Voting rights for DC

When I came to Syracuse, I didn't expect to wind up educated on the concept of voting rights for the District of Columbia, but here I am. At this morning's anniversary program for the Community Wide Dialogue to End Racism, the speakers included Dr. William Pollard, a founding co-chair of the organization. Pollard - formerly the dean of Syracuse University's College of Human Services and Health Professions - is now president of the University of the District of Columbia, the city's only public university. After recalling his time in Syracuse and the start of the Community Wide Dialogue, he told us this morning he had "an advertisement" for D.C. voting rights.

He explained that most college presidents and deans can talk to the senators and representative from their area and encourage them to support the institutions and higher education in Congress. But in Pollard's case, he has no senators and his representative - Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton - does not have a vote in Congress. Think about it: Wyoming, with only about a half a million people, has three voting members of the U.S. Congress, but the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia have none.

The D.C. statehood movement has been around for a long time, and the D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act has already been reintroduced in the 110th Congress as H.R. 328. It would give D.C. a voting member and give Utah an extra one, too, thus balancing the traditionally Democratic D.C.'s vote with another for GOP stronghold Utah, which narrowly missed gaining a vote after the 2000 Census. I think it sounds like a good solution, but then again, you all had plenty to say two weeks ago about why we ought to abolish the Electoral College - or not.

Here's a fun fact from Wikipedia: "Vehicle license plates in Washington D.C. contain the quote 'Taxation without representation.' Former President Bill Clinton had these plates placed on the presidential limousines during the last few months of his administration. However, President George W. Bush, in one of his first official acts as president, had the tags removed." I suppose after what happened to his Daddy ("read my lips"), the Decider doesn't want to have anything to do with the nasty T-word, unless he's slashing 'em for the rich folks.

Comments

[Bubblehead]

OK, I'll start it off. It's clear the people of Washington D.C. deserve the same representation as everyone else. It's equally clear that while there's a Republican President and a non-veto-proof number of Dems in Congress, D.C. statehood won't happen -- no Republicans will vote to add two very liberal Senators with no corresponding safe Republican Senate seats being added.
Here's what I suggest. The District was originally a square, but in 1847, the portion south of the Potomac was given back to Virginia; therefore, the people who live there have representation. The current district consists of a Federal area in the southwest where nobody lives, and the city that makes up the rest of the district. If the parts of the District where people live (other than the White House) were retroceded back to Maryland, and all the Federal buildings stayed in a new, smaller D.C., then the people would still have two Senators and a Congressman -- in this case, one that was added to Maryland's total, offset politically by the one added in Utah.

[Julie in Boise]

Bubblehead,

The current bill (as I understand it after a quick read) would give only one House rep to DC and no senators. And because Utah would get an extra rep, it theoretically would be politically neutral. H.R. 328 has bipartisan support.

But if I lived in DC, I think I'd want two senators like everyone else. Others have posited the idea of returning the District to Maryland, as you suggest.

Whatever happens, I predict that this issue will be solved well before that of what (if anything) to do with the antiquated, unfair, vote-supressing Electoral College.

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

I agree with Bubblehead that the inhabited portions of DC should be returned to Maryland; they came from Maryland, if the Feds aren't using them they belong to Maryland. You could start small: maybe return Georgetown and SouthEast first (since they're clearly delineated) and then figure out where (L Street?) to draw a line across the rest (and cede everything north of that line as well).

There would be MONUMENTAL Constitutional issues with doing otherwise -- you couldn't give DC a vote in Congress without a Constitutional amendment; remember, it was only around 40 years ago DC finally got electoral votes for President (which you'd want to rescind, obviously, if most of the District were returned to Maryland).

And thank you Bubblehead: I had NO idea Arlington and Alexandria were returned to Virginia in the 1840s (1846); I had previously thought it was much more recent (like late-1950s, as an early attempt to pacify the electoral-votes-for-DC movement).

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

One more thing (really a shameless plug, I suppose): watch SpudZeppelin.com this weekend, I'm working on a piece about some other voter-shifting that is a lot more local in scope *grin*.

[Julie in Boise]

NPJA,

I am intrigued, and shameless plugs are always welcome. Once your post is up, pimp it here, my friend!!

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

Pimped! Click my name for the link.