Morning Roundup: Local Ties Edition
DCist Preview: Thao & Portland Cello Project
Overheard in D.C.: A Strange World
D.C. Cutting Back its H1N1 Vaccine Clinics
The Weekly Feed: Running from Pigs Edition
Grim news on the long-delayed D.C. House Voting Rights Act. Roll Call reports (subscription only) from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's regular Tuesday press conference that the congressman is pulling the bill from consideration for the foreseeable future.
“As a result of there not being a consensus, I don’t think we’re going to be able to move the bill at this point in time,” Hoyer told reporters at his weekly briefing.
...
“I think it is a blot on our democracy. I will not give up on this bill. I will continue to work it. I have thought more about this bill over the last five months — and we’ve done some very big stuff — than I think any other bill."
The voting rights act, as you'll recall, was tripped up after passing the Senate with an amendment attached from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) that would have stripped the District's existing, post-Heller gun laws from the books.
And don't hold your breath on Hoyer following through with those meek pledges to keep working on this particular bill. City Desk has the memo from D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton's office that spells out exactly how the decision to kill the voting rights act was reached.
All agreed that there were good reasons to wait for now. Please understand that we are holding the bill for now, not giving up on voting rights.
This is big news in the voting rights community, so stay tuned for more.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
This conversation is over.
WOW. I totally didn't see this coming.
I know, right? First, it turns out that the Tooth Fairy isn't real, and now this? This has been a bad week for me.
I'm mad at Ensign for getting us here, and I'm mad at Norton for not pushing it through WITH the compromise. Failure to compromise on this issue killed what has, to date, been our best shot at getting a vote. Do we really expect to have a better shot later? As Cartman once said, FOCUS ON THE CANDY.
If you ask half a million DC residents whether they want Federal tax exempt status for DC OR Senators Barry and Graham smoking crack and banning pizza and talking $h!t, which line would you be in? I know which line I would be in. I'd be in that long muthaf**ker. But none of this jibes with well-intentioned chuckleheads who can't get past the unconstitutionality of this legislation. Instead of just giving the NRA babies in Congress their precious gun rights legislation and sending them back to their constituents, Norton et al threw the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe next time they'll learn to make some shrewd, calculated political moves instead of embarrasingly sloppy gladhanding.
And maybe the mayor can go a week without vanishing into thin air, but that's not where the smart money is.
First, Monkey, YOU'RE NOT A DC RESIDENT.
Second, Statehood now!
That's all. Thanks.
Monkey may not be, but I am, and I hereby agree with his position which, as it so happens, agrees with mine!
I can't disagree with anything you've said. The legislation is dead. Retrocession is going nowhere. All that's left is either statehood or tax-exempt status. What's being done to either of those ends? Not a whole helluva lot from what I can see.
Or perhaps Norton et al will just recycle this dead legislation every year, like Jim Graham does with his Protection from Force Majeure Acts of 2004, 2005, 2006....
Insert Nelson Muntz laugh here.
AARGH. "Not being able to reach consensus" my ass. YOU HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THE DAMN THING!!
Seriously. DC politics: another day, another letdown.
Oh well, time to take the training class after all I guess.
Thank you Hoyer, EHN, Mendo and others for totally playing into Republican hands. I am sure they are having a good chuckle knowing that, once again, you would not call them on their bluff. We have had NO MOVEMENT on representation for 30 years and will NOT have any movement until you get your collective heads out of your collective butts.
I can only assume Martin is assembling a post mortem that places full blame on the failure of this legislation squarely on the backs of Republicans, commuters, Rush Limbaugh, the NRA, and Morgoth?
And me.
And I am sure it will include "We should hold out for statehood," and "you can't compare 2A rights to 'real' rights."
and i am also waiting for him to write about how gay marriage should not be put up for referendum because it is right that should be recognized whether people support it or not.
Random Question:
The appeal of the bill for republicans was the addition of a Utah seat (not counting the gun amendment). With the new census not far off (where Utah would gain that seat anyways), does that mean the bill needs to start from scratch in the future with another reason to entice the GOP?
The new census is not far off.. but nor is a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
If the Dems had the will, it could be done without any need to entice the GOP.
See, there IS a consensus. I get frustrated with people who think that Dems are somehow being forced to vote Pro-2A on issues and are being weak. Actually it is just the opposite. Has it occurred to you that many Democrats support 2A rights? They are actually standing up to the party leadership.
Yes, it has occurred to me.. since I am one. I don't think my original point is incorrect. If the dems had the will, it could get done. Part of that will would be acknowledging the fact that they have lost the 2A debate.
okay. agreed
Random thought: The phrase "L is for Leaders" is most apt to be found in Orwellito's primer to oxymoron newspeak.
or, in other words:
some favors were exchanged and now some people owe us for killing the bill. in return, i got to keep my life.
seriously, i smell something shady in the background here.
The DC House Voting Rights Act (H.R.157/S.160): another victim of senseless gun violence.
The 1/3 Compromise was unconstitutional from the start. It always has been. Congress cannot make a separate but unequal congressional district. Simple as that. The bill explicitly denied DC residents Senators, so even if the bill were to pass, every time EHN would introduce a bill, Senators could tack on whatever they wanted, and without representation in the Senate, there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it. That is not democracy folks.
The 23rd Amendment needs to be changed, removed, or altered if we are ever going to get anywhere. I suggest that they introduce a constitutional amendment NOW. Times have changed considerably since the 1978 Voting Rights Amendment and with advent of the internet, it will be a lot easier to pressure the 38 states needed to ratify it.
Text of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment:
This amendment made it farther the DC House Voting Rights Amendment of 2009 and provided more representation. As previously mentioned, with the current makeup of Congress, this amendment can easily be passed and sent to the states for ratification. There is also little chance a gun amendment will be attached to a constitutional amendment.
But is there political will from EHN, Hoyer, et all? I don't think there is.
and last time we tried that we only got 16 states. And the last national poll on the issue (2006) showed that only 26% of people supported it. You are putting too much faith in the Interwebs
eff it. It wasn't "real" rights (I say this to explictly counter whoever above thinks claiming it wasn't real rights isn't a legitimate reason to not support the bill in the first place). It was a virtual 3/5s compromise. Separate but equal all over again. I'm glad it failed. DC needs full voting rights, not some half-voting right that is a cooked deal. The fact of the matter is that there are 591,000 citizens being denied their representative vote in Congress--and they are being denied that right purely because of the way they will exercise that right. I can't imagine anything more fundamentally un-american. And as a retort to those who argue otherwise: federal city my ass.
But, yea, duh. of course this was going to happen and the fact that anyone spilled pixels addressing this issue just shows how stupid they are.
Good luck with that strategy. Talk to me in another 30 years.
This vote was tangible, was supported and would have passed. Huge opportunity wasted. When is Norton up for re-election again?
I've already written a flurry of "emails I will probably regret in an hour" to our local pols. ;-)
First of all, it was a horrible bill.
Secondly, it was a horrible bill.
Third, blaming our non-voting delegate for its failure is assinine.
Fourth, did I mention how horrible the bill was? I'm glad this craptastic bill did not pass.
How about I do it now? 30 years from now brolic: Duh. Nothing has changed.
Personally, I'd rather have nothing and be intellectually honest about the whole thing then accept separate but equal. But lots of people like separate but equal and hate the "activist" Supreme Court justices and other judges that make things equal for all in this country. I understand that, but don't accept it, and continue to push for equal solutions.
Also, the title of this post should be "Dog Bites Man: DC Voting Rights Act . . . Dead," not
I am for judges that make things equal for everyone. That is what Scotus did with Heller. DC chose not to accept that. The thing that everyone needs to realize is that the current gun laws WILL either be knocked down in court again, or attached to something else. The issue WILL be taken off the table. It just would have been better if it was done on our terms.
"I am for judges that make things equal for everyone. That is what Scotus did with Heller."
Actually, they didn't. SCOTUS simply found that DC's gun restrictions were unconstitutional, but they said nothing about mandating that all states have equal gun restriction laws.
In six months it will apply to all states. There is a case slated to be heard by the Supremes in the fall. Not that it impacts DC.
The Heller decision applies to all states, but that isn't the issue in question. The question at hand is whether the SCOTUS decision in Heller "makes things equal for everyone" in terms of gun rights and the laws regulating their possession. It did not do that. It merely established that the District's gun laws were too restrictive, meaning that the Court did find that there exists a base standard of acceptibility against which no jurisdiction can infringe; but it did not set a standard for what is acceptable, and in fact explicitly held that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on...laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
The "seperate but equal" doctrine thus would not apply here, as every state and jurisdiction remains free to establish gun regulations that they feel is acceptable given the Court's decision. These regulations may be challenged in Court (as was done in Heller), but in over 60 cases brought in front of lower courts challenging the constitutionality of gun regulations since the Heller decision, not one has been overturned.
You are right in that Heller only applies to DC. That is the reason it has not been sited in recent cases. Heller did not address incorporation. However, there have recently been conflicting findings from the 9th, 2nd, and 7th circuit courts as to whether it applies to states. Note: the 2nd and 7th basically kicked it upstairs.
Analysts seem pretty sure that this case will likely be filed and accepted before Scotus this Fall. Also, most agree that 2A will be incorporated.
You are right in that Heller only applies to DC. That is the reason it has not been sited in recent cases. Heller did not address incorporation. However, there have recently been conflicting findings from the 9th, 2nd, and 7th circuit courts as to whether it applies to states. Note: the 2nd and 7th basically kicked it upstairs.
Analysts seem pretty sure that this case will likely be filed and accepted before Scotus this Fall. Also, most agree that 2A will be incorporated.
You are right in that Heller only applies to DC. That is the reason it has not been sited in recent cases. Heller did not address incorporation. However, there have recently been conflicting findings from the 9th, 2nd, and 7th circuit courts as to whether it applies to states. Note: the 2nd and 7th basically kicked it upstairs.
Analysts seem pretty sure that this case will likely be filed and accepted before Scotus this Fall. Also, most agree that 2A will be incorporated.