Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Car Pushed Into Anacostia River By Train
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Devendra Banhart @ 9:30 Club
We've been gloating about the coming Senate vote on legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House. Why? Because unlike in 2007, this time we've pretty much got the 60 votes we need to get the measure through. But "pretty much" isn't "have," it seems. DC Vote sent around word today that Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) may break party lines and vote against the legislation, not the sort of thing we want to hear on such a tight vote in a chamber where just getting a majority doesn't mean much of anything. DC Vote is asking that anyone who hails from the Tar Heel State call Hagan's office at 202-224-6342 and tell her to vote for the legislation, lest we District residents run her out of town the way only we District residents can: with furrowed brows, sharply worded letters to the editor and angry, torch-yielding mobs of course. Do the right thing, Sen. Hagan.
North Carolina Senator May Vote Against D.C. Voting Rights Bill
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (54) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
We went to the Macy's at 12th & G this morning for the Black Friday morning specials. There was a sh
[more]
Did she give a reason?
yeah, what the heck is her reason? wwld? (what would liddy dole do?)
I believe Will Hunting summed up the "Honorable" Sen. Hagan's reasoning quite well. To paraphrase: "Why? 'Cuz f*** them, that's why."
Because the act is blatently unconstitutional maybe? I lived in DC and not having representation infuriated me, it still does. But this bill neither adequately addresses representation, nor will it stand constitutional muster.
The only two real options for DC are statehood (rather unrealistic, though possible), or retrocession back to Maryland.
tim: i ask this to everyone who asserts the bill is unconstitutional—why not let them pass it so we can have the courts rule once-and-for-all on its constitutionality? otherwise, we keep getting the same thing brought up every two years, with no movement forward on something else that might work.
i feel like this bill will not pass muster with the courts, but i'm not one of the nine folks sitting on the supreme bench. shouldn't we let them make that call?
to get to the supreme court means you had enough folks agreeing something was a good law and so it passed a legislative vote. i don't think it would serve our democracy very well to be sending everything up to the court just to see if it passes muster.
i also think the integrity of the constitutional process trumps dc residents not having the vote. i have no problem with the idea that you shouldn't have to pay federal taxes in the meantime.
and, you lost me on the wwld; are you saying Sen Hagan's reason might be because she want to do what Dole would do, or are you saying Dole would support this bill, cause i think she voted against it's predecessor in Sept 2007.
and shouldn't it be wwldd? : )
i'm just trying to be cute with the wwld bit. of course dole was opposed to this, i realize that, and i was just riffing on the fact that it appears on this vote that ms. hagan might as well be ms. dole.
it's great that you have no problem with me not paying federal taxes in the meantime. are you not a district citizen? i am. i want to be fairly represented in my government, i don't want to be a bum who sells himself short by not paying my fair share like everyone else.
i don't think that passing absolutely everything, good bill or not, to see if it passes court muster is a good idea either. but this is a unique case. there aren't any other jurisdictions out there that have this very unique issue.
the funny thing is all of the people who are opposed to this bill who say "i'm all for your representation, you just need statehood or retrocession". when these people realize that maryland is not in favor of retrocession, do you think they're going to vote for statehood for DC? hell no! it boils down to the fact that we're a reliably one-party jurisdiction. if we had a stronger republican party here, i'm sure we could peel a few more republican votes for statehood or its equivalent.
but, as long as they gain nothing politically from this, republicans will stay away in droves.
since i think it's unconstitutional, i don't want congress passing the law because i don't want the constitutional process sidestepped so easily, and, to me, that issue trumps you feeling like a bum.
i have lived in dc, a couple of times, and maryland, but i now live in arlington.
i favor retrocession and i don't really care whether maryland or dc want each other. i am strongly opposed to giving dc statehood, mostly because the city has shown no ability to govern itself, and while i concede that many states have their own stupid self-governance issues, none have seemed as horribly inept as the dc gov't.
it's great that you don't care if DC and maryland want each other. fantastic! wonderful!
since you feel some things trump others, how about this—the opinion of the government of the sovereign state of maryland trumps your opinion on this issue. maryland does not want the district back. therefore, as the kids say, notgonnahappen.
DC's ability to govern itself has grown exponentially since mr. kidney transplant left the mayor's office. between anthony williams and adrian fenty, we've seen a real professional governing body built in this city, in just 10 years.
remember, all those other states out there have had between 50 and 200 years to build up their ability to self-govern. DC has had 30 years, and if you discount the shitty self-government that existed up until anthony williams was elected mayor, we're looking at just under a decade. follow the projection—we're moving rapidly in the right direction, and i don't think you're giving the city credit for that.
What "constitutional process" is being "sidestepped" if this passes? I have no idea what you are talking about. People differ on some constitutional issues. We have a court to settle those differences. That's a constitutional process.
entrada, i believe the only constitutional way for dc residents to get a vote is for dc to become a state, or a constitutional amendment giving dc residents representation. passing laws to get around that, is, in MY opinion, unconstitutional.
hillman, i think your vitriol is cute. what a pareenie.
i also think that, although dc has its own share of scandal and corruption, what dc seems to trump all those others in is a pattern of unrivaled institutional ineptitude. if san diego, philadelphia, baltimore, or even new york city wanted to be states, i would ask my representatives to vote against that, too.
imgoph, i'd even support giving dc to virginia. they don't want you either, but the city/state thing isn't working for me.
"i am strongly opposed to giving dc statehood, mostly because the city has shown no ability to govern itself, and while i concede that many states have their own stupid self-governance issues, none have seemed as horribly inept as the dc gov't."
Bullshit. American history is filled with terrible government.
David Vitter. William Jefferson. The California state government. The San Diego city council. Tammany Hall.
The list is literally endless. In fact, I'm sending you a link of just some recent ones...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#1999_-_2008
As for actual nonfunctioning government, all I can say is: Philadelphia. Baltimore. NYC in the 70s. Again, the list goes on and on and on and fucking on.
Of course, New Orleans manages to combine both corruption and ineptitude to levels that put DC to shame.
I call bullshit on the 'DC government is bad so they don't get democracy' argument.
Before I say what I want to say let me be perfectly clear....I'm all for District citizens getting a representative OR not being taxed. Whats happening in the District is a damd shame but District citizens must shoulder some of the blame.
No, I don't live in the District and as far as I’m concerned, unless you were born in the District you cannot claim to be treated as a second class citizen because you had the option to live outside the District if having a representative was that important. This is exactly why I don't live in D.C.
The politicians will drag their feet on this issue for as long as it benefits their cause never giving the people any real solution because the truth is that no matter how much politicians talk about amending the Constitution it is not something they take lightly. This is exactly the reason George W. Bush and the Republican Party never moved much on promises to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The District was intended to house the seat of government and was never intended to be a home for citizens. The only people who were disenfranchised were those that lived within the boundaries of the city when it was established. Anyone that has thus moved into the city after then or moved out then moved back did so at their own peril.
The Bill of Rights trumps the Constitution because the Bill of Rights establishes basic American civil liberties that the government cannot violate. Amending the Constitution won’t get you the result you want. However, the government does have the power to right the wrongs against District citizens in other ways.
NPGMBR replied to comment from IMGoph
No, I don't live in the Colonies and as far as I’m concerned, unless you were born in the Colonies you cannot claim to be treated as a second class citizen because you had the option to live outside the Colonies if having a representative was that important. This is exactly why I don't live in Massachusetts Bay.
Yep. That's exactly what George Washington and the Continental Army thought.
Oh, no, wait.
You have a freakin' country today because they stayed and fought. They didn't 'just move'.
Beyond that, simply saying DC residents can just move is simplistic.
Taken to it's logical extreme, do you really think an abandoned capital city is a good idea? That's what 'just moving' would necessarily end up giving us.
And many DC residents were born here. Their entire social and financial network is here. Many are older and can't afford to move.
Should democracy be available only to those that can afford to move?
Integrity of the constitutional process?
That's sweet.
Sweetly stupid.
By definition laws that don't pass constitutional muster pass all the time.
That's why you have a Supreme Court.
And some very bright constitutional scholars disagree on this issue.
And the ONLY way to have the Supreme Court rule on it is for it to become law.
And, honestly, you don't live in DC, so on this issue you can go fuck yourself.
um, actually, my opinion matters BECAUSE i don't live in dc. i have a representative who has a vote on this issue. if that rep were waffling like Senator Hagan, then i'm sure you'd all be calling your friends in virginia to make calls from 703, or 540....
You are correct in that as a practical matter your opinion does matter.
I'm arguing more from a moral point of view. You don't live here. In fact, you live in a neighboring suburb that has gotten quite used to have an upper hand in any sort of dealings with DC.
As such, you insisting on denying DC equality is, to put it bluntly, selfish and fucked in the head.
i have no problem with dc having equality, i just want it to happen in a way that i consider constitutional.
the selfish part could be that i prefer dc not get statehood.
i'm sorry any opinion that disagrees with you is f'd in the head. that's what makes you a pareenie...and it doesn't add to my confidence that you can govern yourself.
Selfish and fuck in the head?....Dude there is no need for your feelings to be so bruised. You are being engaged in a respectful manner….well you were.
If you had read my original post and that of Tohellandback's with any amount of critical thinking you would have clearly identified that I was all for protecting the rights of District residents. But instead of engaging us in a logical grown-up debate you stoop to insulting fellow posters like a child unable to defend his argument.
Why don't you take a step back and think about what you want to say before spewing such nonsense!
My harshest comments were reserved for ToHell, not you. He's advocated denying statehood and basic democratic freedoms.
It's the same basic bullshit we've been hearing from suburbanites for decades now.
And you're idiotic 'just move' suggestion is personally insulting.
I call em like I sees em.
but you only see what you want. just because i don't think dc should be a state, doesn't mean i don't want you to have constitutional rights. i'm all for changing the constitution to give dc a vote, or dc becoming a part of a real state; but it's also true, i am opposed to creating a city/state, earned or not. even utah had to show a balanced voting record before the other states would let them join the union. that will never happen in dc, or any other completely urban area.
Yet you continue to avoid answering my "idiotic" question to you about why it is so difficult for District residents to move? Why is it not possible when it is possible to very other citizen of the United States?
Just so you know (you're = you are).
i'm pretty sure that's been answered elsewhere in the thread, npgmbr.
Maybe it was, but the question was posed to Hillman who challenged my me on that topic and all I'm asking is that he explain himself.
Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
And correcting grammar on a blog like DCist? You'll be a busy little blogger.
I'll elaborate on my answer.
Suggesting that we abandon DC to get voting rights, instead of addressing the problem through other easier means, is stupid. Laughably so.
The logistics are mindboggling. Most DC residents are here to work for the Feds or do Fed-related work.
They would have to relocate to the burbs.
The ensuing suburban traffic, once half a million people relocated, would grind the region to a halt.
And then what happens to the unpopulated city? Who will stop the inevitable fires, sewer breaks, law enforcement problems, etc? Remember that there are federal facilities all through the city. They would all end up being surrounded by wasteland, reliant on a city infrastructure that is no longer there.
And the businesses in DC? They can't 'just move'. Some many finds homes in the burbs, but many would go bankrupt.
Would make a terrific trashy movie, but the reality is unworkable.
And I can't even calculate the cost involved. Your suggestion that the Feds pitch in and pay that cost is even stupider than your original suggestion. The cost would be in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions.
Suggesting that we turn the capital city into an unpopulated waste zone, upending hundreds of thousands of people, disrupting the actual workings of the government, is stupid. Stupid. Stupider than stupid.
*Ding ding ding*
Tim, neither you nor I are on the Supreme Court. Neither is Sen. Hagan. The question of whether the District Clause gives Congress the authority to grant DC a voting representative is an open one. Congress is well within its rights to pass such legislation.
I happen to think that, ultimately, the legislation probably isn't constitutional, but, hey, like I said, I'm not on the Supreme Court.
Sigh. I'm sick of tired arguments like Tim's as well.
BUT -- I also think it majorly bites the big one that for DC to get quasi-representation, Utah must get another vote. That DC will reliably vote Democrat is the same line of reasoning used in the early 1900s not to give women the vote - they'd reliably go conservative. Pathetic and embarrassing for a democracy then, pathetic and embarrassing for a democracy now.
The Utah seat doesn't really bother me. The 435 number is arbitrary, so changing it to 437 makes no difference. Utah happens to benefit for a couple of years when the seats are recalculated by the normal process. After the 2010 census, the seats will be reapportioned again, and some other state will benefit instead. We can't tell at this point which one it will be.
I just called Senator Hagan's office and spoke with a very nonplussed young woman who did not seem receptive to my "pretty please" for a vote.
North Carolina, I could say that I missed you & your blue dogs. But then I would be lying.
I just called Hagan's Raleigh office (the DC office wasn't picking up), and I think I got the same young woman. She stopped me mid sentence to sneer, "...but you're calling from a 202 number!"
I explained that I grew up in Raleigh, maintain my address there, and voted enthusiastically for Sen Hagan in November, but that I work in DC.
Her response, "oh.. well most people who call here have a 919 area code."
Hello? Attitude adjustment. I've worked for a senator before. I know that it's a pain to deal with constituents all day long, but don't you realize that your attitude reflects on your boss?
And FYI lady, I do have a 919 area code on my cell phone. And Kay Hagan now has one very much less enthusiastic supporter.
well, i'm going out in a few minutes for the birthday of a friend from north carolina. i'll make sure to let her know that she should have her parents and other family call in from home, since her senator's very busy, very underpaid, very haughty staff doesn't like to receive calls from the 202 area code.
I respect the sentiment, and I understand the desire to have a vote, but why don't you show some commitment to DC and register here?
Well, that's sort of the point. I pay taxes to DC, so I'm willing to commit my dollars here. I've gone to school here and get involved in certain local issues, so I'm willing to commit my time. And, when DC gets the vote, I'll happily register here.
I don't think my lack of a vote for ward commissioner (they're all pretty much nuts) shows that I'm not committed to DC.
She's probably waiting the outcome of Marion Barry's surgery. If he doesn't make it, DC has her vote.
Just called my buddy and former DC resident who now lives in NC about this. Hopefully he'll get on the horn and contact her office (...from his not-a-202 number!)
I just moved from the District to North Carolina. I donated to Hagan's campaign after Dole made her fuckwit comments about atheists last year. Her office will be getting a call from me and my fiancée in the morning.
Forgive my ignorance, but why is it unconstitutional for DC residents to have voting representation in Congress? This is not a loaded question. I truly don't know.
Re: [23] newhampave.
The relevant passage in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States..."
In context, "shall" suggests it's necessary; "several" means each independently; and "States" looks a lot like, well, states. Since there was federally run territory not belonging to any state in 1787, it's safe to say that the writers knew that some Americans wouldn't have voting representation until states were formed in that territory; this foreshadows the actual history.
That's why, traditionally, it's been thought unconstitutional. Note: you can have a constitutional attempt to create an unconstitutional law: that's what the court is for. But there's a lot of reasons why it's bad process to have the house pass unconstitutional laws, expecting them to get shut down, mostly having to do with public perceptions.
Since I'm commenting, I'd note that DC's in a weird position because it's the only place that seemingly *can't* become a state. Which puts its residents in a legal place where even if they want to comply with the obligation of citizenship, they can't get a vote. Which seems unjust.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but couldn't DC become a state simply by Congress voting on it? It seems the path to statehood is simply a Congressional vote, and the District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress a crapton of leeway, including, I would think, making DC a state.
The hang up on the "several states" issue is not insurmountable. There are several instances where the court has read the word "state" to include the District, such as the interstate commerce clause. The point is that while some are convinced it is unconstitutional, others hold a good faith belief that it is not unconstitutional. Your concerns about public perceptions or bad process would only seem to be applicable if the Congress was passing laws not in good faith that they are constitutional. That is not the case here.
I would disagree with Hillman about the way DC would become a state. It would probably require a constitutional amendment. We cannot get rid of D.C. through legislation alone since it is guaranteed electors via an amendment. To make DC a state would probably require the creation of a federal city within the state of DC (I refuse to call it New Columbia, that sucks). That federal city would have exactly one household: the White House. But unless that amendment is revoked, the President would be granted three electoral votes.
Remember, Congress already passed an amendment to give DC statehood, it just didn't get approved by the states. If we could've just done it by Congressional vote, we'd already be a state (although, arguably the Congress that passed the amendment wouldn't have necessarily passed a DC statehood bill, nonetheless it indicates what they thought the legal requirements for DC statehood to be).
And in conclusion, those that trod out the whole "DC hasn't earned statehood" thing don't know anything about history. Territorial governments got statehood all the time despite being terribly run and utterly corrupt. Just look at Alaska.
Reid --
Thanks for a great reply. Very much in agreement with your comments about public perception and whether DC needs to "earn statehood".
At the very least, though, would you concede that the standard line of reasoning is that the "several states" phrase is insurmountable, and, on that basis, a constitutional amendment is needed? I see your analogy with interstate commerce, but that's clearly not been how the country's been reading that clause.
I don't concede that it is insurmountable. It has not been ruled upon by the supreme court. You can argue that a plain reading of the text would make the bill unconstitutional, but plain readings are not the only thing that the supreme court considers. That is why the interstate commerce clause applies to commerce between Maryland and DC. It's why the privileges and immunities clause applies to DC.
And it's not the country's reading of the clause that matters, it's the court's. And right now that's an unknowable thing.
Let me put it this way: constitutional scholars much smarter than you or me have weighed both in support or against the constitutionality of the bill. If relying on some constitutional scholars despite their disagreement with others is not a sound enough basis for having a good faith belief in the constitutionality of a bill, then I don't know what sort of standard you would think is fair.
I agree that the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed if DC became a state, but that is not the same as saying that an amendment is required for DC to become a state. DC (minus the federal enclave) could become a state first, and then repealing the 23rd Amendment would be completely uncontroversial, since it would no longer make sense. (Also, presidents generally maintain residence for voting purposes in the states they lived in before coming to DC, though admittedly in the unlikely circumstance you're talking about a president might decide to be a resident of the federal enclave.)
And I agree that we need a better name than "New Columbia". Plain "Columbia" would be better, but "Potomac" would be even better. Though maybe we can come up with something that's not already a city in Maryland.
What's wrong with just keep calling ourselves the District of Columbia? So what if the name doesn't match the description anymore.
Looks like we gonna have to go Colonial on her.
We gonna have us a Boston Tea Party.
For the life of me, I don't have a substitute for tea, but
I think Metro has some unused Metro transfers that they don't need.
...on second thought..
My dear man it is that simple! Saying that District residents can move is not simplistic at all. What keeps them from doing it?
Abandoning a capital city...whats your fear of that?
People all over this country get up and move their entire social and financial network when they relocate to a new state for many reasons. Why can’t District residents? Is it somehow more difficult or impossible?
Better yet, as a tax paying citizen of the state of Virginia, formally of Louisiana having had representatives from both states….I say why don’t you instead go fuck yourself!
npgmbr: for those of us who could afford to get up and move, and afford to uproot our families, it would be a possibility.
ask people who are hovering just above the poverty line to do that though. there are quite a few people whose precarious financial, social, and familial conditions would absolutely preclude them from moving anywhere without being heavily subsidized to do so. not to mention the emotional problems it might cause some people. mock it or not, some people are very connected to their homes and hometowns, and leaving those behind could cause them a bit of damage to their peace-of-mind.
IMGoph - I completely understand your argument and I agree, however, Hillman insists that it is not possible for District residents and I'm calling him on it to explain what he said.
The truth of the matter is that District residents (like residents of most metropolitan areas in the U.S.) could significantly improve their financial standing by moving away from cities. Please don't focus on the consumption of fuel as a deterrent because the savings come in lower taxes on everything from property, income, food and sales taxes.
Even things as mundane as dry cleaning are much cheaper in Arlington than it is in the District. All of these options should be considered when faced with a financial crisis and people that find living in the District to be difficult financially are only hurting themselves when they discount nearby localities that offer the same services at much lower prices.
So according to your logic NPGMBR, it makes sense to have all of DC's nearly 600,000 people move to someplace they would prefer not to live, due to an out-of-date loophole in our laws. This makes sense because YOU don't like the idea of changing the law and will be better for everyone anyway beacuse the dry cleaning is cheaper?
Did I get that right?
No you got it wrong. Go back and read my responses and get the full scope of what I was saying.
For everyone in DC to get voting rights, under your plan, it would require them all to leave DC. That would result in most of them losing their life savings, as once it became clear that this was happening real estate in DC would be worthless.
There would be no tax money to fund local police, fire, etc.
The city would literally crumble. Sortof like what we had with Marion Barry, only slightly faster.
That is the logical result of your 'just move' argument.
Would it actually happen? Of course not. But that's your argument, that that's what should happen in order for DC residents to have equality.
Don't be so dramatic, that is the least likely scenario to take place. I'm fairly sure that our leaders in the Congress and Senate could come to some agreement that would appropriately compensate District citizens (if) it became necessary to do such a thing. Considering the cost; I'm certain our fearless leaders would do everything they can to avoid that because it would be extremely costly to compensate residents and business owners to relocate.
My "just move" argument applies to those that willingly moved into the District with full knowledge that they would not have a representative. In addition you seemed to have overlooked my other suggestion that the District be declared to no-tax zone thus bringing the rights of District citizens in-line with the Constitution.