The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton has made no secret of her desire to see the D.C. voting rights issue move, and move quickly. The Post's Mary Beth Sheridan writes today that Norton will introduce legislation granting both the District and Utah additional seats in the House (the same proposal passed the House in April 2007, though it failed in the Senate in September), while Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) will present the same measure to the Senate. In Norton's ideal world, all the debates and voting would be wrapped up by February 12, the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday.
While the votes are definitely there—the House just needs a simple majority and Democrats in the Senate picked up enough seats to surpass the 60-vote threshold—the timing might not be. Congress will now begin immediately working on an economic stimulus plan, and we'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that D.C. voting rights needs to be muscled through before legislation that could help dig the country out of this recession. Then again, Congress has already debated this measure and we all know where the votes will fall. Why not just quickly pass the bill so we can get on with the business of sorting through the inevitable court challenges that will surely follow?
As much as we'd like to play the optimist and say that 2009 will be the year for voting rights, we're also used to being let down on this issue. Getting the legislation out of Congress will likely be the easiest part of this year's battles, and even if it gets passed early on in the 111th Congressional session, and then survives an initial court challenge, that's still no guarantee Norton will be in possession of a floor vote by year's end.
Photo by Joe Newman
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I may be the only person in Washington who doesn't want this legislation to go through.
For one, it's probably unconstitutional. Second, it's like giving Washington a bone to make us shut up: "There. Now that they have voting representation in the House, they should stop complaining." Besides, Norton already has nearly all the abilities of a full member except for being able to vote on the house floor. Let's face it, the situation is wrong and should be corrected, but I can't remember the last time a bill passed with such razor-thin margins that her vote would have made a difference. The Senate, however, is a different story.
I'm sorry, but you don't make a very strong argument. And by "in Washington" do you mean "in the DC suburbs"? I'm just curious.
We demand representation NOW, or an immediate cessation to the "state income tax" deduction from all of our paychecks. Period.
Why would they stop 'state income tax'? It's a vote in Congress that we're looking for - I take it you meant 'federal income tax'.
No, I mean state income tax. I just don't think it's fair that every week for years I've had to pay "state income tax" when I live in a semi-autonomous, unrepresented zone of the country. I don't think DC residents should have to pay it. You may be thinking, "where would DC's tax income come from then?" I think it should come from the federal budget.
May sound radical, but it's just my opinion. I think it's just as radical that we've had no representation for this long.
"in the DC suburbs"
I think most people in the DC suburbs are for voting rights. Another vote in Congress that represents this regions mutual interest is a very good thing.
No, I'm a native-DC resident. I absolutely demand full voting representation in Congress, I just don't think that this is the right way to go about achieving it.
What if we do get the vote? What will E. Norton do after that? DC is not a state! Isn't this a waste of time?
Won't the Consteetoonshum have to be amended? As a native Washingtonian, I can think of better things to do. Voting rights! Patooey! Remember when we all voted on medicinal
marijuana? They said, "Oh yeah! That doesn't count. You all will just get high." Give me a Mega Mall Bar Movie House Arcade. Now you're talking.
You know, this reminds me of that age-old urban legend of the government denying representation for DC because it would technically have to convert it into a state. And if they did that, they'd have to change the flag by adding an additional star. But if they did that, then it would throw the star balance off and the flag would look stupid.
Haha! I'm starting to think that pea-brained legend is somewhat true ;)
Actually, there are already planned flag designs for 51, 52, 53, etc. states.
Yeah, but I bet they don't have a flag design for 13 colonies.
I'm a DC resident and I oppose this bill. The only constitutional means of granting DC residents congressional representation is to amend the Constitution to make the district a state. Or amend the Constitution to say that representatives are chosen by electors of the state and the District of Columbia.
Anything else is well-meaning, but misplaced shenanigans.
Irrespective of the method, DC should first invade and annex NoVa. Given VA's failing finances and Southern suckage, I'm sure we'd be greeted as liberators.
You don't need to amend the Constitution to make DC a state. You only need to shrink the District to National Capital Service Area (Mall, White House, and associated office buildings, no residents) and Congress retains exclusive control over that. The remaining territory can be admitted by Congressional simple majority vote.
You don't even need to shrink down the actual size of the District. The federal government already exercises control over all U.S. government buildings, so there's really no need to leave a tiny sliver of land that is technically still "the District."
However, there's a fat chance Maryland retrocession would ever become a reality. More likely would be DC residents getting to vote as Marylanders for the purposes of federal representation.
Norton and Pearson should write a book together called "Acceptance: When No Doesn't Mean No."
If this Congress gives DC a vote in the House, then what's stopping a future Republican-dominated Congress from taking away that House vote? Legally, what Congress giveth, a future Congress can taketh away.
I also question the constitutionality of this, but have no idea who would have legal standing to bring a case that would survive.
The DC House Voting Rights Act will be found unconstitutional. The constitution only gives representation to STATES. DC residents never voted to be 1/3 represented in congress, rather in 1980 they voted in favor of statehood. A token vote in the House will do nothing for Washington, DC residents but give the illusion of democracy.
@Jonas: there is already a flag that has been designed to show 51 states. Last year I removed a star to highlight DC's denial of full representation.
Everyone: please contact Norton & DC Vote and tell them to stop advocating a bill that was written for a republican controlled congress. It's a complete waste of time to be advocating such a dubious piece of legislation. We can do better than that!
i kind of have a feeling that this will be found unconstitutional too, but i want to see it voted on. let's just get that out of the way, so we know this route has run its course, and we can then put our full force behind advocating for statehood (or the equivalent that includes 2 senators and one rep...)
Amen! This bill has exactly one beneficiary: Eleanor Holmes Norton herself. We need to throw the limited half-assed representation bill into the Potomac and go for full statehood.
People, people!!! The Supreme Court ruled in JUNE of 2008 that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. But we have yet to get one damn gun store in the city. And I'm not quite sure if I can tote around my mother-of-pearl-encrusted-handle 44 magnum without getting handcuffed.
Before we start another battle of getting voting rights, I'd like my right to purchase a gun first. Then I'll ask about our voting rights. BLAM!!!!
The only realistic way of getting true congressional representation for the district is to get an amendment similar to the 23rd ratified.
No statehood required.
Give us a Rep, but let us vote for senators in either MD or VA.
I think the solution would be a hybrid system of allowing a seat in the House with full voting rights and allowing DC residents to vote for MD Senators (reflecting the fact that the land was ceded by MD). Politically it allows a marginal difference in the House and no effective difference in the Senate (since MD has become pretty democratic).
I'm from VA and I want DC to have fully counted votes, whatever that takes. Statehood, guns, retrocession, whatever. I find it ridiculous that US resident citizens don't have votes.
Being from VA, that's about all the opinion on the matter I feel entitled to have.
...other than to say that the grand experiment of having congress run DC as a model for the way cities should be run is an abject failure (and a large part of the reason I don't reside in the district itself).