Gun Amendment Divides Voting Rights Movement
With plans to re-introduce legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House set for this Thursday, House Democratic Leaders, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and various D.C. voting rights advocates are facing increasing dissent from within over an amendment that would scrap the city's gun laws.
Last week's news that the legislation would be brought back and that Del. Norton was folding on her longstanding opposition to the gun amendment has provoked more angst than happiness amongst supporters of D.C. voting rights, so much that not even President Obama's first public statement in support of the cause mustered much excitement. In fact, divisions between pragmatists who see the gun amendment as a compromise needed to move the legislation forward and others who see it as an affront to the co-equal principle of Home Rule seem to have grown more pronounced than ever before.
Both the New York Times and the Post came out against the legislation with the gun amendment, which the Post, usually a stalwart advocate for D.C. voting rights, called an "appalling choice."
One member of the District's Shadow Delegation, Sen. Michael Brown, also came out against the legislation, saying in an email to DCist that "it comes at too high a cost." He added, "A half-vote is not worth our dignity, our right to self-determination or compromising our public safety." Shadow Representative Mike Panetta offered only his conditional support for the legislation, saying that while this may be the only chance of a generation to get the District a voting seat in the House, "I'll reserve final judgment until after I actually see the language of the 'compromise' on the gun amendment. We know it will be a bitter pill to swallow, the question is how big of a pill will it be?"
The Post is reporting today the D.C. Council Chair and mayoral candidate Vince Gray won't support the legislation with the existing gun amendment, joining fellow Council members Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) while putting him at odds with Council member Kwame Brown (D-At Large), who is looking to succeed him. Mayor Adrian Fenty was one of the first local officials to support taking the legislation with the gun amendment, making comments to that effect in March 2009.
The divisions were also aired at a briefing organized by Norton late last week and attended be various organizations that have worked on behalf of the legislation. According to one person who attended and spoke to DCist, the briefing was "emotional and pointed" as various groups raised concerns over the impact of the gun amendment. According to them, Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of DC Vote and a leading proponent for moving the legislation forward with the amendment, admitted that the members of the coalition supporting the legislation would likely be “stepping off the train” over the amendment.
A number of groups, including D.C. for Democracy and pro-statehood organizations, will also be attending a rally this Wednesday organized by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Reaching Out to Others Together opposing the gun amendment. Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence told DCist that while the organization had been a longtime member of the coalition supporting the legislation, they would not sign on to any amendment that guts the District's gun laws.
What may eventually determine who supports and who opposes the voting rights legislation is exactly what the amendment ends up saying. While the existing amendment -- originally authored by Sen. Jon Ensign (R-Nev.) and included in the Senate bill that passed last year -- would scrap all of the city's gun laws and severely limit the power of the council to enact new ones, Norton has claimed that she is still looking to water it down. If she succeeds, she might hold off more defections. If she doesn't, the divisions within the D.C. voting rights movement may leave Democrats on the Hill in a tough position -- do they side with voting rights at the expense of Home Rule?