that effectively they'd be getting one 3/4 rep and one 1/4 rep, for a total of one full rep, like everyone else.
The situation would be similar to the Maryland House of Delegates, which has mostly three-member districts (in which people vote for and are represented by three members at a time) but some districts that are split up into three single-member subdistricts instead (mainly in areas that are sparsely populated so that the whole district covers a large geographic area, and thus a population with diverse concerns).
KC, you lost me on the "3/4 rep plus 1/4 rep" representation argument, but you're right that its not a slam dunk that the at-large Utah rep (or at-large rep(s) from any state) would be struck down. I'm sure it would be challenged though, and would make for one very interesting case.
The basic idea is that a representative is worth less to a particular constituent if more people are in the constituency. A rep who represents you and 1,000 other people will listen to you more than one who represents you and 10,000 other people. A rep who represented all of Utah would care less about concerns specific to Salt Lake City than one who represented a normal-population congressional district that includes the city, because the statewide rep also has to worry about things going on in completely different parts of the state.
With 3 district-based reps and 1 at-large rep, each of the 3 represents a district with a population 1-1/3 times the size of a normal congressional district (since the state would have 4 congressional districts if there weren't an at-large member), so those reps will care only 3/4 as much about any individual constituent. The at-large member represents a population as large as 4 normal districts and so cares only 1/4 as much about a constituent.
One problem is that in the real world, reps don't care equally about their constituents -- they pay more attention to the rich and powerful. So a rich guy with two reps to contact with his concerns may actually have more representation than a similar rich guy in another state. But then a rich guy in a district with fewer competing rich guys might have similar advantages even with normal districts.
Nikolas Schiller: The Bill to Get Congress The Hell Out Of The DC Locally-Raised Budget has been introduced before and will be introduced again. If DC has a House vote it means this bill has a chance of passing next time, because Eleanor will have an actual vote to trade on close issues. The real token vote is that loonie "Committee of the Whole" vote where DC only gets to participate in votes that are so lop-sided that Eleanor's vote doesn't matter.
Even after reading everyone's points, I still don't see how Utah's at-large rep survives a court challenge -- which is probably why the House Republicans used it as their "compromise" solution.
Besides statehood (not in this space-time continuum) and retrocession (not gonna happen) there's one other way to get around the District Clause -- resurrecting the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. I don't see that happening anytime soon, either.
I wholeheartedly support D.C. representation. The people who live there are just as American as anyone else in these great 50 states, and deserve every right to be represented. I cannot see an argument against this.