Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
The New York Times editorial board penned a pro-D.C. Voting Rights piece today. "Washington’s lack of representation is profoundly undemocratic," they write. "Of course, in a perfect world, fixing the disenfranchisement of residents of the nation’s capital would not be conditioned on giving another House member to a state that has not been wrongly deprived of one. But the compromise is still worth making." The Times goes with the “District Clause” argument when pondering constitutionality, and takes a quote from EHN for its headline: "'It’s 200 years too late,' says Eleanor Holmes Norton, who now serves as the city’s nonvoting member of the House. 'But we’ll take it.'" For those who missed the news late Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed to begin floor debate on the bill on Feb. 23, and a vote is expected on Feb. 24, making the bill one of the very first items of business for the Senate after they return from this week's recess.
New York Times Editorial on D.C. Voting Rights
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (5) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Check out local Singer/Songwriter Todd Wright's new project 40x40. He's writing recording and relea
[more]
I won't rest until DC gets the Senators they deserve, who can join the distinguished company of David "Diaperman" Vitter and Larry "Men's Room Goblin" Craig. Only one DC politician even begins to approach their level of service-to-constituents, and he has yet to return from the all-you-can-eat baby bar at Junkpunchers. I sure hope that men's room is ventilated, because those Bleu Cheese and Buffalo Baby Wings go through you like a Ferrari.
perhaps they were influenced by me wearing my DC voting rights shirt when i walked by the times' new HQ yesterday!
Has someone started a pool yet? A very, very badly slanted pool? I put $50 on DC gettin fucked, somehow, someway. But someone has to be up for putting money on someone getting a vote just for the sweet odds.
Repubs will argue that it's unconstitutional and they will be right but never address the underlying problem, which is taxation without representation.
If this Senate "debate" is about solutions to the problem then that will be a good thing. It the Senate floor debate just serves as a chance for Congresscritters to perpetuate myths about the District Clause then it will be a very bad thing. The District Clause is NOT an authorization to create a democracy-free zone where American citizens check their rights at the border.
Can't they pass that other bill about no federal taxes for DC residents as a backup in case the voting rights one is struck down?
And did anyone else find the Post's editorial against the no tax bill to be incredibly lame and poorly argued? Basically their argument was that DC residents would have hurt feelings if they didn't pay federal taxes. Um....right. Because I'm sure the citizens of the other US territories are in therapy about not having to pay any taxes to Uncle Whiskers.