Posts about Voting Rights

Many members of Congress believe it is their duty to micromanage the District's local budget. Representative Darrel Issa of California, who chairs the House committee that is primarily responsible for the District, has said that Congress has an obligation to oversee how DC spends its money because "federal taxpayer dollars fund a large portion of the District's budget."

Many people readily agree with that statement. It seems to make sense. Of course the federal government pays for the operations of the federal district. This argument is also often cited by opponents of DC voting rights, who say that DC residents shouldn't have a vote in Congress because they are recipients of so much federal government largesse.

Given these facts, it seems prudent to question just exactly what percentage of the District's budget is paid using federal funds. What exactly qualifies as a "large portion"? 50%? 75%?

Not even close. Federal funds in fact make up only about 25% of the District's local budget.

Of course, having the feds pick up the tab for one-quarter of the city government's expenditures is nothing to sneeze at. Certainly that represents a greater percentage of the local budget than any other state government, right?

Wrong.

The US Census Bureau calculates the total federal funds transferred to state and local governments, and the total revenues collected in each state. The latest available figures (2008) reveal that Mississippi leads the nation with 35% of its combined state and local budget revenue coming from the federal government. Louisiana is a close second at 34%, followed by New Mexico and South Dakota at 27% each.

The District government receives the same percentage of federal funds as Alabama, Montana, Vermont, and West Virginia. In all, 8 states receive as much or more aid than the District. The complete list can be found below.

Clearly, multiple other states receive a larger percentage of their budget from Congress without any of the oversight that accompanies DC's role as capital city.

Mr. Issa may ultimately be right that Congress has the authority and responsibility to exercise a higher level of oversight regarding the District, but if so it is not because of the false belief that the local government is funded to the hilt with federal dollars.

Several DC councilmembers have taken to sitting down on Constitution Avenue by the Capitol to protest the District's colonial status, but the issue requires a broader, full-time campaign.

I'd suggest putting the above imagery on banners attached to street lamps on streets surrounding the Capitol and Congressional office buildings on Capitol Hill.

Actual face-to-face lobbying is important and is something the District has woefully neglected. However, a graphic campaign on the street lamps near the Capitol—and elsewhere throughout the District—can force the issue in Congress's face every day.

This particular graphic is subtle enough to force anyone who views it to think about it for moment. Suddenly, the inequity becomes clear.

According to various press reports and tweets they will be charged with misdemeanor "unlawful assembly," which comes with a $50 fine. The DC Office of the Attorney General would have to prosecute, which raises the interesting question of whether they can simply use their prosecutorial discretion to ignore the charge.

Vincent Orange, who along with Biddle is considered the front-runner for the April 26 special election, attended but didn't join in the civil disobedience. Dorothy Douglas moved to the curb when asked by the police.

Several people asked, where was Eleanor Holmes Norton? And where were the DC Republicans?

In one of my favorite tweets not directly about the incident, Wells' chief of staff, Charles Allen, wrote: "It's a walkable community. Just walked from protest site to the jail cell. #dcfightsback"

Several people have asked, what's next? How about again tomorrow?

Markus Batchelor, recently Youth Mayor of DC, is looking into getting a youth protest together for next week, when DCPS is on break.

The DC government also provides a lot of assistance to the feds, like MPD clearing streets for motorcades or special federal events. Should they stop doing this? Are there ways the DC government can or should itself be civilly disobedient?

What else?

Many DC residents are cheering their leaders today. Those that showed up and got arrested took a great step for DC rights today. But we can't stop here.

Residents and elected officials alike have to keep this energy going, whether it's with more protests or other acts that draw attention to DC's cause. More people may need to get arrested.

And what can make this issue get more attention far outside the Beltway?

It's hard to get more high-profile than running for presidential office. Would anyone know who Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich were had they not run unsuccessful campaigns? Most protest ideas are illegal, unworkable, or require a large amount of dedication from many people.

This only requires DC residents to vote a little differently and for one person to dedicate a couple of years to the effort. Because Williams would be campaigning in such a small area, the campaign would be cheap and he'd have time to talk to just about every voter in the District.

Williams is a great choice. Unlike Fenty, he left office still relatively popular. Unlike Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton or Mayor Vincent Gray, he's not busy filling another office; without the indication that he might run for some other office, he has no need to curry favor with the Democratic Party.

There are plenty of other individuals that fit this description, such as Sharon Ambrose and Carol Schwartz, but he is really the best possible candidate in my mind: He's smart, telegenic, and without scandal.

It'd be better if Williams hadn't joined so eagerly in the Board of Trade's task force on WMATA governance, which met in secret and recommended diminishing the public's role in Metro's decisionmaking, but that's not a fatal flaw.

Williams would get plenty of opportunities to talk to the national media about why he's running and about DC's disenfranchisement. In the months-long, 24-hour-a-day news coverage, every media outlet will be looking for stories to cover. Williams' candidacy would certainly be one of them. If he's polling well in DC, and looks to win, as I think he would, he could even argue that he should be included in the debates.

If he went on to win DC, that would be covered throughout election night and in post-election coverage. Solutions to DC's second-class status range from statehood, to retrocession, to a constitutional amendment, but Williams wouldn't even need to pick a preferred tactic. He would merely need to advocate that there be a tactic to make DC voters whole. This means representation in both houses, as well as a voice in constitutional amendments and contingent elections.

But what if he were to win and Obama needed those three electors? Most voters in DC, if recent voting is any indication, will not want to put a Republican in the White House just to protest their lack of representation. Williams could campaign with the promise that, in such a situation, he'd instruct his electors to vote for the Democratic nominee, as long as that nominee and the Democratic party promise to make DC suffrage a priority with real, concrete goals.

Let's draft Anthony Williams for the presidential campaign. Let me be the first to ask him to run. You can also ask him to run at this Facebook page.