The frustrations of living in a second-class geographic subdivision are two-fold: not only do we suffer from taxation without representation, but there really isn’t much we’ve been able to do to change that. Tomorrow, though, we can take a small step toward gaining the same basic rights that all Americans enjoy.

On tomorrow’s ballot, D.C. residents will have the chance to vote on an amendment to the Home Rule Charter that would allow city officials more flexibility in how and when they spend locally raised dollars. We’re asking all of our D.C.-based readers—and their friends and families—to vote yes on Referendum 8.

For decades, D.C. has been treated no better than a federal government agency when it comes to how it uses its indigenous tax revenue. The mayor and D.C. Council have to submit a budget to Congress, which may or may not get around to approving it quickly. The arrangement creates a lag time between when local legislators set spending levels for the next fiscal year (June) and when they can actually start spending (October); it also means that the city’s fiscal year doesn’t match up with those used by many other jurisdictions.

In 2011, the District’s chief financial officer, Natwar Gandhi, pointed out how the situation complicates his job: “The more time that elapses between the formulation of a budget and its execution, the more likely the operating assumptions underlying that budget will not hold true.” Even worse is the fact that whenever a partisan fight over the federal budget threatens to shut down the government—which seems to happen fairly often these days—D.C. also has to prepare to shutter local services, since operating without funds specifically allocated by Congress would leave it in violation of federal law.

Under the amendment to the charter that will be voted on tomorrow, D.C. would be able to legally start spending its own money as soon as the council approves the budget, set its own fiscal year, and finally be able to avoid the threat of having to shut down because Congress and the president are fighting over spending. We’d finally have budget autonomy, as the cause is known.

But isn’t D.C. a federal city that receives federal funds? Sure. But this change to the charter would only affect revenue from local taxpayers, which accounts for 70 percent of the city’s $9.6 billion budget. There’s no more reason for a congressman from, say, Texas, to tell us how and when to spend our money than there would be a reason for Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton to tell officials in Tyler, Texas how they should spend theirs.

Critics of the approach, including Norton and Mayor Vince Gray, initially worried that allowing residents to vote would anger members of Congress who are working on a budget autonomy bill and leave the city open to legal consequences. Those aren’t insignificant concerns. House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has been something of an ally on budget autonomy, and tomorrow’s referendum could anger Republicans that are otherwise inclined to work with him.

Regardless, we have to see this as a chance to finally have our voices heard. D.C. voting rights, self-determination, and statehood are issues that are all too often discussed without the actual input of many of the residents that live without them on a daily basis. Though the referendum is narrowly written to focus on a small issue, it finally gives residents the chance to speak loudly and say simple, “It’s our money, so let us use it.”

As for the legal issues, lawyers on either side of the debate disagree on whether changing the Home Rule Charter in such a way is permissible or not. We shouldn’t let legal concerns dissuade from supporting the referendum—even if it were to be shot down after the fact, the vote alone would stand as a powerful message that D.C. residents want budget autonomy, and without the usual strings that Congress attaches.

Budget autonomy isn’t the sexiest issue, much less does it go even halfway toward correcting what’s otherwise an obvious and longstanding injustice: the denial of meaningful representation for the city’s 632,000 residents. But given how halting the fights for voting rights and statehood have been—not to mention the debate and dissension they’ve both provoked—uniting behind an issue as simple as the right to control our own money is important.

Vote yes tomorrow. It’s our money, after all.