May 15, 2007
Senate Hearing on Voting Rights Set to Begin
If you work on the Hill you might still have time to run over to the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 342 for the hearing Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The hearing, scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., will include testimony split into two panels, the first with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Mayor Adrian Fenty and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. A second panel will feature former vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp; Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Viet Dinh, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and former Bush administration official; and Jonathan Turley, a professor at The George Washington University Law School. Legislation sponsor Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will preside over the hearing.
We've sent a DCist operative down to the hearing, and are at this very moment busy making sure we can get the either the live video feed from the Committee or the live audio feed from CapitolHearings.org. Ahh, there it is, we can hear the background noise in the room. We'll update this post throughout the hearing as things progress -- maybe not quite live-blogging like we've done for debate on the House floor, but we'll do our best.
10:25 a.m. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) just finished up his testimony, which expressed strong support for the bill's intent (to give the District a voting representative in the House), its bi-partisian spirit (of course), and his belief that it is absolutely constitutional. Sen. Hatch even went so far as to warn the Senate that this issue "will never go away" until the historical disenfranchisement of the residents of the District of Columbia is remedied -- pretty strong words to hear from a Republican on this bill who isn't Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.). Davis is testifying now.
10:37 a.m. D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is now testifying, and but she decided to open with anecdotes from her recent appearances on the Colbert Report, including Colbert's accusations that she and Rep. Davis are having an affair. Norton admitted to having a "political affair." Big laughs. Oddly, I was just typing a thought about how much classier this Senate hearing is as compared with the rancorous House debate.
10:54 a.m. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) have both just announced their intention to sign on as co-sponsors of the bill. This came after Del. Norton made an incredibly moving speech about the racist underpinnings of the legacy of D.C.'s lack of voting rights. Mayor Fenty is now beginning his testimony.
2 p.m.: Sorry for the delay, folks. Wanted to wait until the archived video of the hearing was available online -- you can now watch the entire hearing by clicking here, and it's almost exactly two hours long.
The second half of the hearing saw compelling, if a little more dry, testimony from legal experts Wade Henderson and Viet Dinh, who both argued rather eloquently for the constitutionality of the bill, (and Jonathan Turley, who argued against). In fact at one point Sen. Lieberman made a funny remark about feeling as if he was "ready" for law school now (Lieberman has a law degree from Yale). Former Republican Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp also spoke, somewhat more passionately, about his commitment to civil rights and how ashamed he is that his political party is on the wrong side of this issue.
We get a fair share of nasty comments from a handful of people every time we post on this issue, usually decrying the "unconstitutionality" of the bill and telling us to stop dreaming. We now dare any of those same people to watch all two hours of this hearing and still make a case that it's a bad bill. Sure, the hearing was stacked with people who are in favor of the bill, but we'll be damned if they didn't make their case.
UPDATE: The WaPo's Yolanda Woodlee reports Lieberman said he plans to have the committee mark up the bill by early June.
Photo by Kyle Gustafson
|
I feel like we've been left hanging... Any final words or recap? And overall impression? I hope it's coming soon...
Thanks for the coverage! Wasn't able to attend, though I really wanted to be there.
From a represented friend in Texas:
Nanny nanny boo boo, I’m more effectively represented than you! I don’t even know who my Rep. is—but guess what? I KNOW he or she has a vote!!!! If Eleanor Holmes Norton and a felon jump off a roof, which one will hit first? WHO CARES, because neither one of them can VOTE!!! Your Congresswoman is so voteless, she doesn’t realize the 19th Amendment was passed! Your Congresswoman is so voteless, she thinks it’s 1962! Your Congresswoman is so voteless, she thought Queen Elizabeth came to visit her subjects!!!!!
Oooh. Burn.
Any idea when the committee might vote?
So now everyone that doesn't think that this bill is the best vehicle to achieve DC voting rights because it carries significant constitutional questions is "nasty?" Geez Sommer, you need to realize that its ok for reasonable people to have reasonable disagreements about political issues, and opposition to this particular bill does not necessarily equal opposition to DC voting rights.
Also, you say that Jonathan Turley "argued rather eloquently for the constitutionality of the bill," but his written testimony says that "the bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for district residents."
What a mean, nasty comment!
That's not at all what I said. I said a handful of people have left nasty comments. I was addressing those specific people -- they know who they are. Also that sentence including Turley got published for about 30 seconds in error, it's been corrected for a while now.
Mike, I'm trying to find out. Lieberman said "as soon as possible" but who knows what that means.
"This came after Del. Norton made an incredibly moving speech about the racist underpinnings of the legacy of D.C.'s lack of voting rights"
Right . . . it's about racism?? Ahh well. If you can't beat 'em, cry foul, right?
Then I must have clicked over to the page during the 30 seconds that the wrong Turley info was up. Shows what an avid reader I am ;)
On the other issue, I just think its fair to point out that there have been just as many "nasty" comments from those who support the current bill directed at those who do not. Unfortunately, there are bad apples on both sides.
Sen. Collins sounded very much on the fence in her opening statement, as if she really wanted to be convinced it was constitutional. I'm hoping she'll be one of the persuadable Republicans.
No idea what's up with Sen. Warner. He kept popping in and out and really couldn't have heard much of the testimony, and he didn't say anything.
On the way over to the hearing I saw that all the flags around Union Station were at half staff. Anyone know why?
AUA: Read about the history of DC voting rights and you will see it is undoubtably linked to racism.
First off, federal law requires all flags be flown at half staff today in honor of Peace Officers' Memorial Day, this was signed into law by Clinton in 1994.
Second, I attend hearings all the time as part of my work, they are essentially theatre (theatre of the absurd at times). I've been to hearings in which 2 members were present, and I've been to hearings in which a member will arrive late and ask a series of questions that had already been asked by another member. I've been to more hearings than I can count in which some Asst Secretary of something shows up, reads a 5 minute statement, isn't asked any questions and goes home. The point is, I wouldn't read anything (good or bad) into what happened today. A hearing was held, it is part of the process, it will get some good local press, but, like all bills, this thing will be hashed out far from the press, the public, the people whose bosses force them to sit through hearings (me), and the bloggers.
RE: flags at half staff--today is peace officers memorial day:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/print/20070511-9.html
AUA,
To echo what Sam Farmer said, read the first few chapters of "Dream City" by Tom Sherwood and Harry Jaffe. The book details the history of the District's disenfranchisement, including the many extremely racist members of Congress that had little problem expressing their feelings for the residents of the city. I wouldn't say that racism is still a reason for the District's second-class status, but then again, there is a certain amount of paternalism built in that I doubt you would see if the city's demographics were different.
DCist's unwillingness to recognize shades of grey on this issue is frustrating, to put it mildly. One can think that this bill is unconstitutional without being "nasty", and, more importantly, without being against representation for the District.
One can also think that this bill is completely Constitutional, but be foursquare against it on the grounds that it is woefully insufficient.
Never have I seen people more ecstatic about potentially being given one-third of their basic rights.
DCist's editorial position of "ANY REPRESENTATION GOOOOD!!! NO REPRESENTATION BAAAAD!!!" is simplistic at best, particularly when untempered by alternate (but quite valid) viewpoints. This site is better than that, and I'd like to see the coverage of this issue reflect the diversity of opinion more apparent in other areas of this site. There are extremely good reasons for supporters of representation for the District to be opposed to this bill, yet without reading the comments sections on Voting Rights posts here, one would never know that.
Bad solution -- We're not that simplistic on this issue. In fact, if you search through our archives on voting rights (type "Voting Rights" into the search field), you'll likely find some lively discussions concerning how best to approach D.C. voting rights.
Everyone on staff has somewhat different opinions on this issue, but we've all at least come to the tacit agreement that it should at least run its course. If the bill passes and is promptly vetoed or thrown out as unconstitutional, fine. But this approach is the one that was chosen by a carefully crafted coalition of groups, and we're inclined to support it.
Sommer wasn't saying that everyone (or anyone, in fact) who opposes this bill is nasty. Some people have been, though. Then again, people who support the bill can also be nasty, so it goes both ways.
"Never have I seen people more ecstatic about potentially being given one-third of their basic rights."
Simple math: 1/3 > 0. Yes it's not perfect, and some believe that it will harm the argument for full representation. I happen to think that it will publicize the issue enough to make full representation easier. Surveys have shown that when people are aware of the issue, they favor correcting it.
Sam Farmer/Martin - I don't dispute that it occurred in the past, but to say that it is the reason now [underpinning: (noun) foundation or basis] is counterproductive to the goal of getting voting rights. It's obscuring the actual reason that DC doesn't have a vote and the references do nothing to support getting DC a vote.