July 12, 2006
District Voting Rights Go International
Once again, everyone but the U.S. government might finally realize that the denial of voting rights for District residents is an affront to democracy and human rights.
We've received word that Timothy Cooper, Executive Director of Worldrights, a human rights advocacy organization, testified on Monday before the United Nations' Human Rights Committee in Geneva. Cooper's grief? The lack of voting rights for District residents. In reference to the persistent injustice we constantly harp on, Cooper noted:
Without equal representation, they are subjects of the state—not participants in the state. They are constantly subjected to the arbitrary will of a Congress in which they have no vote. Congress attempts to impose death penalty legislation and terminate the city’s strict gun control laws. It even prohibits, under penalty of law, local tax dollars being spent to finance campaigns for equal voting rights. Constitutionally speaking, we are non-persons.Cooper then asked that the committee recommend that the United States allow District residents full voting rights.
This isn't a first for Cooper — it was around this time last year that he helped encourage the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to pass a resolution encouraging the feds to go a little easier on D.C. residents and allow them to vote. Nothing much happened after that resolution, and we're guessing that the Bush administration won't exactly jump when the UN tells them to. But there's always that sliver of hope...
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...Someone testifying before a UN advisory panel will have NO impact on the overall fight for DC statehood or voting rights, nor does the UN have any ability to compel any of its member states to alter the way they set up their legislative branches. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Watching the total lack of political sophistication of many of supporters of DC statehood/representation is one of the great comedy shows here is the city.
Shadow Senators! License plates! The UN!
I don't know why I don't know this, but, why don't we have voting rights? What's the reason?
Obviously we should, but I don't know why we don't.
American democracy is a hypocritical sham on so many levels, and DC's lack of voice is just one facet....
Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers.
The idea was that the capital shouldn't be in any state to avoid a state using the capital as leverage.
I think we don't have a vote because we'd probably vote for Democrats, and thus the Republicans aren't fond of that, though I seem to recall that the proposals giving us voting rights also add an electoral college vote in Utah.
And SWester, do you have a better idea?
Although it is true that the intention was to create a federal district separate from anyone state's influence, it was also true, I believe (I read it here at DCist, so it must be true!) that early district residents voted for congress members from the states that ceded us -- the Maryland parts voted for Maryland congress people and the Virginia parts voted for Virginia congress people. They did not, however, elect members to the respective state houses.
At least this isn't going to the Security Council. Just imagine the furor if Bolton cast a veto!
Hmm, I remember the Democrats being in control of both houses of government and about 60% of state legislatures back in the early 80's. Did the D's give voting rights, then the R's took them back once they got control of the Congress?
I still have not heard one compelling Constitutional argument why DC should have a voting member of Congress, other the "Because we say we should"
And also, I don't think its a Democrat anyone is worried about, I think its Congressman Marion Barry that people are worried about.
Rockeye.. cmon. If you're going to mention the Constitution please at least be a good enough scholar of history to recognize that the argument is above the Constitution. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. This country was created in part because of "taxation without representation". That's exactly what happens to residents of DC. You don't see this disconnect?
The original Constitution was flawed. It's been amended 26 times. Give me the Constitutional argument for emancipation pre-13th amendment. Give me the Constitutional argument for sufferage pre-15th and 19th amendment. Give me the Constitutional argument for banning booze pre-18th amendment.
Ack, 27 times.
Politburo and others -
It's pretty simple. If you don't want to give us DC residents voting rights, stop asking us to die in your wars, and stop asking us to pay taxes.
As for DC having the vote meaning that DC would have some sort of undue influence over the Fed government, that's unsupportable. What do you envision, the DC congressman introducing a bill to cut off the lights in the White House? It's laughable on it's face, in the modern age.
As for electing Marion Barry, it's not bloody likely. And even if it were, that's democracy, baby. It ain't always pretty, but it beats totalitarianism.
Hillman I think you've misread me. My original post was not defending lack of voting rights, merely stating the historical reasons for their non-existence. I am one of "you" DC residents.
I am a supporter of voting rights for the District, on the simple premise that since I live in the United States I should be represented in Congress, but I have to question what business this is of the UN's.
It's a nice stunt, sure to get the opposition all riled up, but I think it's obnoxious to waste any of the UN's time with this issue.
They have, um, bigger fish to fry at the moment than a lack of representation for 600,000 first-worlders.
"Someone testifying before a UN advisory panel will have NO impact on the overall fight for DC statehood or voting rights, nor does the UN have any ability to compel any of its member states to alter the way they set up their legislative branches. Sound and fury signifying nothing."
Is it as effective as the issue being considered by someone or some political body with a degree of direct decision making authority over DC voting rights? No.
But is it entirely irrelevant in the negotiation for DC voting rights? No it isn't. Shifts in moral persuasion and external admonishment do slightly strengthen the bargaining power of DC voting advocates. It helps. More needs to be done, and more effective pressure needs to be made. But it helps.
I support voting rights for Washington residents, on the simple premise that since I live in the United States I should be represented in Congress.
However, I don't see what business this is of the UN's. It's a nice stunt, sure, and sure to get the opposition's feathers ruffled, but I think it's obnoxious to waste any of the UN's time on this issue.
I'm glad for Cooper's attention to this issue, but the UN has bigger fish to fry than a lack of representation for 600,000 first worlders.
Politburo-
Call the Constitution flawed if you like, but 27 amendments in the 219 years since their inception isn't bad in my book. In fact, the first 10 were amended all at once in 1791, so the tally is only 17 in 215, a mere .079 changes a year or one every 12.6 years. Seeing as how a surprising number of countries across the world see a REGIME change that often, I'd say we're doing quite well for us.
Voting rights or not, this is not the Constitution's fault.
That said, however, I am a supporter of District Voting Rights simply because of the key concepts that our country were founded on revolved around taxation without representation. DC was never envisioned to be a large city in and of itself, but simply a federal district. Washington himself, presumably out of modesty, always referred to it as the Federal City. However, times change, and DC has grown into a metropolis which deserves equal voting rights.
Politburo-
Call the Constitution flawed if you like, but 27 amendments in the 219 years since their inception isn't bad in my book. In fact, the first 10 were amended all at once in 1791, so the tally is only 17 in 215, a mere .079 changes a year or one every 12.6 years. Seeing as how a surprising number of countries across the world see a REGIME change that often, I'd say we're doing quite well for us.
Voting rights or not, this is not the Constitution's fault.
That said, however, I am a supporter of District Voting Rights simply because of the key concepts that our country were founded on revolved around taxation without representation. DC was never envisioned to be a large city in and of itself, but simply a federal district. Washington himself, presumably out of modesty, always referred to it as the Federal City. However, times change, and DC has grown into a metropolis which deserves equal voting rights.
I have no issue with "Congress attempts to impose death penalty legislation and terminate the city’s strict gun control laws." This crime wave is out of control.
I'm not sure how you can say that it's not the Constitution's fault when it is that document and only that document that prohibits DC federal representation. Unless you're trying to make some argument that it's Congress' fault for not addressing the problem earlier.
My statement that the Constitution is flawed doesn't mean I think it's all bad or should be thrown out. It's a simple fact. The original Constitution allowed slavery, among other ridiculousness. I consider that a flaw! The rate of amendment really has no significance. I was merely stating that we've found reason to change the original Constitution in 27 distinct ways. Therefore, I believe that using the Constitution as justification for lack of DC voting, as Rockeye has done, is flawed logic.
I should note that I don't believe a statutory solution will pass SCOTUS. The problem with DC Vote's arguments is that their logic, when carried to its conclusion, says that DC should essentially be treated as a State in all cases. However, the courts have not agreed with this logical conclusion in the past, instead choosing to only allow it in cases where it is a more practical matter. I also prefer an amendment because it is much less likely be to changed by a future Congress.
Let's remember that DC wasn't even entitled to a say in Presidential elections until *1961* when the 23rd Amendment was ratified, so the lack of a strictly textual basis in the Constitution for DC statehood and representation in Congress is certainly not the end of the argument, as some have intimated.
Also, one can nevertheless find a constitutional basis for DC representation in the concepts and overall structure of the Constitution, if not its text alone. For instance, to deny all the residents of DC a form of state government independent from outright congressional overrule--a federal dominance lacking any representative voice of DC citizens whatsoever--is to deny that entire swath of US citizens the very principles and benefits of the federal design itself.
Federalism was one of the core tenets of the Constitution, and among the most brilliant ideas of the Founders, up there with the Separation of Powers and arguably more fundamental than even the Bill of Rights. The whole concept was to hem the federal government with *limited* and strictly enumerated powers, leaving the residuum to the states, which were always considered to be truer approximations of the people's will. In essence, to deprive all of DC's residents of their own state government, allowing Congress to overrule DC Council resolutions pertaining to even the most local and fundamentally "state" matters, is to deprive every citizen of Washington of one of the most fundamental pillars of the American constitutional design: local control of local matters.
Even worse, by not giving DC any representatives in Congress, we further deprive its residents of *any* meaningful self-government, since the Congress that can overrule the local laws contains absolutely no representative voice from DC. The entire concept, particularly in the case of the seat of American power, is fundamentally abhorrent to the Constitution's design and spirit, if not its specific text.
Lastly, the originating notion that a "State of Columbia" could harmfully undermine or influence the seat of federal power is rendered laughable by the simple fact that federal offices and buildings (the Pentagon, FBI field offices, etc.) exist wholly within states and have no such trouble, and the Constitution more than protects federal interests and properties from encroachment by the states (see McCulloch v. Maryland).
This situation must look bizarre indeed to foreign students of American democracy, because it completely contradicts our most fundamental governing principles. (I am a Virginia resident, by the way, not that it should matter).
(technical problems, I apologize if this is a repeat posting)
Let's remember that DC wasn't even entitled to a say in Presidential elections until *1961* when the 23rd Amendment was ratified, so the lack of a strictly textual basis in the Constitution for DC statehood and representation in Congress is certainly not the end of the argument, as some have intimated.
Also, one can nevertheless find a constitutional basis for DC representation in the concepts and overall structure of the Constitution, if not its text alone. For instance, to deny all the residents of DC a form of state government independent from outright congressional overrule--a federal dominance lacking any representative voice of DC citizens whatsoever--is to deny that entire swath of US citizens the very principles and benefits of the federal design itself.
Federalism was one of the core tenets of the Constitution, and among the most brilliant ideas of the Founders, up there with the Separation of Powers and arguably more fundamental than even the Bill of Rights. The whole concept was to hem the federal government with *limited* and strictly enumerated powers, leaving the residuum to the states, which were always considered to be truer approximations of the people's will. In essence, to deprive all of DC's residents of their own state government, allowing Congress to overrule DC Council resolutions pertaining to even the most local and fundamentally "state" matters, is to deprive every citizen of Washington of one of the most fundamental pillars of the American constitutional design: local control of local matters.
Even worse, by not giving DC any representatives in Congress, we further deprive its residents of *any* meaningful self-government, since the Congress that can overrule the local laws contains absolutely no representative voice from DC. The entire concept, particularly in the case of the seat of American power, is fundamentally abhorrent to the Constitution's design and spirit, if not its specific text.
Lastly, the originating notion that a "State of Columbia" could harmfully undermine or influence the seat of federal power is rendered laughable by the simple fact that federal offices and buildings (the Pentagon, FBI field offices, etc.) exist wholly within states and have no such trouble, and the Constitution more than protects federal interests and properties from encroachment by the states (see McCulloch v. Maryland).
This situation must look bizarre indeed to foreign students of American democracy, because it completely contradicts our most fundamental governing principles. (I am a Virginia resident, by the way, not that it should matter).
vdocam--how exactly is having MORE handguns on DC streets going to stem the crime wave?
Politburo .... I'm sorry, my mistake. I should have tagge the email response to others.