Call them merely symbolic acts, but the D.C. Council and Mayor Adrian Fenty have made a number of gestures this year to express their collective anger at the continued disenfranchisement of District residents. Today there's one more.
Via D.C. Wire, the Council is planning on removing a prohibition on spending federal funds on lobbying activities related to District voting rights from the city's fiscal 2009 budget. The prohibition has long been imposed by Congress (the District's local funds are effectively federalized when they are sent to Congress and then re-allocated back to the city on an annual basis) and has drastically limited any actions the District's government can take to push for voting rights, including paying its three-person shadow delegation for their efforts. According to Council Chair Vincent Gray, the prohibition has always been left in the budget under the assumption that Congress would insert the offending language regardless.
It's a small gesture, and one Congress will likely overturn, but then again, late last year Congress lifted a ban on the funding of needle-exchange programs in the District. Could the Democratic majority overturn this longstanding prohibition in the same spirit?
We don't imagine that throwing a few thousand dollars at the voting rights cause will make Congress that much more likely to see the error of their ways, but there is something to be said for having a full-time and fully-paid shadow delegation, not to mention an active lobbying campaign. Or, even better, getting the District to buy a huge spotlight that will constantly beam a pro-voting rights message into the sky a la the Bat Signal. We've been itching for one of those for years.



Forget the Bat Signal. Wrap MLK Library in a plastic "No Taxation without Representation" tarp, a la Cristo. You get the disenfranchisement message across and we don't have to look at that fug Mies van der Rohe nightmare anymore.
Is that BatGraham?
worst. graphic. ever. congrats!
the day DC becomes a state is the day the US has an albino lesbian president.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to put this provision in there, but not let Congress know about it? Sorta like how credit card companies jack up your interest rates, but only mention it in the fine print of a bill. By making our intentions known, we're practically begging our congressional Morlocks to take that language out and possibly hit us with some more punative measures just to teach us a lesson.
Cranky, unfortunately the standard budget display for statutory language displays the prior year's language with removed language in brackets [ ] and new language italicized so it will stand out that they're proposing its removal.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't propose not to include it - you can always hope some staffer goofs and does what the District asks for there.
Wow, someone is an expert in Microsoft Paint.
martin is an artiste...but this isn't as good as davy dcist.