March for DC Voting Rights on April 16th

Calling all DC/MD/VA Kossacks -- and anyone else who wants to come! Celebrate DC Emancipation Day, April 16th, by marching for DC Voting Rights.

The House will be considering HR 1433, the DC Voting Rights Act, as soon as they come back from recess -- the week of April 16th! The bill would give DC, the seat of Democracy, one fully voting representative in the House. What a concept!

The march:

WHERE: Gather at Freedom Plaza and March to the Capitol Reflecting Pool
Metro Stops:  For Freedom Plaza — Metro Center or Federal Triangle
 For the Capitol Reflecting Pool — Federal Center SW

WHEN: DC Emancipation Day, April 16, 2007
     2:30 PM—Gather at Freedom Plaza, 13th St. & Penn. Ave., NW
     4:00 PM—Rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool, 3rd St. & Independence        

more below the fold....

Currently, more than half a million Americans living in our nation’s capital have no voting representation in Congress.  We have no vote for health care, no vote for education or any issue debated and voted on by the U.S. Congress.

A couple weeks ago I wrote about how my mother lambasted her congressman, Cliff Stearns, for his wrongheaded anti-Democracy views about HR 1433. While this bill has bipartisan support and it looks as though passing this bill could be a reality, plenty of Members like Stearns still need to be shamed into giving the citizens of the District of Columbia the same rights as Iraqi citizens have in Baghdad.

That's why thousands of people from DC, VA, MD, and elsewhere will march on Capitol Hill on April 16 to demand that DC residents have a voting voice in the House. March With Us. Demand the Vote.

The info again:

WHERE: Gather at Freedom Plaza and March to the Capitol Reflecting Pool
Metro Stops:  For Freedom Plaza — Metro Center or Federal Triangle
 For the Capitol Reflecting Pool — Federal Center SW

WHEN: DC Emancipation Day, April 16, 2007
2:30 PM—Gather at Freedom Plaza, 13th St. & Penn. Ave., NW
4:00 PM—Rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool, 3rd St. & Independence Ave., NW

Hope to see you there!

•  Tip Jar?

  I don't usually beg, but if you would please recommend, it will stay visible for DC/VA/MD residents.

  by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:05:13 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the volunteer!

  by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:05:52 AM PDT

•  It's going to fail ...

  The bill is patently unconstitutional, since DC is not a state, and will be struck down by the courts.

  To give DC a vote requires that the constitution be amended either to allow Congress to set how House and Senate seats are apportioned without regard to statehood, or that the Constitution be amended simply to grant DC a vote.

  I'm all in favor of giving them a vote, but doing it through legislation is bound to fail.

  Further, why do people care so passionately about the enfranchisement of 600,000 people in DC but not about the 3.8 million American Citizens living in Puerto Rico?  Or the other 2 or 3 million people living in US Territories that have no representation in Congress?

  by huntsu on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

  •  Fine, but...

    I can see that argument, but then, don't tax them.  

    Or have we forgotten one of the first truly "American" ideals that ever existed?

    by Thataboy on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:46:44 AM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      huntsu, DC is considered a state for everything else -- in legislation -- for Interstate Commerce, crimes, etc. You can't pick and choose!

      Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress jurisdiction of the District. When the land for the District was originally ceded by MD, it was under the stipulation that the few people living on the land would not be disenfrachised, so Congress allowed representation for the District residents for 10 whol;e years. Then they took it away! If they can take it away, why can't they give it back.

      If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would spit on those who nonchalantly dismiss the disenfranchisement "of 600,000 people in DC" -- that was NOT what they intended! Nobody lived here when they planned the District! We pay taxes, we fight and die in wars, and we were born in the US just like you!

      Geez, people! If YOU lived here you wouldn't be so dismissive.

      by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:56:27 AM PDT

      •  Who was dismissive?

        I was arguing with tactics, not with goals or intent.

        I don't think that passing federal legislation will achieve the goal, so I don't see the point in wasting the effort.

        I do think a Constitutional amendment would, so I support that.

        by huntsu on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:25:02 PM PDT

        •  you said:

          "Further, why do people care so passionately about the enfranchisement of 600,000 people in DC but not about the 3.8 million American Citizens living in Puerto Rico?  Or the other 2 or 3 million people living in US Territories that have no representation in Congress?"

          I took this to mean that you lumped us all in "who cares" boat, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. Didn't mean to jump down your throat.

          Puerto Rico is complicated, bc they have their own internal debates about statehood vs territory vs independence. They have to decide what they want first. They voted against statehood a few years ago, which would have given them full rep. The other territories -- are they asking for it? Do they want it? I don't know the politics, but you gotta fight.

          I say it would be great for DC to be a state, but that was tried once before, but an amendment to the constitution is near impossible -- it takes forever to get around all the states for ratification, and it never goes through -- bc of the same Constitutional argument you state -- that DC wasn't intended to be a state. Meanwhile 78% of Americans support DC having voting representation in Congress. To me, the obvious -- and legal -- compromise is to do what we are doing right now.

          by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:42:10 PM PDT

      •  One more thing!

        Can you send me a link or a name of a book with the info on DC having a member of Congress.  I have many gaping holes in my knowledge of American history, and this is one of them!  I'd love to learn more about how it was taken away.

        by huntsu on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:33:41 PM PDT

    •  I don't buy it ...

      First of all, I didn't argue that they shouldn't have the vote.  I argued that this legislation wouldn't give it to them, because it will fail in the courts.

      Second, the idea that Utah deserves an extra member of Congress because DC has none is a total non-starter with me.  Why should Utah get one member of Congress for every 550,000 residents when other states get one member of Congress for every 670,000 residents?

      And, as I noted above, why don't we argue passionately for Puerto Rico or the other US Territories that have no representation.  To quote you, "Or have we forgotten one of the first truly 'American' ideals that ever existed?"

      I am all for DC getting the vote, and said that.  But we have to do it in a way that will actually get them the vote, and not in a way that makes us feel good but will ultimately fail.

      by huntsu on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:32:36 PM PDT

      •  here you go

        1. re the courts -- if it goes to court, and you are right, it most probably will, at least the debate is being had. Right now we got nothing.

        2. Utah - Utah was chosen to even this out bc it had been arguing that it was cheated in the last census, that tens of thousands of Mormon missionaries weren't counted, and they deserve another rep. After the next census, the number of reps per state will be reapportioned anyway. It's not that Utah is special.

        3. I addressed your PR comment above.

        I am glad you want this to work, and I think in one way or another this will a) get us the vote or b) move us toward real Constitutional change.

        Re info on the 1790 voting rep, not sure about a book, I just heard it referenced in the Judiciary Committee hearing. I found a blurb on FairVote. You can google it. The Organic Act gave Congress sole control over DC (from sewers to nuts). We didn't have a mayor or Council for a very very very long time.

        by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:58:18 PM PDT

      •  Utah

        Representatives only come in integral numbers. Utah can't have the 3.5 reps it deserves, so it has to have 3 or 4. Most states are similarly slightly underrepresented or slightly overrepresented, just because that's the best you can do with the math. If the House were one seat bigger, that seat would go to Utah, which just missed out (by only hundreds in population) after the 2000 census.

        This bill doesn't mention Utah. It just adds an extra House seat (in addition to the one for DC) and leaves the apportionment up to the normal process. Conveniently for the purposes of partisan balance, that happens to give it to Utah. After the 2010 census, it will go to some other state (Utah will have 4 seats then regardless of whether this bill passes).

        This legislation is what's on offer. We can imagine all sorts of better plans that we'd prefer, but imaginary plans don't help us. Even if it's eventually found unconstitutional, this whole process is drawing attention to the issue and educating people, so it's worthwhile to go as far as we can. If it fails, we'll still be in a much better position for the next step. One of our biggest disadvantages at the moment is that the vast majority of the American public has no idea that DC residents are taxed and have no say in how those taxes are spent. When they hear about it, they want something to be done, but they have to hear about it.

        by KCinDC on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:22:09 PM PDT

        •  thanks

          for clarifying the utah thing

          by michelina on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:49:41 PM PDT

        •  But in 2010

          In 2010 it will be leveled out, and some other state will have that problem.  Passing legislation for the 2008 election which will be rectified by a new census in 2012 makes no sense.

          The fact Utah was selected because it will add a Republican rep while DC will add a Democratic rep. There are other states that are messed with, as well, but Utah is a guaranteed Rep seat.

          But all this is moot, since the legislation will probably be blocked in the courts.

          by huntsu on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

          •  What problem?

            "Some other state will have that problem"? I don't understand what problem you're talking about. The size of the House is arbitrary. There's no reason 435 seats results in a fairer distribution that 437 seats would. The size of the House used to increase all the time until they decided to stop at 435, and it's actually been 437 temporarily before.

            Utah wasn't selected over other states that are "messed with". It was the next one on the list, as I've explained. That's why the legislation doesn't need to mention Utah. It's of course true that the fact that Utah happened to be in that position and is so Republican is what inspired Tom Davis to come up with this solution in the first place.

            It's certainly possible that the legislation will be blocked in the courts (though as I said even then the publicity will be a good thing). But there are people who know a lot more about constitutional law than you and I do who believe it is constitutional. I hope we get a chance to find out.

            by KCinDC on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:28:20 AM PDT