June 4, 2008
D.C. Voting Rights to be Brought in 2009
Sure, the D.C. voting rights movement has seen its fair share of defeats, but no one has thrown in the towel yet. And by the looks of it, no one will.
According to The Hill, the movement for District voting rights is slowly but surely picking up weighty supporters, ranging from powerful labor unions to prominent lobbying firms. Combined with an election year that is expected to see further gains for Democrats in Congress and a good chance for a changing of the guard at the White House, voting rights activists are seeing good fortunes in the coming year:
Money is being raised, powerful lobbyists are offering their time free of charge and supporters are traveling the country to spread the message that the city that houses the Capitol deserves a vote inside. Advocates for D.C. voting rights sense that education can help them bridge the gap in votes needed...That could set the stage for a successful vote on D.C. voting rights in 2009.Basically, voting rights activists have played their cards just right. Beyond the luck of having a Democratic House of Representatives from 2007 on, organizations like D.C. Vote have taken to the states to apply pressure to members of Congress that in late 2007 voted against legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House. Officials from D.C. Vote have traveled to Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, and are currently in Mississippi, where they have connected with local activists to promote D.C. voting rights. The likely lifting of a restriction on the use of District funds for lobbying for voting rights has also helped, steering $500,000 in city money to D.C. Vote for education and lobbying.
We know better than to start celebrating, as Washington has a strange way of doing nothing about historic injustices even when everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done. But given how close we came in 2007, those last couple of votes will hopefully materialize in 2009. Of course, should Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) become president, it's doubtful that he'd be any more friendly to D.C. voting rights than President Bush has been. (McCain was one of the key votes against the legislation in the Senate last year.) But with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) now officially the Democratic nominee, Mayor Adrian Fenty's close relationship with his campaign and the friendly words Obama has had for our situation gives us hope that the impetus for resolving the District's situation could come from the White House.
Photo by billadler
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
um, go us? hopefully...
of course, in the long run, there are going to be over 100 other things that are of greater importance to the average american than voting rights in congress for us, so i refuse to get my hopes up until the last 'i' is dotted and 't' is crossed.
Is there any chance that they'll do it right this time, with a proper constitutional amendment that gives us voting representation in congress, rather than wasting everyone's time again with a bunch of unconstitutional bullshit that will never stand up in court?
if DC were to become a state, and that's one of the biggest "were's" ever, it would be a giant cluster fuck. don't get me wrong, i believe we should have representation, but to be a true state wouldn't we need a governor? we'd have to change our license plates. we'd have a magical boundary, polka dotted by government property. would we set up our own senate, supreme court, etc? our state animal? the panda of course. or the monkey. or the crack whore. state flower? the poppy. (if i'm missing something here, forgive my ignorance and enlighten me.)
phew! who's ready for that? and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, we'll still be left with a corrupt police force, a terrible school system, a sky high murder rate, and Marion Barry.
wow, i think i need a pint of Guiness.
A powerful, unutilized force for the DC vote -- the Gun Lobby.
The US Supreme Court will never allow it.
I'd prefer no federal taxation.
But McGilly (we're all friends here, right?) - I don't think the delineations would be all that much of a clusterfudge (keepin' it clean for the children. They are the future, you know). The boundaries are already there. What would need to be delineated would be the federal police forces' jurisdictions (i.e., no more Secret Service ticketing people for running red lights). The mayor could become the gov, the Council becomes the state legislature, the court of appeals remains the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction (although we'd probably need an intermediate appellate court). The jurisdiction of the Attorney General and the US Attorney would need to be ironed out.
However, the biggest issue that I see (now that I'm wearing my constitutional scholar underoos) is that this is probably not all that constitutional. The only way we become a state is with a constitutional amendment since the seat of gov't HAS to be located in a federal district not more than 100 square miles.
And even with voting rights in the House, I see major constitutional issues. Plus, the more practical concern that what the Congress giveth to us, the Congress can taketh away. In 2020, President Jenna Bush, Senate Majority Leader Toby Keith, and House Speaker Ann Coulter-Ethridge can push legislation to take away the voting rights of DC Representative for Life Marion Barry. And since it was Congress that gave us the ability to vote in the House - and not the Constitution - we'd be stuck.
Keep dreaming. Anything short of a constitutional amendment will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
And if the Democrats want extra representatives this time, what will stop Republicans next time? Will we see a constitutional amendment to split Utah into North Utah and South Utah?
Obviously, DC can't find enough ways to waste money so it needs another one.
The only thing that stands a chance is DC becoming a part of Maryland. Even that is slim.
As for all the complainers, would you like some cheese with your whine? Unless you were born in DC, you moved here knowing about the lack of congressional representation. There are positives and negatives when living in the nation's capital...deal with it.
shaved AMPUTEE panda. gotta add a frisson of helplessness to DC's unique condition.
and the state motto should be "i feel like bustin loose" except in latin.
My big problem with the statehood movement is the name we'd be stuck with: New Columbia.
That's lame. Can't we be a state without giving up the "D"?
On a more serious note, while I'm not familiar with it, I suspect that the state constitution that was adopted back in the early 80s would need some updating. Task A would be to get rid of that stupid name. But that's just my opinion.
"There are positives and negatives when living in the British Empire...deal with it."
LOL. Back then, those people had balls. DC residents don't...they can't even stand up to criminals.
Question: is HCE Rees?
Seems to me as if the 500k spent for lobbying for this could be better spent on something like...oh, CRIME reduction. Then we wouldn't have such hair-brained schemes like Operation Seal the Gates!
The real question is why is the $500,000 not being given to the elected shadow delegation? They deserve the money far more than DC Token Vote. That money could hire paid staff that were elected for a specific purpose that DC residents voted for.