Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
The Manhattan Project
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Two weeks ago, we reported that an amendment granting the District a voting seat in the House might be tacked on to a defense spending bill. Now, it doesn't look like that will happen.
Politico is reporting that Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the Senate's top appropriator, is opposed to the idea, while other Democrats fear that adding the measure would imperil the larger bill. Republicans, who are already soft on District voting rights, are strongly against adding the amendment.
This development makes it hard to imagine a scenario under which any form of D.C. voting rights legislation will be able to come to the House floor in 2009. With a number of big issues remaining before Congress and no clear means to get a clean bill through, there's little chance that we'll see the DCHVRA again this year. And in 2010, the legislation itself becomes somewhat irrelevant since the census and congressional reapportionment will grant Utah the additional seat that was originally included in the legislation as a means to attract Republican support. Barring some unforeseen development, the District appears to be heading back to square one.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
time to just bring a statehood (or full representation to the district equivalent to what we'd get under statehood) amendment to the constitution to the floor.
it's clear that, no matter what, a supermajority of democrats isn't going to make the way we've been going at it for years to work.
nuke it and start over, do it right.
Goph, last time the statehood strategy was tried, it failed miserably--in a Democratic controlled congress.
The constitutional amendment route also failed miserably.
I've looked at the numbers and can't see how things would be any different today for either scenario.
I am sure the leadership now thinks, "Hey, we gave you your shot, and you couldn't make it happen. Now leave us alone for another decade.
how did it fail miserably? it passed the house and the senate, didn't it? just didn't get enough states to sign on. that's where we need to educated people in the 50 states. when they learn the truth, they're overwhelmingly in favor of representation for DC.
(side note: did you send me an email? i thought i saw something in my spam folder but cleared it out before i had a chance to open it.)
Good luck with that whole "education" thing. Did you not see those teabag protest signs? These people think that Marion Barry is still Mayor, the President is a bolshevik clone, and they can't figure out how to stand on an escalator.
hey, they're not the majority of the people out there. trying to talk sense into the far-right is not worth attempting.
This is just sad. I can't even muster up any outrage. It is not just the republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around.
This was our best shot in a decade and it will probably just as long before we get another one.
I still think a compromise could have been worked out last year, but Hoyer said that "DC Leadership" wouldn't agree on anything. I really don't think that support for representation among DC pols (EHN excluded) is anything more than lip service.
Sad, sad, sad.
I'm seeing some combination of retrocession for representation purposes, combined with declaring the Federal core a quasi-territory like Guam, along with an abolition of the Mayor's Office as well as the Council with a Presidentially appointed Control Board run by members of the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights of Malta, and a couple gnomes in a basement in Zurich. But that's probably the ergot poisoning talking. Damned moldy Subway rye bread.
To be fair to Inouye, he's likely to have his hands full with the pro-rape provisions he wants added to the bill.
The extra-sad part is, you know he's not ashamed of anything he's doing.
Isn't Inouye a major GW supporter/contributor/ alum?
Yup. Never see him at the games, however. My seats are close to Wolf "so poor, so black" Blitzer, however.
They are two different things. The statehood route does not require a constitutional amendment (debatable), just a vote by Congress. That failed in 1993 by 277-153.
The constitutional route only got 10 of the required 38 states for ratification by the time it expired in the mid 80s.
Sorry, the constitutional amendment was ratified by 16 states
I reckon that since the U.S. Constitution grants jurisdiction over the District to the Federal Government, said government would not look too kindly upon a ballot initiative to grant statehood status. It seems to me that if you want the federal government out of D.C. politics then you need a constitutional amendment.
I suspect that if D.C. residents voted in favor of statehood in a referendum vote, the congress would simply override the vote, like they did with the medical marijuana initiative in D.C. a few years back.
I can't understand why D.C. residents don't organize themselves and simply stop paying federal taxes. Money is the only language that some people understand. If even a few thousand D.C. residents protested the taxation without representation that is currently imposed on the District, I would imagine that the 'cause' would receive much more media attention and sympathy from Americans living in other parts of the country. The 'teabaggers' may have co-opted the Boston Tea Party, but let's not forget what that incident was really about - protesting taxes levied without input from the populace.
Okay. You first.
Seriously that would never fly. The feds would chase folks so fast it would make your head spin. Congress would say "Ok, then no budget for you." If any DC leadership supported it, they would rescind Home Rule in a heartbeat.
The sad truth is we have no economic, political, or legal leverage. Local moral indignation will only get you so far.
BTW-the gun amendment has nothing to do with guns. The NRA could have attached that to the budget bill. I suspect they cut a deal with republicans to reserve that little morsel for voting rights legislation. Having said that, I do think DC could have negotiated a deal to rescind some of their sillier regulations in an attempt to peel off enough democrat votes to tilt the scales.
Good luck on that "education" thing. The sad truth is that America hates DC. this poll
We can yell "its not right" all we want, but that is more likely to just get a shrug and a "so go back to Maryland" response.
After 20 years of watching this $hit, I just don't think it will happen and the debate will be limited to self-righteous preaching to the choir over vodka tonics at the Fox & Hounds.
If we can't get a modest proposal like this passed, accept that we are doomed.
a poll from 2006? how is that valid at all? the political landscape is so different today it's not even funny.
Not with only 25% of Dems supporting it. The poll is what it is-another indicator of echo chamber that DC is when it comes to voting rights.
Because that's the last time anyone gave a $h!t to have a voting rights poll. NewHCE is right. This isn't on anyone's radar outside of DC. Hell, it's not on anyone's radar in VA or MD either. Even if you lead with the "did you know half a million Americans are taxed but have no vote?" thing, as soon as you mention DC, all they think about is "fatcats in Congress" and "half-Kenyan antichrist" and "why do you keep re-electing Marion Barry mayor?" What kinda feedback did DC Vote get at the Democratic Convention? A bunch of shrugs and some "I have no idea what you're talking abouts." They don't care because they have no reason to care and no reason to spend any political capital on enfranchising DC. And no super magical half-Kenyan antichrist or razor-thin majority Congress is going to change that, particularly when folks are more concerned about losing their house that's lost a third of it's value in a year.
+1
so if something isn't on the "radar" of at least 70% of the people in the country, we should just ignore it and never legislate anything?
because, surprise surprise, most of the country doesn't give a shit about ANYTHING that the government does. most of the idiots who live in the US only care about what reality show is on tonight. even the health care debate isn't being followed by more than a dedicated core of politically-inclined junkies.
i'm sorry, but right is right. if there is a wrong to be righted, we shouldn't wait for public opinion in bumfuck, idaho to show a dedicated interest...
So on one hand you say that we need to go the legislative route or constitutional route which will require vast public support. And then you say "screw it, we should not wait for popular support to get this done."
You finally get it!!!! That's why it will never happen.
And its true that most people don't care about what government does, but there are constituencies. There are insurance companies, defense contractors, local groups and loads of others who lobby for the smallest of changes in legislation. They are only successful because they can offer either votes or money. We can't offer either.
maybe i should have said "we shouldn't wait for this to become the number one issue in the public's eye," because that will clearly never happen.
like i said, though, when people are given the facts, and shown that DC citizens are not represented in congress, they overwhelmingly believe that the status quo is wrong and should be rectified.
Newer poll. Same grim results.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2009/40_say_give_washington_d_c_to_maryland
just a question: what do you personally want for DC? i get the feeling it's not representation.
Oh, come now, Representation is pretty broad.
Narrow it down a bit. Try Self Representation, maybe.
Statehood, but will settle for 1 house vote and 2 Sens. I hate to date myself, but if my math is right ive been a suppoter of of Statehood/representation since you were in grade school. 20 years later, i am just tired of the political misteps, unrealistic expectations, apathy of Dems and the nation on the issue. I'm close to the "yeah whatever" phase. Now every year younger people like you and Martin move in and get all passionate about the issue, which is great. But the arguements and the results never change. The ones that kill me are the "statehood or nothing" crowd. We cant even get consensus from dc leadership on the strategy. The House vote was a step in the right direction-but we couldnt even get that done.
Give it another 10 years and see how you feel.
Hell, even DC Vote sees the writing on the wall. They are just looking for a reason to exist with their new expanded mission.
newhce: everyone always tells me that "you'll soften up, you'll get more conservative about things as you age" etc., etc.
for whatever reason, i've been moving in the other direction.
i appreciate that you're not holding my age against me. i really dislike it when i get shit for not being born here, as if it was my fault that my parents lived in pennsylvania and because of that i should have no say in my adopted home town. thanks for not going there.
I hate the age thing as well. The 10 year comment was not about age, but about the number of times you will be constantly disappointed at the lack of progress towards a worthy cause.
It is not that I'm getting more conservative on the issue. I still want representation as much as ever. I just don't see it happening any time soon (like decades) and am finding it tougher to get all juiced about it.
One of the reasons I think (thought) the House vote is (was) so important is that it would invigorate the movement among jaded supporters like me.
Most movements, whether it is guns or gays show some trend-either for or against over a 30 year period whether that is in actual successes or public opinion shift. DC Statehood/representation has been in total stasis over that time. I have my theory, but I'll save that for the next post Martin does.
By all means, keep fighting.
thanks, newhce, i'll do what i can to keep up the good fight. and i'll keep on fighting you on the gun issue! :)
I never understood that "you're not from here" crap either. Everybody's from someplace else, including many of those long-time residents. Unless you're one of the Piscataway, Nanticoke, or Swampoodle Indians, you're a newcomer. Learn your history, learn to deal, and try not to poop in the treeboxes.
And I don't see you getting more conservative in your dotage. I see you moving into some stinking hippy commune in Takoma Park where you proceeed to rant about how building dense development on top of a Metro station is worse than Hitler. Conservatives don't have any monopoly on narcissism, nimbyism, or just being stupid.
You see what you did, there IMGoph, that was so funny. You made a reasonably strong argument against democracy (why do we have to wait for public opinion for *justice*) in arguing for: democracy.
fbastiat: i never argued against democracy here. i just want there to be a vote on this. the fact that the leadership can't get their act together to bring something to the floor frustrates me more than anything. it's a damn shame that the people in congress don't know how to walk and chew gum at the same time.
If you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try again. The Constitution has been changed once for the District of Columbia and it's going to need to be changed again. Times have changed since 1961, but there has been no change in the status of Washington except for limited home rule. The 1/3 representation strategy DC Vote and EHN have been advocating will not work and it's a absolute waste of time. Congress might have exclusive control over DC residents, but it cannot legally deny us representation in the Senate by directly violating the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see: Bowling Vs. Sharpe). Even if the DCVRA was passed, Congress would still retain full control of the District of Columbia and could add all the gun riders they want to any bill. And what Congress gives, Congress can take away, so long as it retains full control. Every year EHN should introduce a statehood bill and a constitutional amendment. It does not matter if initiatives failed in the past. Until the faux pas of the founding fathers is rectified we have to keep trying to gain full equality.
Wait a minute, weren't all the Democrats supposed to be shaking in their boots after DC Vote's field trip to Mississippi?
And what Congress gives, Congress can take away, so long as it retains full control.
Which is exactly why Congress should retrocede DC back to Maryland, replace the City Council and Mayor with a Territorial Governor, and appoint a Committee of Public Safety to once-and-for-all deal with those enemies of the revolution, the Girondins and the Jacobins.
So it's okay to tack on some gun rights crap to a DC voting representation bill, but it's not okay to tack voting representation onto a defense spending bill? Congress can go f*ck themselves. Even the Democrats.