Posts about Voting Rights

4 Democratic Senators, including retiring Senator Joe Lieberman, just introduced a bill supporting statehood for DC, which is very welcome, but would be even more welcome before the very end of the Congressional session, when there's no time for a hearing, let alone action.

Update: The Census didn't release numbers for cities and counties, but DC probably now has more people than Baltimore. We shouldn't root for Baltimore stagnation, though. It would be great if people looking for walkable neighborhoods and working in places like Fort Meade also considered Baltimore. Maryland could help push this by investing in MARC service and funding the Baltimore Red Line rather than focusing primarily on sprawl highways.

Full citizenship through local self-government must be given to the people of this city: the District Government cannot be truly responsible until it is made responsible to those who live under its rule. The District's citizens should not be expected to pay taxes for a government which they have no part in choosing—or to bear the full burdens of citizenship without the full rights of citizenship.

 — President Richard M. Nixon, April 28, 1969 (p. 1685-1686)

Not only did President Nixon support Home Rule, but so did many (but not all) Republicans in Congress.

Dear Republican Colleague:

Monday, in his second State of the Union address, the President reiterated his endorsement of self-government for the District of Columbia.

[In] regard to the President's desire to see "true and effective self-government" in the District before the American Bicentennial, passage of Home Rule this session would enable the residents of the District of Columbia to see their first elected mayor and city council in over one hundred years take office in 1975.

This issue has been before the Congress for the past twenty-five years, and we hope that you will agree that it is time to take positive action by passing H.R. 9682 on September 24th.

Sincerely,
Gilbert Gude (R-MD, 1923-2007, US Rep. 1967-1977),
Stewart B. McKinney (R-CT, 1931-1987, US Rep. 1971-1987)
Henry P. Smith III (R-NY, 1911-1995, US Rep. 1965-1975)
September 12, 1973 (1687)

One of the primary sponsors of the Home Rule Act spoke about how the bill was supposed to be only the first step toward even fuller representation for District residents.

In 1969 I first proposed a series of actions intended to bring about an orderly transfer of political power to the people of the District of Columbia. I called for a Constitutional Amendment giving the District at least one representative in the House and such other additional representation as the Congress may approve.

I proposed, and Congress enacted, legislation providing for an interim non-voting Congressional delegate and for the creation of a Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia, the so-called Nelsen Commission [whose findings formed the basis of the Home Rule Act].

 — Donald Fraser (D-MN, b. 1924, US Rep. 1963-1979, Mayor of Minneapolis 1980-1993) (1686)

One of the most moving speeches in the Home Rule Act debate came from Hawaii Rep. Spark Matsunaga, who had spent years pushing for voting rights for his own people.

I believe we can all agree without any reservations whatsoever that nowhere in America should the principles of democracy be more firmly established than the Nation's Capital. However, democracy is at its weakest in the District of Columbia, for it stands noticeably as a bastion of taxation without representation.

By a cruel irony, a nation founded as a haven from tyranny and oppression denies to the citizens of its Capital City the very blessings for which it stands. Incredible but true, it is still accurate to describe the District of Columbia as "America's last colony."

Fresh in my memory is Hawaii's own struggle for self-determination. For far too many years, the Congress decided the destiny of Hawaii while its citizens had little or no voice in their own affairs. Many years of my life were devoted to Hawaii's struggle for statehood, and as I walked the Halls of Congress trying to develop support for Hawaii's cause, I encountered many of the same arguments I now hear advanced against home rule for the District of Columbia. I am no more impressed now than I was then by these same arguments. ...

Tte citizens of Washington deserve to share in the right of self-government, the birthright of every American citizen. Today, the citizens of Washington are virtually disenfranchised. They are allowed the "privilege" of paying taxes, but not the right of selecting their own government, or determining how those tax revenues will be spent. They do choose a Delegate to Congress, but he is a nonvoting Delegate. Their right to help shape their own governmental structures is limited to selecting a School Board. ...

Home rule is not a partisan issue, nor should it be. It is a goal which has borne the endorsements of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. In discussing the principle of self-determination in 1960, the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower said:

"Human beings everywhere, simply as an inalienable right of birth, should have freedom to choose their guiding philosophy, their form of government, their methods of progress."

How appropriate his remarks are for this issue before us here today. Home rule for the District of Columbia is one of the final chapters in America's long struggle to secure freedom for all of its people. ... Let us wipe out the last vestige of colonialism in America.

 — Spark Matsunaga (D-HI, 1916-1990, US Rep. 1963-1977, Senator 1977-1990) (2190)

All numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Home Rule for the District of Columbia, 1973-1974, Background and Legislative History of H.R. 9056, H.R. 9682, and Related Bills Culminating in the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198), Serial No, S-4, US Government Printing Office, December 31, 1974.

Wait. What about local elections? Is it more important to cast a vote for a Congresswoman far away than to vote for a mayor, councilmembers, and others? Even when the Congressional vote "couldn't have meant much"? Even for a reporter intern at a local paper which mostly covers local issues?

An online bio says Bevilacqua grew up on Long Island. The only Congresswoman on Long Island is Carolyn McCarthy, and in fairness to Bevilacqua, some people thought she was vulnerable in 2010 even after winning over 60% of the vote in the 3 prior elections. She ended up still getting 54% of the vote and winning by 12,345 votes.

I don't want to pick on Bevilacqua. His chain of thought is very common in DC. A campaign worker circulating nominating petitions in my neighborhood not long ago said that very few people they'd spoken to were registered. Instead, they said things like, "I'm registered where my vote counts," the canvasser told me.

DC residents' votes count here. The margin of victory in last year's special election for DC Council was 1,732 votes—about 1/7 the margin in McCarthy's closest race in a decade. In the April primary, the margin for the same at-large seat was 1,746 votes, under 3% of the total. Even blowout ward races are decided by a few thousand votes.

The council votes on how much funding Metro gets, whether to build streetcars, where there are bike lanes, how often trash gets picked up, policies on affordable housing, whether to regulate Uber, or tax yoga. Thousands of people flooded Council offices with emails to complain about a price floor for Uber (and then it turned out Uber was twisting the facts a bit), or to oppose including services like yoga in the sales tax. How many of them are registered in a "true blue" (or "reliably red"?) district, in an electorally safe state, and believe their vote matters more there than here?

I've lived in 4 different states since reaching voting age, and never had the chance to vote in a competitive race for the House or Senate. I have a lot more influence over my life by voting in DC than in any of those past homes.

If you live in the District, you should vote here. It's the right thing to do. It gives you a stronger voice in local affairs. Plus, the more voters we have, the stronger the case for voting rights, which all Americans deserve. That includes Pennsylvania residents who don't have the time or money to get burdensome voter IDs, and all of the people of the District of Columbia.

Update: If you live in DC but aren't registered, you can register here.

Also, WCP editor Mike Madden notes that Bevilacqua was an intern, and a GW undergrad, while living in DC. I've corrected the reference to him as a "reporter." It's more reasonable for undergrads not to register, though they still should; ANC elections can have a lot of influence on student life, in particular. Plus, many people remain unregistered long after college.

Fearer and Brown are both part of the "51st State for Obama" slate. A number of candidates have formed slates, though slates have no official standing, and anyone is free to vote for whomever they like.

There are a few particularly recognizable names, but ones which voters should be wary of choosing: Councilmembers Marion Barry (Ward 8) and Jack Evans (Ward 2). They made some news yesterday with a controversial plan to bus supporters to the caucus.

There are delegate slots reserved specifically for elected officials, but these 3 councilmembers are also running against the masses, likely hoping to get into the convention without a fight over those other slots. Evans has been a delegate at all but one convention since 1992 and Barry is no stranger to the event.

Chuck Thies points out that sending Barry, in particular, creates a real danger of some sort of scandal distracting press coverage of the convention. That would remind national viewers of a side of DC that most residents would prefer not to emphasize, at a time when DC has so many positive aspects the delegates can highlight.

The national party conventions are a unique event that will surely be a thrill for those selected to attend. They will also provide a rare opportunity to tell DC's story and argue for full representation to engaged activists from around the country.

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.