A Little Rain on the Voting Rights Parade
Yesterday was surely a day of celebration for those of us who have been fighting for D.C. voting rights. The mere fact that the Senate voted to approve the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is a huge step in what has long been a consistently frustrating battle for equal rights for the District of Columbia.
But to be honest, I've had trouble mustering up much more than token excitement over this development. The Senate's approval didn't come without strings, in the form of an amendment gutting the District's gun laws. Now, this kind of amendment is nothing new and didn't come as a big surprise. It's also got a good chance of getting scrubbed out as the legislation moves through conference committee. But the fact that a measure to enfranchise 600,000 American citizens still can't make it through Congress without someone trying to attach noxious conditions to it proves that legislators just don't get it.
This bill isn't just about having a voting representative in the House. It's about the residents of the District enjoying rights that every other American never has to question. And those rights are not ours because government chooses to grant them to us -- they are ours for the simple fact that we are human. That yesterday District residents were told they would have to settle for a trade-off between token representation and home rule is embarrassing. It once again reminded us that Congress doesn't see us as equal to the residents of the 50 states. In the midst of the horsetrading happening around the Senate's debate this week, it often felt like the discussion was no longer even about District residents and the rights that they have long been denied.
No one drove this point home more than Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who in his own Louie Gohmert-like moment opined that District residents don't need their own representatives because they already have 535 of them looking out for their best interests. This is a minority opinion, but the 62 senators who voted for the amendment to repeal the District's gun laws effectively told us that they know better how to run our affairs than we do.
There's an argument to be made that we brought this upon ourselves. Instead of pursuing the much more difficult path toward full statehood, the incremental approach to gaining voting rights -- which I have long supported -- has ironically emboldened the many members of Congress who believe that they can lord over the District without cause or consequence. The current legislation cites Congress's absolute authority over District matters as a justification for allowing it to grant us one voting seat in the House. As we fight not only for voting rights but also the right to govern ourselves, we've somewhat given up the latter for the immediate gain of the former. We might get a voting member, but we do so by tacitly telling members of Congress that yes, they do have the ultimate say in our local affairs.
I admit I'm being something of a party-spoiler here. And yes, you can surely just tell me to be happy that we at least got something, at long last. But if you're one of the people who has long held that the incremental approach to gaining voting rights would leave us unsatisfied—at this point, I fear you might be right.