Politics
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat
In January, DC Council Chairman-elect Kwame Brown will vacate his current at-large seat, and the DC Democratic State Committee will appoint a temporary successor. This is a terrible provision of the law. The DCDSC should select someone who doesn't plan to run permanently, and the Home Rule Act should be amended to remove this appointment power.
Photo by Steve Rhodes on Flickr.
The DC Home Rule Act calls for the party committee to fill vacancies in partisan at-large seats, but not in ward seats, until a special election can be held.
In this case, that special election will likely happen during the first week of May 2011. Since Kwame Brown was elected as a Democrat, that means the DCDSC will fill the seat. However, the DCDSC is not representative of the will of the voters, and picking any of the contenders for the seat long-term will lack legitimacy and carry the stink of insider dealing.
Oddly, the Home Rule Act does not require vacated ward seats to be filled by appointment (by a political party or otherwise) on a temporary basis, which seems backwards. If there is an urgency to fill vacated legislative seats immediately, that urgency applies most to vacated ward seats. When a ward seat is empty, that ward's residents lose representation. When at-large seats are vacated, everyone in the city loses representation equally. At-large seats, both partisan and independent, should not be treated differently.
An appointment to an elected office immediately endows the appointee with unearned incumbent status, giving that person an unfair advantage in the subsequent election. The appointee will have several months to cast votes on important issues, including the budget, give out favors and accumulate loyalties. A party committee should not have the power to grant the advantage of incumbency. Only the voters should do that.
The party committee is hardly representative of Democrats, let alone all the voters of DC. The DCDSC comprises 82 members. Of those, 48 members are elected in closed Democratic primaries in presidential election years. In 2008, 41,443 Democrats cast votes in the Democratic primary, or 10% of all registered voters in the District. Over 100,000 registered non-Democrats in the District, including Republicans, DC Statehood Greens, and Independents, could not participate in that election by law.
The remaining 34 members of the DCDSC are not elected in a primary, but rather are selected either by the DCDSC members themselves, or by members of specified affiliated organizations. Here is a list of the current members of the DCDSC and the votes they received in the 2008 primary election, where applicable.
Making the most generous assumption possible, if you assume that all 80 members were to vote unanimously for one candidate, DCDSC members elected by somewhere between 20,000 and 41,000 unique Democratic voters, or between 4% and 9% of all registered voters in the District as of August 2010, would be appointing the next at-large legislator.
But one hopeful could reach the 50% plus 1 vote with only the 38 DCDSC members who were not elected in the 2008 primary, plus the 3 lowest vote recipients, who collectively garnered 3338 Democratic votes, or less than 1% of all registered voters as of August 2010, and all of which were cast in Ward 1.
Unfortunately, there's more bad news. The list above does not accurately capture the DCDSC members who will be electing our next at-large councilmember. The DCDSC held an election on November 4 to select 12 new ex-officio members, who will take office on December 2. The results of that election are not posted publicly.
When I called the DCDSC to ask for the results, I was told that there is 1-week certification period, after which time the results would be made available. We do know that the 12 new members will be 6 men and 6 women from this list.
Were this just a private political organization, it would hardly matter. But since its members are now legally authorized to perform a fundamentally public function, we are all stakeholders and we deserve transparency.
Of course, with hundreds of millions of dollars in budget shortfalls to be addressed this fiscal year and next, Council will be conducting urgent business between January and May. But that argues against allowing the DCDSC to fill the vacancy, not for it. If the vacant position must be filled, it should be by someone or some entity with a public mandate from an open and fair election. The DCDSC certainly does not qualify.
Furthermore, leaving Republicans, Independents, and others out of the selection process could be particularly pernicious in the District in the immediate wake of the recent Mayoral primary, after they unsuccessfully fought for enfranchisement in the primary.
There is also a broader point here. District residents and leaders rightly demand equal political representation in and autonomy from Congress. Our local politicians juxtapose our status as the capital of the greatest democracy in the world with the District's historical quasi-colonial status. It helps the District's cause when we demonstrate that we govern our own democracy well.
Many states have similarly poor processes, so one could argue that the District is just acting like most other states by using a fundamentally undemocratic selection method. However, we should lead by example, demonstrating that those in power locally can correct a clear flaw in our system, even when that correction is to their own detriment.
Changing the Home Rule Act requires a public referendum or an act of Congress. Council should pass a resolution requesting that Congress amend the Home Rule Act as soon as possible to treat at-large vacancies like ward vacancies and leave the seats open until a special election is conducted. Since such a change would not take effect in time for this appointment, the DCDSC should follow the "democratic" part of its own party's name and leave the choice to the voters by picking someone with no intention to serve long term.
Editor's note: This post has been in the works for a few days, but the timing turns out to be particularly appropriate given the Post's editorial this morning also questioning the bizarre logic of this appointment process.
Mark Jordan is a Capitol Hill resident and public sector management consultant. From 2000 to 2004, Mark worked on public safety issues for DC Mayor Anthony Williams.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
by Beltway Greg on Nov 14, 2010 7:02 pm • link • report
by Geoffrey Hatchard (IMGoph) on Nov 14, 2010 10:26 pm • link • report
by jfruh on Nov 15, 2010 7:18 am • link • report
by Jim Titus on Nov 15, 2010 7:47 am • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 15, 2010 8:53 am • link • report
Soon, the very landscape of the electoral map in the city will change based upon census results. We truly have an opportunity in 2012 to really try to make a difference in the way we govern ourselves.
For my part, I'd like to see the following reforms:
* Council: Council Chair is not a separately elected position requiring a special election. The position is filled annually by an election from within the council, just as Speaker of the House.
* Ward Council Seats: Ward Council members yield tremendous influence in their neighborhoods and can use their paid staff to dominate political opposition. There should be two Council Members representing each Ward, rather than one.
* End Partisan Shenanigans: The Michael Brown decision clearly shows that ensuring minority representation on the council is impractical. Moreover, not allowing Republicans and Independents to participate in the Democratic Primary in September robs the city of much needed time for debate. Primaries should be completely open and At-Large Council seats should be open to whomever wins the most votes.
*ANCs - As a lame-duck ANC Commissioner, I speak with respect for the office and the institution. Unfortunately, I believe that the ANC's existence as a governmental/volunteer institution, with no real budget or status within the legislative, executive, or judicial process is truly untenable. Moreover, it seems to me that the boundaries of an ANC promote insularity across neighborhoods. My first instinct is to abolish them entirely, with the hope that doubling the ward representation at the Council level will create political balance. My second instinct is to try and preserve the institution, but with these vital reforms: A) increase the size of an SMD from roughly 2000 people to roughly 6000 people; B) pay commissioners a nominal salary; C) ensure all Commissions have an uneven number of members; D) draw Commission boundaries across 'neighborhood' boundaries; E) establish sufficient budget for the OANC office to provide staff (filing resolutions, helping manage books) and logistical support (A/V equipment, computer equipment, translation equipment) which will create a baseline of expectations across the city for ANC performance.
-Phil
by Phil Lepanto on Nov 15, 2010 9:35 am • link • report
And it is pretty much a Civics 101 no-brainer.
===========================================================
§ The charter should be amended at the next opportunity to require that ANY sitting elected official must first RESIGN his or her incumbency before formally declaring his or her candidacy for some other elective office in this Town.
============================================================
There. Even I managed to say that in English and less than 50 words. So you KNOW it must be a simple problem with an even simpler solution.
Oh!! And, while we are at it, let's implement INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING for elective offices here in DC. I understand they are about to implement it in Oakland and a national referendum on it will be held in the UK some time in early 2011.
There, it is called Single\Alternate Transferrable Voting (STV or ATV). And in Australia the fact that they have STV instead of the winner-takes-all set-up we have in this country, probably kept Julian Gillard in office as PM.
The mechanics of IRV\STV are often deliberately made to seem and sound too complex for ordinary tax-paying working stiffs like you and I to understand.
That is baloney. There are excellent explanations of it at www.fairvote.org, so I will leave it to Rob Richie and his team to do their usual excellent job of explaining it. (This organization is headquartered locally, BTW: in Takoma Park, MD.)
There are two simple historical arguments in favor of IRV (along with a requirement that the winner must get at least 50%+1 of all votes cast, instead of a simple plurality):
Local Argument:
Had there been IRV\STV here in DC in the 1980s and 1990s, Marion Barry would not have been re-elected the third or fourth time.
National Argument:
Had there been IRV\STV in this so-called republic in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected president.
Harold Foster; AAG-ProfGeog; AICP
Acting Executive Officer
The Amériças Institute
Petworth
DC
by Harold Foster on Nov 15, 2010 11:30 am • link • report
It's been the law since Home Rule. It's not the first time we will have made a temp appointment. I have also suggested putting someone in that wouldn't run for the seat but even that posses other issues. Think about it, 450 people could run for the at large seat and not get a majority of votes and still win! Does that represent the people! Get a Grip!
As for the DCDSC representing the will of the people? Mark...it represents Dems in the city...not everyone! As for the stink, it's your article that stinks and lacks any understanding or insight.
There is a process for Democrats to run for the appointment by the DCDSC which requires 1000 voters to sign a petition for the candidate from all the wards, getting 27 DCDSC members to sign, along with the general rules to hold the office set by BOEE. What stinks about that? Doesn't that say that at least 1000 people in this city support a candidate to run! Mark you have fallen off the turnip truck on this one. And your stats are all SNAFU...think about general voter turnout in this election, and then run your numbers. If people don't vote then they are not represented! Your stats and use the population as a basis; you need to use votes cast as your basis. No one can force DC residents to vote, although I encourage them to vote every time. DC is not the only municipality that uses such a system, which you did point out but not in a balanced way! Furthermore the DCDSC is a fair and equal representation of Dems in this city just like any other Democratic State Committee in the US.
Open primaries are a joke. Primaries are there for a reason and no way in hell should we open them up to everyone. Only party members should vote in the primary. To all those other folks, get a party or risk it and wait for the general election.
Finally your transparency comment is totally out of line. Anyone can see the DCDSC process for this temp appointment, view the petitions and witness the vote that will be taken.
by Barrie Daneker on Nov 15, 2010 11:45 am • link • report
by M Valree on Nov 16, 2010 4:49 pm • link • report
Add a Comment