August 22, 2008
Statehood Activists Peeved by Democratic Snub
When the Democratic Party gathers in Denver next week for its national convention, the D.C. delegation will do what D.C. does best -- complain about our lack of voting representation. But even as they push for the District to be given a full voting seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a group of frustrated voting rights activists are crying foul over the Democratic Party's failure to endorse full statehood in their national platform.
In a statement released Wednesday, the D.C. Statehood Green Party expressed their anger over the omission, which they claim was orchestrated by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
DC Statehood Green Party leaders and candidates expressed concern and disappointment over the Democratic Party’s omission of DC statehood from its 2008 national platform draft at the request of DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton...Statehood Greens expressed special disappointment that nonvoting Delegate Norton requested that DC statehood be set aside and that Congress should instead grant the District ‘voting rights,’ which is understood to mean a single voting seat in the US House.The Statehood Greens also aimed their rhetorical fire at the District's three-person shadow delegation, arguing that if Shadow Rep. Mike Panetta and Shadow Senators Michael Brown and Paul Strauss don't fight to have statehood put back into the platform, they'd be "delinquent in their responsibilit[ies]."
The Statehood Greens point out that the Democratic Party's official position on District voting rights and statehood has taken something of a beating in recent years. While in 2000 it promised "autonomy in the conduct of their civic affairs, full political representation as Americans who are fully taxed, and statehood," it was whittled down to "equal rights to democratic self-government and Congressional representation" in 2004, while a 2008 draft finds an even more slender call for the "benefits of full citizenship, especially the vote."
The changing party position reflects a victory for the voting rights incrementalists, Norton first among them. In recent years, Norton, along with Republican ally Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), have tamped down on demands for statehood, opting instead to fight first for a voting seat in the House of Representatives. The fight has gotten as far as the U.S. Senate, where it failed to overcome a filibuster late last year. The Statehood Greens have always hated the incremental approach -- it's all or nothing for them -- but even Panetta seems to think it's not the right time for it. Here's what he told DCist via email:
As the elected Statehood Representative, my job is to advocate for full statehood for the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, the current political environment has made the chances of that goal happening in short term almost nil. I've been working at the grassroots level to both raise awareness of the overall issue and to get the District a vote in the House. Although far from perfect, I feel that a House vote is an attainable first step towards statehood. If the stars align in 2009, with an expanded Democratic majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House, then we as District voters should demand much more that just a single vote in the House.Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton's office let us know that they'd have a comment on Monday (we rushed to press, so to speak). We'll update when she does.
Do you think Panetta is right? With a Democrat in the White House and larger margins in the Senate and House, maybe one voting seat could finally materialize and pave the way for two senators and full statehood. But if that's the goal, argue the Statehood Greens, why not just come out and say it?
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
{{{ yawn }}}
[ report this ]
Eleanor has always only been in it for Eleanor. For some reason she has sainted status around this city. The fact of the matter is that we need to decide whether we want statehood or not. If statehood is the goal you cannot accept a half step such as just giving Eleanor the vote (one in 436 or 437) b/c once you do, most of the members from the states, some Ds and for sure almost all the Rs will tell us to quit our yapping b/c Eleanor has the vote and we should be happy with that. If for one don't really care that much about statehood except to the extent I would really like Congress to not have oversight authority over us and let us tax the commuters. But convince me otherwise, I open.
[ report this ]
What a snoozer.
Want statehood? Pass a constitutional amendment.
Want a Senator? Pass a constitutional amendment.
Want a Representative? Pass a constitutional amendment.
Want a junkpunch?
[ report this ]
In other late breaking news, bicyclists are kings among men or jerks unworthy of contempt, the stadium cost too much or it was a wise investment, and pizzeria paradiso may or may not have the best pizza in DC.
[ report this ]
The constitution says that representatives come states, which makes the incremental approach not constitutional. It's sad that the democratic party leadership and DCVote are wasting their time on a dead end route. DC residents voted for statehood, not a token vote in the house.
Last time I checked Mike Panetta's website currently uses the word "statehood" less the official description on the DC Board of Elections & Ethics website. Point being, he was elected to lobby for statehood and not 1/3 representation and as much as I respect the work he's done helping with visibility, I wish that he'd stick to statehood, even if its not politically viable-- its what he was elected to do.
[ report this ]
Any land that wasn't used for building the Capitol was given back to Virginia. It's called Arlington. Give the land back to Maryland and make it a county or two. (That is if Maryland wants the land back! hehehehe)
[ report this ]
Residents of the District had voting rights in the respective State from which land was ceded. It was the Organic Act of 1801 which stripped residents of their right to vote, as such it does not require a constitutional ammendment to fix, rather an act of congress. Given that the land ceded by Virginia has been returned, that would mean voting as a defacto Maryland resident for Senator.
Let the District have one or two members of the house and let us vote for MD senators and I would be happy. But one member of the house and no senator is just plain stupid.
[ report this ]
The Constitution was based on certain "first principles": you know, like "All men are created equal", "consent of the governed", stuff like that.
George Mason, and elder of the Founding Fathers, and mentor to Jefferson and Madison, among others, wrote in his Virginia Bill of Rights- "15. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Frequent Recurrence to Fundamental Principles, meaning that our Constitution seeks to Form a More Perfect Union, and therefore is intended to implement those Fundamental Principles. To the extent that it does, it serves us well. To the extent it does not, "it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security."