December 27, 2007
The Year in Voting Rights: So Close, Yet So Far
When in the closing days of 2006 we looked back on the year in D.C. voting rights, we optimistically hoped that 2007 would finally be the year that saw some movement on enfranchising the District's residents. Movement, yes; resolution, not so much. So as we wind down 2007, we're again left hoping that maybe the coming year will be the one.
The primary mover in the D.C. voting rights movement in 2007 was legislation introduced by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives. Originally put before a Republican Congress in 2006, the legislation, which would also hand Utah an additional seat, was given new life with a new mayor and a new Democratic Congress. And though the legislation faced nagging constitutional questions, determined Republican opposition, a veto threat from President Bush and dirty procedural tricks during a House floor debate, the Democratic majority successfully endorsed the measure on April 19. Some five months later, though, the Senate narrowly upheld a filibuster on the legislation, effectively stopping any progress on D.C. voting rights for 2007.
The loss on the Hill notwithstanding, the year saw a new and encouraging expansion of citizen activism on the issue. Early on, residents and voting rights supporters fanned out in Congress to lobby members of the House. On April 16, some 5,000 souls braved frigid weather for the Voting Rights March, finally putting a face to the issue. And thanks to the determined leadership of D.C. Vote, a number of new and creative means to push the issue were kicked off, including hounding the senators that voted against the legislation, YouTube questions for the Republican presidential candidates, a proposal for a large billboard outside the Wilson Building tallying the amount of federal taxes District residents have paid, and an anniversary re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party. We even jumped in the action, participating in a panel discussion on D.C. voting rights at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago.
And no end-of-the-year roundup on voting rights would be complete without mentioning Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.). During a speech in the midst of the House debate in March, Gohmert claimed that since every member of Congress had a vested interest in making sure that the District's trash was picked up and its trains ran on time, the city's residents wouldn't really need their own representative. So we did what we expected he would want us to -- we adopted him as our representative and steered a few hundred constituent calls his way.
So what can we expect in 2008? It's tough to say. Though voting rights activists are determined to keep the issue alive in Congress and on the campaign trail, congressional leaders haven't committed to bringing the legislation back to the Senate. Even if they did and it passed, it could face a veto from President Bush. We might end up having to wait until after the 2008 elections, when a potential Democratic president and larger margins in both the House and the Senate would allow the legislation to move through more quickly. And if that were to happen, we'd still be left with another set of issues to tackle: representation in the Senate, budget autonomy and statehood.
Sure, we're coming up on the end of 2007 without the victory we would have hoped for. But more activists have been engaged, the issue has been given more national play than ever before, and we all have a better idea of what exactly the coming challenges are. District residents have known for the last 200 years that fighting for voting rights is an uphill battle, but 2007 proved that the energy is still there to keep going.
We'd be remiss in not recognizing the efforts of all the activists and residents who wage this battle every day. Though too many to name, we're thankful for the work done by D.C. Vote and its partners, the Shadow Delegation, the D.C. Council and our congressional allies.
|
How about setting up a DC Vote PAC, raise money, and use it to either support campaigns of those in Congress who support voting rights for DC residents or to fund opponents to the hardcore opponents of District suffrage (Mitch McConnell, I'm looking your reptilian way..)?
Rumor is that just such a PAC will be launching within the next month or so. No doubt DCist will have the news when it happens.
Call me crazy (and I'm sure some will), but DC needs to stop acting like a city and more like a state if it wants representation demands taken seriously by the country.
Case in point, are any of the state's governments run by a mayor or council? No, they are run by a governor and a state legislature. DC's government should draft a new constitution to put it in line with other states. Changing this, legally speaking, would have to be approved by Congress, but I'd like to see Congress reject a constitution, and not a new charter, put forward by Americans and ram it down their throats if they are stupid enough to reject it (this would be different than a Congressional bill which they play around with all the time). Presidential buy in won't get us much, because DC is Congress' fiefdom. And Congress needs to fix this correctly (no ceding to MD).
I have other ideas: such as budgetary civil disobedience (like not using earmarked money we didn't ask for; I'm looking at you Sen. Landrieu) or not fixing roads and approaches to the Federal enclave in downtown (make the Federal gov do it on their own dime and time!); and build a capitol building out of Old Downtown that is not a Federal building of any kind like the Wilson Building. The tax sign is a good idea, but it should be put in Georgetown or on the Mall if we want out of state people to see it (who really looks at the Wilson Building anyways?). Maybe passing out fliers to tourists at all the major spots (Georgetown, Spy Museum, Lincoln Memorial, etc). As well, the Federal enclave (Capitol Hill, White House, Mall, etc) could be relinquished and be completely the Fed's responsibility (roads, sidewalks, lighting, etc) to avoid any governmental jurisdictional weirdness that is always invoked as a reason against statehood.
I have more (been thinking about this alot over the years, if you couldn't tell) but won't bore people more.
D.C. isn't going anywhere. We are a sanctuary city
and there is a bill on the hill that if passed will strip all sanctuary cities of crucial benefits.
publicity and raising awareness is important. i travel a lot and find the vast majority of americans have NO IDEA that DC has no votes in congress. in the same way that african americans were not going to get civil rights until whites became involved in the struggle or gays will never get equal rights unless they gain more straight allies, so too will the District not receive voting representation until it gathers more support from across the country. we are getting there, but have a ways to go--and awareness is the first step....
no offense Bmosely.. but you are crazy. That is all that DC needs is another layer of corrupt City... "State" workers that do absolutely nothing. Then let me guess I can have a representative.. err Councilmember that gets upset and belittles the actual taxpayers when you actually expect them to do anything. I've lived here for 4 years in this city and I'm outraged at the way the City government is run. The absolute last thing we need is more government in this city which would give the politicians and the city workers more excuses to do nothing on the taxpayer dollars. Plainly I could care less about a vote in congress right now when my Councilmembers are so inept at the local level.
mccullo: I don't think the proposal was an additional layer of gov't, just a nomenclature change.
Actually it wasn't quite a nomenculture change but also not a new layer either. I think it can best be descibed as the city declaring and exerting its independence. Also, sort of a mental wall to leap.
McCullo, you have a valid point about city workers not being the best they could be. But then again, how well would you do your job if you knew it could all be overturned by 535 men and women who don't really live your city? Or how hard would you work as a DC police officer, if you had to drop what you are doing to go secure a street because the Secretary of Energy or some such decided to go to lunch? Personally, I wouldn't be the most productive worker either.
Also, I've been here for 27 years, and my family has been here for over 35. Speak to me about how horrible the city is run after you survived the administrations of Marion Berry and the drug wars of the 80s and 90s. The city is AMAZING nowadays, and it can get alot better if Congress would let the DC people go!
Actually it wasn't quite a nomenculture change but also not a new layer either. I think it can best be descibed as the city declaring and exerting its independence. Also, sort of a mental wall to leap.
McCullo, you have a valid point about city workers not being the best they could be. But then again, how well would you do your job if you knew it could all be overturned by 535 men and women who don't really live your city? Or how hard would you work as a DC police officer, if you had to drop what you are doing to go secure a street because the Secretary of Energy or some such decided to go to lunch? Personally, I wouldn't be the most productive worker either.
Also, I've been here for 27 years, and my family has been here for over 35. Speak to me about how horrible the city is run after you survived the administrations of Marion Berry and the drug wars of the 80s and 90s. The city is AMAZING nowadays, and it can get alot better if Congress would let the DC people go!
no offense Bmosely.. but you are crazy. That is all that DC needs is another layer of corrupt City... "State" workers that do absolutely nothing. Then let me guess I can have a representative.. err Councilmember that gets upset and belittles the actual taxpayers when you actually expect them to do anything. I've lived here for 4 years in this city and I'm outraged at the way the City government is run. The absolute last thing we need is more government in this city which would give the politicians and the city workers more excuses to do nothing on the taxpayer dollars. Plainly I could care less about a vote in congress right now when my Councilmembers are so inept at the local level.
"But then again, how well would you do your job if you knew it could all be overturned by 535 men and women who don't really live your city? Or how hard would you work as a DC police officer, if you had to drop what you are doing to go secure a street because the Secretary of Energy or some such decided to go to lunch? Personally, I wouldn't be the most productive worker either."
That's a pretty weak excuse. We all have bosses or other circumstances that can limit our productivity and make things harder. Suggesting that DC government employees are as pathetic as they are because they fear Congress coming in and messing with them personally in their fairly insignificant position isn't really a supportable rationale for the stunningly bad work force that comprises so much of the DC government .