Health care reform passed!
We all wish it could have been more progressive.
Know what would have made it more progressive?
Nancy Pelosi having one more locked-in progressive vote on the bill could have given a little more breathing room.
Harry Reid having two more progressive Democratic Senators could have broken a Republican filibuster - even with Scott Brown - and maybe even gotten us a public option in reconciliation.
Hmmm... if only there were a way for us to get one more progressive in the House and two more in the Senate... and at the same time, grant the full benefits of citizenship to 600,000 taxpaying American citizens.
Oh, wait... there is! And if we'd have made this a priority last January, maybe we'd have gotten a more progressive bill!
It's time for the progressive movement to make DC civil rights - including full statehood - a priority.
Last month, I paid my income taxes. Thanks to President Obama's tax cuts, I paid less in taxes than I did last year - which enabled me to save up some money for a rainy day. But I still paid my Federal income tax.
And yet, I and my 600,000 fellow DC residents still don't have any representation in Congress.
Hmmm... taxation without representation... where have I heard that phrase before?
Wasn't there some kind of minor fracas about that sort of thing a few hundred years ago?
Not only are we taxed without representation - a violation of the most basic civil rights of citizens in a democratic society - but we also don't get to make our own laws. Back in December, our city council approved same-sex marriage and our Mayor signed it into law - but we had to wait until just this month to start licensing same-sex marriages. Why? Because we had to give Congress time to consider vetoing the law. Congress - a body completely unaccountable to us - has the power to change or veto any law the DC City Council passes, or to simply add laws to our books. No other American citizen is subject to this indignity. We're treated like children, deemed unable to govern ourselves without Big Brother Congress looking over our shoulders.
Needless to say, this is an unacceptable state of affairs. 600,000 Americans are being denied the most basic of civil rights - the right to be represented in government and the right to make our own laws.
This needs to change, and it needs to change NOW.
Now, it's not like the Democrats in Congress haven't tried. There was a bill introduced last year, the DC Voting Rights Act, that would have given our esteemed representative, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton (a strong progressive), a vote in the House. But there were a few problems with that bill:
A. The Democrats just didn't care enough. When Republicans attached a gun-rights rider to the bill, the Democrats quit the fight instead of fighting it and demanding that the rider be removed.
B. The bill is probably unconstitutional, as the Constitution says that representatives can only come from states.
C. Even if the bill passed, and even if it was deemed Constitutional, it still wouldn't be full civil rights, as it doesn't include two Senators or the right to make our own laws without their being subject to a Congressional veto.
It's time for real action - statehood. Statehood solves all of the problems with DC civil rights.
It would require only a majority vote in Congress rather than a Constitutional Amendment (see below), which means we could do it without a single Republican vote and without the messy state legislature process.
It would give us full representation in Congress and full home rule without having to create a messy legal category for DC.
It could get done today, rather than having to wait years and years for the Constitutional Amendment process to wind its way through the state legislatures.
In other words, statehood is the best solution. The status quo is an affront to American values; the other proposed fixes are either too difficult or don't solve the problem.
Unfortunately, the thing about being disenfranchised is that the disenfranchised don't have the power to stand up for themselves in government. We don't have a Representative or Senators to call. (If we did, we wouldn't be disenfranchised anymore.) That's why we have to rely on our progressive allies in the 50 enfranchised states to have our back, and put pressure on the people who represent them in Congress.
That means you.
What I'm asking of you is just a few simple things:
- Call your representative and Senators and demand action on DC statehood. (If necessary, educate the staffer you talk to on the issue, letting him/her know that a Constitutional Amendment is not necessary [see below].)
- Call your Democratic campaigns for the House and Senate - whether they're incumbents or challengers - and demand that they include a pledge to take action on DC statehood among the issues on their webpages. It's a simple thing, costs them nothing, and gets the issue out there.
- Spread the word about DC civil rights through Twitter, Facebook, or the old-fashioned kind of social networking where you actually talk to people using your mouth and words.
- Whenever someone on dKos or another progressive blog asks their audience to contact their Congress-members, point out that DC citizens still don't have a voting representative or Senators to call. We DC residents shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of education and awareness by ourselves.
- Finally, whenever a candidate for the House or Senate posts on this site, or whenever they hold an event in your district/state, ask them pointblank what their position is on DC civil rights, and demand a pledge for action. If they're unclear, ask for clarification: Do they support full statehood or just the half-a-loaf unconstitutional DC VRA of 2009?
Will you take action for us?
APPENDIX 1: Since this question gets asked every single time I post a diary on DC civil rights, here's a quick primer. Feel free to copy/paste it.
DC Statehood doesn't require an amendment!
Contrary to popular opinion, making DC a state wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment, except to clean up as the process finished. A simple bill, passed by majorities in Congress and signed by the President, would get the job done. Here's how:
Congress is given power over the seat of the Federal government - the Federal District - in Article I, Section 8 (emphasis added):
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The key word there is that Congress is empowered to set the Federal District, a space no larger than ten miles square. Such a district can certainly be less than ten miles square - and, indeed, since the retrocession of the part of the 10-mile square that was part of Virginia back to that state in 1847, it hasn't been 10 miles square.
So here's how this works. Just one bill. Congress passes a law doing three things:
I. Reducing the size of the Federal district to the space occupied by the White House, the Ellipse, the National Mall, the Capitol, and maybe some Smithsonians and House/Senate Office Buildings nearby;
II. Declaring the rest of the former District of Columbia to be a Federal territory (Maryland could conceivably dispute this, but since they don't want us back, they won't); and
III. Accepting the Constitution of the State of New Columbia (and the name could be negotiable), ratified by the voters of that state in 1983.
After that, all we need is for President Obama to sign his name on the dotted line* and bam!, just like that, DC residents aren't second-class citizens anymore! We have a Representative, two Senators, and the right to make our own laws, just like all the other citizens. It's a Festivus miracle!
Now, as I said, a Constitutional Amendment would be required for clean-up - as we'd need to repeal the 23rd Amendment, giving three electoral votes to the Federal District, since the Federal District would then have exactly zero voting residents. But once the deed of statehood is done, it would be no trouble at all to repeal it. (Not to mention that with no residents, the Federal District would find it impossible to come up with three qualified Presidential electors.)
And that's how a bill becomes a law.
* I don't know if the line is actually dotted.