Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
With this week's congressional subcommittee hearing on legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House, we've again started what has become something of a bi-annual tradition for D.C. residents. We complain, Congress goes through the motions on a piece of legislation aimed at correcting a 200-year-old injustice that has left the city's 600,000 residents without a voting member in Congress, we become hopeful, and eventually Congress ends up not doing anything. Rinse and repeat and you've got a day in the life of a disenfranchised D.C. resident. Of course, it's a new day in Washington, and with a solidly Democratic Congress and a sympathetic president, our chances at getting something are better than ever.
Regardless, Tuesday's hearing dredged up the usual opposition and alternatives to the current proposal. There was talk of exempting the District from federal taxes, retrocession to Maryland, and going for full statehood. We've heard this all before, but for those of you who are newer to the city, this is all news. Click on through for our handy primer on the current debate over D.C. voting rights.
Where We Are Now: The House is currently considering legislation that would grant D.C. a full voting seat in that chamber, as well as give Utah an additional seat. The legislation was originally crafted a few years back by now retired Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton as a bi-partisan compromise. Seeing that statehood was a non-starter, Davis and Norton offered to balance the District's presumed Democratic seat with one for solidly Republican Utah, which is slated to get an additional seat anyhow once re-apportionment of the House's seats is completed in 2010. Opponents call the plan unconstitutional because only states are allowed seats in the House; proponents claim that the Constitution grants Congress authority over the District to make this sort of change. The House passed the measure in early 2007, only to see the Senate filibuster it to death. An identical bill was introduced earlier this month at the start of the new legislative session.
What About Statehood?: The last time statehood was seriously considered was in the mid-1980s, when a constitutional amendment to create "New Columbia" failed when not enough states opted to ratify it. Since then, statehood has been more a rallying cry than a reality. D.C. voting rights activists are somewhat evenly split over the existing legislation before Congress. The pragmatic wing of the movement argues that something is better than nothing, while the idealist wing retorts that a token remedy to a historic injustice is no remedy at all. The pragmatists see a voting seat as but one step toward statehood; the idealists fear that it will distract from the larger cause of statehood.
Washington, MD: So if getting statehood is practically impossible and gaining just one voting seat in the House is insulting, is there a workable alternative? Sure -- just become part of Maryland. The idea of retroceding the non-federal parts of the District to Maryland has some historical precedent. The District was originally carved out from parts of Maryland and Virginia, and in 1847 Arlington County and parts of Alexandria were ceded back to the commonwealth. (Yes, Arlington, you could have been part of the way awesome District had you said something back then.) Retrocession advocates argue that Congress should just repeat the process, but this time give what's left back to Maryland. Of course, the idea sounds great if you don't actually ask Maryland whether they want us -- or if we want to be part of them. So far none of Maryland's power-brokers have looked too kindly upon the idea (would they really want the urban challenges of both Baltimore and the District to contend with?), and District residents usually respond by pointing out that 200 years of history has given the city a distinct identity that can't simply be rolled into another state. Crabs and half-smokes just can't co-exist, people.
No Representation and No Taxes: One of our biggest gripes is that even though we don't get a voting representative, we're still forced to pay taxes -- and high ones. The District is second only to Connecticut in the amount residents pay to the federal government every year. For a country founded on the rallying cry of "No Taxation without Representation," it's an awkward state of affairs, especially when you consider that D.C. residents are now legally entitled to have guns. Over-taxed, under-represented and well-armed is not a good mix. The remedy? Exempt D.C. residents from paying federal taxes. It sounds like a great idea, but it's not so much a response to an injustice as it is a bribe for us to stop complaining about it. It's also never going to happen. As Eleanor Holmes Norton noted after Rep. Louie Gohmert declared he would introduce legislation that would grant District residents tax-exempt status at this week's hearing, she's tried pushing this before, and gotten absolutely nowhere.
The Status Quo: Very few people actually argue that the way things are is just fine. National polls on the issue find that when Americans are informed about the District's lack of voting rights, they're in favor of fixing the problem by a large majority. Even so, we've been stuck in the same cycle of complain, debate, hope and fail for decades. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Washington knows that meaningful change is painfully slow to pass, and most new laws end up as watered down, ineffective shells of their original selves thanks to amendments and compromises. Even with Mr. Change now occupying the White House, leaders of the voting rights movement have been busy reminding us that we shouldn't get our hopes up for the current legislation to pass very quickly. There are other, more pressing matters to worry about. We've been fine the way we are this whole time, after all, right?
Despite our cynicism, though, this congressional session is generally seen as the best chance we've ever had to gain any kind of voting representation. Stay tuned to DCist, where we'll be keeping track of every step along the way.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
(Yes, Arlington, you could have been part of the way awesome District had you said something back then.)
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA!
[soils self, changes underwear]
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You people are a f***ing riot! That is gold, Jerry! Gold! I'm sure Arlington's happy with their representation and lack of cannibal necrophile tax cheats on their City Council, thank you very much. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to send a picture of my junk to MY SENATOR. You should try it some time. Oh, yeah. I went there.
Nice photo, but that's from a demonstration by supporters of the Youth Voting Rights Act. As I understand it, they're trying to get the voting age lowered to seven.
I can get behind seven-year-old enfranchisement. And Miley Cyrus would make a great Secretary for Wanting to Be A Rockstar!
We should also drop the Jonas Brothers on Tehran.
I've heard this before, but can someone explain how DC residents pay more federal taxes that any state other than Connecticut? Surely CA, IL, and NY have much larger federal contributions...
Maybe this is a per capita number? Even, then I find it hard to believe.
Thanks for any light you can shed on this....
D.C. paid $20.3 billion in federal taxes in 2007, the most federal taxes per capita, and more than the total taxes paid by 19 states.
IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls
Per capita...that's a lot more clear thanks. I hope DCist will be cleared next time.
Though the spreadsheet doesn't do the math $20bn / 600k residents = ~$33k per person.
Retrocession isn't the easy option many people think it is. For one, the constitutionality of the Virginia retrocession has never been determined by the courts. The Supreme Court held in Phillips v. Payne (1875) that Virginia had de facto control over the area but refused to take up the primary question of whether the actual retrocession was constitutional.
Second, the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment complicates matters further. It specifically contemplates "The District" as a unique political entity with a resident population. Returning the District to Maryland may violate this amendment and would leave us trying to figure out what to do with the District's three electoral votes.
How many people even lived in Arlington in 1847? I thought DC gave it back b/c one family owned the whole damned thing and wanted to keep it undeveloped.
I believe it was due to concerns over slavery. There was a big slave market in Arlington and Southerners did not want the federal government to control the territory, fearing that it would ban the slave trade and also set a damaging (from their view) precedent.
Yes, I've heard the same thing. That the VA side wanted control of the slave trade up the Potomac.
That may or may not be true. Any historians know for sure?
It's more appropriate to say that Alexandria retroceeded. Alexandria was a moderately successful port when DC was founded in the 1790s. It was included in the VA land grant to give the city more of economic chance of survival. Then it retroceeded in the 1846 because of fears the slave trade was about to be outlawed in the District (which it was in the Compromise of 1850). What is Arlington County was land owned by the Custis family (as in Martha Custis Washington, wife of George Washington), which was last owned by Robert E Lee. It didn't become Arlington County until the 1920s.
An excellent, readable synopsis.
"and in 1847 Arlington County and parts of Alexandria were ceded back to the commonwealth."
Actually the whole area was called Alexandria County. It didn't become Arlington County until the 1920's to avoid confusion with that part of Alexandria County that had incorporated itself as a city (also after retrocession).
So the county is actually named after the house/cemetery and not vice versa.
Beyond considerations of the right thing to do (full representation for DC), there's the big practical problem of what you would need to get there, especially possible Senate seats. Which state or senator would vote to diminish their own power and influence by granting representation to DC?
It's one thing to do it in the House, where the size of the body makes another seat or two not that big a deal, but it's a huge deal in the Senate.
Retrocession? Are you kidding? I don't know too many Marylanders who would ever vote for that.
I'm not sure that D.C. residents would want that either, as retrocession would almost certainly mean higher taxes for people living in the District. Based on current tax rates, property taxes in the district would have to rise by about 20% to be on parity with Montgomery and PG County levels.
If D.C. residents really want change then they should organize a mass tax protest. If you aren't getting any representation for your federal tax dollars, why pay federal income tax? Remember, money talks.
If D.C. residents really want change then they should organize a mass tax protest. If you aren't getting any representation for your federal tax dollars, why pay federal income tax? Remember, money talks.
Yeah, that only works if everyone plays. Do you want to be first? ;)
I am all about no federal taxation.
Bring it on.
There's another option -- Congress can use its plenary authority over the District to give us a seat in the House and can use that same plenary authority to declare that for purposes of electing senators (and for that purpose only), the District will be considered part of Maryland. Maryland shouldn't care that much, because it wouldn't really cause much change in their state politics (other than to ensure that all future senators will be Democrats). And consistent with the 23rd Amendment, DC would still get its three electoral votes.
How does Congress' authority over the District extend to Maryland? Where in the Constitution can Congress declare citizens of a territory to be citizens of a particular State (and then only for certain limited purposes)?
This is the second time I've seen a phrase like this on DCist in posts about statehood. It's not only confusing, it's wrong. Add the per-capita clarification - this is an important issue and it doesn't help to have misleading arguments to make the case.
I for one would be all about no federal taxation, but, Congress would give us even less to deal with the structural deficit brought on by the federal government being here... and I definitely don't want to be apart of Maryland...
In Australia they have an autonomous federal district and a town named Canberra, does anyone know how they deal with these sorts of political issues? I’m sure there are some other examples across the globe as well…
Here we go with f**king Australia again! Why don't you just marry the b**ch already?
The Australian Capital Territory is very much like the District of Columbia in that they have a local government that can be overruled by the national government. However, residents of the ACT are afforded full representation in both houses of the Australian parliament.
Maybe that's how they do things in Australia but here in civilization, we don't let koalas vote, we wouldn't think to put our mouths on something called "a digeridoo," and we boil our shrimp with Old Bay. We don't cook them with flaming Barbies. Or Kens for that matter.
There is a totally POS editorial in the Examiner today on this. Oh why does that newspaper, which has solid local reporting, have such an idiotic and reactionary ediorial page? It's like it's written by Cato interns.
Oh, and I'm for statehood, but I'm not down with "New Columbia". That name sucks. Why can't we just still be called the District of Columbia? Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Massachusetts call themselves "Commonwealths" not states; why can't we just keep calling ourselves a "District"?
To be fair, the name "New Columbia" is entirely apropos as it harkens back to "Old Columbia," home of the Medellin cartel and the exclusive source for all Marion Barry's cocaine and freshly slaughtered infants.
You've been thinking to much about sheep, monkey -- sticking 'u's where they don't belong.
Medellín is in Colombia.
If you think "The Examiner" leans so unfairly to the right... you need to read more of "The Express" and get over yourself...
I don't think it leans "unfairly" to the right. I think it leans "stupidly" to the right.
My complaint is not that they are conservative. That's fine. My complaint is that they make such childish and uninformed arguments. At least the Wendell Coxes and WSJ editorials of the world take a bit of thought to debunk.
amen to that, reid. i think we need to have some way of continuing our postal abbreviation as "DC". can't let that go. besides, "NC" is already taken...
I vote for "F**ksticks United" or "FU." Works great at cocktail parties.
"So where are you from?"
"FU."
[JUNKPUNCH]
Same deal as the Wall Street Journal, probably -- they're writing for an audience that needs (a) to know what's really going on, and (b) to be told that everything they believe is true, whether or not that conflicts with what they've just reported in (a). So you get a real news-gathering body married to an editorial propaganda mill.
Come to think of it, that's also a fair description of the Washington Post, particularly with regards to international affairs.
Next Thursday evening the DC Statehood Green Party is hosting a discussion at UDC.
Confirmed panelists include:
* Senator Michael D. Brown
* Senator Paul Strauss
* Councilmember Harry "Thommy" Thomas
* Councilmember Michael Brown
* Ann Loikow, DC Statehood Yes We Can Coalition
* Sam Smith, Progressive Review
* Anise Jenkins, Stand up for Democracy
It will be moderated by radio host, Mark Plotkin
WHEN: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 7pm to 9pm
WHERE: UDC School of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Van Ness Metro Station (Red Line), Building 39, Room 201.
I hope you can make it!
Check my Facebook event invitation to RSVP.
Sweet. Some of the "Maybe Attending"s are pretty hot. I'll have to remember to change my underwear and spray my junk down with Binaca.
So...DC gets a vote on the House floor but no Senators. Basically, DC residents get to move to the middle of the bus?
Statehood: Please, like we need another layer of ineffective bureaucracy?
Retrocession: never going to happen. Maryland already has Baltimore; they don't need DC too. Topographically it doesn't make any sense to make us part of Virginia (see: Civil War; see: Inauguration 2009)
No Federal Income: also never going to happen; those b-tards out there in the states already see us as a money suck.
Just give us the damn Senators already; Vermont's only got 42,000 more people living in it than DC for frak's sake.
And Wyoming and possibly North Dakota have fewer residents.
Statehood: Please, like we need another layer of ineffective bureaucracy?
Why does everyone assume we have to create a new layer of bureaucracy to become a state? We have most of the state-level functions already, so why not just rename the Mayor "Governor," turn the Council into a unicameral state legislature, and make us a state that also administers a lot of city-level functions instead of a city that administers a lot of state-level functions?
(I mean, it's one thing to assume that we will create another layer of ineffective bureaucracy. It's kind of what we do, after all. But we don't have to.)
Can we combine the posts of Sargeant-at-Arms and Majority Whip into a guy in a gimp mask and flail who beats the living $h!t out of Councilmembers who sponsor dumbass feelgood legislation like the Protection of Children and Babies from the Big Bad Rabbit Act of 2009?
The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment that failed in 1985, would not have made DC a state. It would have meant "For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution [DC would] be treated as though it were a State." So we wouldn't get another star on the flag for example. Going back to that amendment is another option not listed.
Or addressing the problems of DC, Puerto Rico and all the other unrepresented American citizens at once is possible.
Such as: A constitutional amendment that allows Congress to designate an area not within a state but within the United States a U.S. Represented Territory. Each USRT would have one congressperson and one presidential elector. All USRT's combined will behave as one state, sharing 2 Senators and 2 Electors, and voting as one on Constitutional Amendments and in Contingent Elections. Only one USRT can be smaller than the smallest state.
We would end up with three USRTs. One for DC. One for Puerto Rico and one for all the other territories (though VI could be added to PR). That would take care of the problem for everyone.
I find it kind of endearing that that little suffragette in the picture has this incredibly serious look on her face, yet also has the word "vote" written backwards on her forhead.
Endearing, but not exactly the best image to use...
She probably wrote it while looking in the mirror.
The DC Examiner - a truly miserable, execrable experience from cover to cover - weighs in with its viewpoint.
Though I hesitate to even use it for toilet paper, the examiner does make the case that some Constitutional groundwork is necessary to make anything happen.
I have been all for representation but I never knew no Federal taxes was an issue.
now... F&*k representation!!!! I am perfectly willing to allow Louis Gohmert and Mark Pence to rule my life if I don't have to pay Federal taxes!!
I am going out to my car and changing my plates to "No taxation, no representation... works for me!