D.C. Voting Rights Defeating In Senate

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 16:22


Another Republican victory against democracy:

The U.S. Senate failed to pass a bill Tuesday giving the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of Representatives. The bill would also have given an extra Congressional seat to Utah.

The 57-42 procedural vote failed to break a threatened filibuster from opponents who believe the measure to be unconstitutional. The Senate cloture vote represents the closest that voting rights proponents have come to success in decades of struggle.

Before the vote, supporters said that failure would likely doom voting-rights legislation for this year.

It will take at least three more Democratic Senators not from Utah or Maine in order for D.C. to earn one of our most basic rights: representation in Congress. You can see the roll call vote here. The Utah Senators defected, because Utah was promised an extra seat in the House as part of the deal.

I have two other thoughts on this bill. One, it is truly disgusting that John Warner of Virginia voting against D.C. voting rights, considering that many of his constituents work in D.C. Seriously, how messed up is that? Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, John.

Second, if Republicans are ever mesmerized as to why they do so poorly with the African-American vote, here is a prime example. An all-Republican minority of 42 just filibustered to prevent a overwhelmingly poor, African-American city from having representation in the United States Congress. Apart from FEMA's response to Katrina, could they make it any clearer that they do not stand up for African-Americans? Denying D.C. voting rights is a blatant,  racist, right-wing attempt to cling to power. It is undemocratic and un-American for Republicans to block this bill.  Truly disgusting.

Chris Bowers :: D.C. Voting Rights Defeating In Senate

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
D.C. Voting Rights Defeating In Senate | 27 comments
i live in DC (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for denying me the right to vote, assholes.
Not a good argument (0.00 / 0)
If it was the "Let Stoller Vote Act" it wouldn't even have a majority. ;)

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
i'll STFU now (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
haha (0.00 / 0)
Pretty sure the Senate just tried to tell you exactly that.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Um (0.00 / 0)
What does it matter if Virginians work in DC? They still get to go home at the end of the day and vote.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
McCain is a disgrace .. (0.00 / 0)
So Democracy is good in Iraq ... but not DC?  Thanks "Walnuts" McCain
Ready,...Aim,... (0.00 / 0)
When I went to college in DC, I stayed registered to vote in CA specifically because I wanted to be represented in Congress. 

But the real point I wanted to make was about Republican demographic foot-shooting.  Yes, DC is majority black, and yes, opposing voting rights for DC stands to hurt them with blacks.  But DC is trending much more white, now that condos are replacing public housing and ghettos are getting gentrified.  So even if it was a good idea to only target whites, Republicans would still be making a poor investment.  Add this to Cornel West's point about all the Republicans skipping the Morgan State debate, and they do seem to be painting themselves into a corner.

Yes we Kang

The other irony of course (4.00 / 2)
Is that all the African-Americans getting gentrified out are moving into the suburbs of Virginia and Maryland which only helps in wins like O'Malley, Webb, Cardin...

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
'08 can change the equation on this (4.00 / 1)
This is pretty simple, really: Both DC voting rights and stem cell research will pass with a Democratic President and Democratic victories in Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire (Allard, John Warner, and Sununu all voted no). Only one Dem Sen, Baucus, voted no.

Frankly, in '08 you could do this without the Utah provision, which is stupid and racist ("Hey, let's balance out a black vote with a white vote") if you got 5 or 6 more Dem Senators, although it may take fully 61 or 62 Dem Senators to clinch this if Baucus stays a no and Byrd doesn't vote again.

If we had the numbers to pass this without the Utah provision, give DC alone a vote ASAP after the law is passed in '09, with a partial ('09) and full session ('10) of Congress with 436 Reps, and then revert back to 435 Reps after reapportionment for the '12 cycle.

Repubs voting Yes: Bennett (UT), Coleman, Collins, Hatch (UT), Lugar, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich. The question is, if Coleman and Collins are also defeated, and say Kerrey and Merkley win NE and OR, respectively, to give two more Dem yes votes to make up for losing the Utah Repubs, would Lugar, Snowe, Specter, and Voinovich still vote yes?

This is another good reason to work toward a supermajority Dem Senate in the 111th Congress -- DC voting rights.

new equation (0.00 / 0)
Hear, hear.

Why yes, I'm a liberal. Thank you very much!
[ Parent ]
The Constitution Can't Be Racist? (0.00 / 0)
Granting D.C. voting rights is unconstitutional unless they make it a state. 

This is the same Constitution that counted slaves as less of a person.

If Democrats have a problem with the Constitution, they should propose changing it, not ignoring it.

Disagree strongly (0.00 / 0)
Was an amendment to the Constitution necessary every time a new state was admitted? Obviously not, and Article IV, Section 3 deals with this issue explicitly.

Congress is given plenary power to regulate the admittance of new states and territories and make rules concerning these; Congress is given plenary power to make laws concerning the election of its members (Article I, Section 4), and the qualifications of its members (Article I, Section 5), and Congress is given the power to make all laws relating to these and its other powers.

The ONLY part of the entire Constitution that would lead one to conclude that DC is not entitled to representation is the second clause of Article I, Section 2: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not ... be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

However, the rest of the structure and text would lead one to reasonably (and I think this is not even a close call) conclude that Congress may, for purposes of equal protection and democratic legitimacy, decide to define the District of Columbia as unto a state, and decide that DC is entitled to its own Representative and/or Senators. Yes, the 23rd Amendment happened, but in my mind that Amendment is superfluous -- it could have been done by statute.

Let the Congress make a constitutionally respectful effort to address these concerns, and then see what the courts decide. If the courts decide otherwise, then go about trying to amend the Constitution. Only then.

[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
there isn't any chance of the Supreme Court making a partisan ruling based on an overly literal reading of the text of the constitution, so we're basically in the clear.

Ugh.  How many votes do we need in the Senate to pack the court?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Make It a State (4.00 / 1)
I don't understand why the Democrats don't just push for DC statehood.  Or something Constitutional.

The Constitution is clear: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

DC is not a State.

Nothing in Article 1, Section 4, gives the Congress the power to ignore this.

If you want to define DC as a state, make it a state.  Don't create a hybrid.

And I disagree _strongly_ with the idea that the Congress should just vote on something and let the courts decide the constitutionality of it.  Members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.  They must vote against anything they believe is unconstitutional.  Even if that means opposing DC voting rights.

[ Parent ]
You've made it clear (0.00 / 0)
that you can read one clause of the Constitution -- but that one clause does not exist in a vacuum. Structural interpretation is just as important. You didn't address the other parts of the Constitution that are relevant. If the Congress can make DC a state, why can't the Congress give DC residents voting rights that would come from statehood?

My position is: Congress has the power to pass legislation that makes DC a state or some hybrid entity thereof for the purposes of giving DC residents federal legislative representation -- the Constitution does not have to be amended to do so. This is entirely within the purview of the powers given to Congress.

This isn't a slam dunk, but I think the structure is heavily weighted in favor of the idea that Congress has the power to do this without Amendment.

FWIW, I agree with your last paragraph. My point was that it is entirely clear to me having read the Constitution that Congress has the power to give DC residents voting rights, and that ONLY if the federal judiciary decides upon review that this power is absent should amendment be considered to remedy the situation.

[ Parent ]
Just Make It A State (0.00 / 0)
"If the Congress can make DC a state, why can't the Congress give DC residents voting rights that would come from statehood?"

Why can't they just make it a state?!?

What you're basically saying is:

A: Congress can make DC a state.
B: Being a state brings with it certain privileges--voting in the Congress.
C: Therefore, Congress can give DC privileges without making it a state.

This is totally absurd.  Statehood is what brings with it the privileges.  The Constitution talks about states having those privileges, not the Congress having the power to hand out those privileges independent of statehood.

[ Parent ]
However (0.00 / 0)
Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over DC.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Horrible Hybrid (0.00 / 0)
So this hybrid plan being pushed right now would . . .

1- Still disenfranchise DC in the Senate.

2- Sill would allow the Congress to meddle in the domestic affairs of the district.

[ Parent ]
DC will be a hybrid anyway (0.00 / 0)
Look, I would actually be for giving DC statehood, but the reality is that it's going to end up as some state/district hybrid anyway because of the Constitutional provisions related to the seat of government functions of Art.I/S.8. Congress would have to, almost block by block, decide which sections of the District are residential, and could thus be 'ceded' to a state entity, and which are necessary for the federal government itself. And Congress would have to do so while keeping flexible options open for future expansion of the federal government.

I don't think DC statehood is really a viable option at this point, but that doesn't mean it might not be the best, most clearly constitutional ultimate remedy. I'm saying I think Congress has the legitimate power to, right now, define a congressional district within DC, and could, if it wished, create some other hybrid entity (say, with Maryland) to allow DC residents to vote for Senators. The Constitution legitimately gives Congress these powers.

[ Parent ]
Heaven Forbid . . . (0.00 / 0)
That the federal government have offices and so forth in areas other than DC.

Can you imagine if the Department of Defense was HQed in a state?!?!?!

Oh wait, that's reality . . .

Article I, Section 8 specifically says "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"

We are under no constitutional mandate to have a District.  We "may" have a District.

[ Parent ]
Final reply (0.00 / 0)
Look, you're obviously 100% convinced of how right and righteous you are, so this debate is losing my interest.

Yes, how smart of you to realize that the Pentagon is in Arlington. I work at the USPTO in Alexandria, I realized that, too.

It makes the most sense to have, at the very least, the Capitol be in its own District to be the seat of government, and all the government buildings on the Mall and all the monuments, and the White House, aren't going anywhere. I've already said that Congress has the power
to make DC a state; I think the more constitutionally modest way to achieve voting rights for DC residents is to have Congress pass legislation to define the parts of the District that are residential into their own Congressional district and address Senators later. If there is popular support in the Congress for giving DC citizens full state rights, I am for that, but I don't think it's necessary, and it gets complicated with maintaining parts solely for the seat of the federal government.

You began by saying that amendment to the Constitution was the only remedy, and were adamant about this. Upon my argument to the contrary, you changed your position to DC statehood. Fine. I made very valid constitutional arguments that you chose to ignore; others you disagree with. All that is well and good, but stop acting so holier than thou. I am glad you recognized in this post that there are other parts to the Constitution that pertain to the power of Congress to act in this debate absent the one Clause you reference over and over regarding statehood. 

[ Parent ]
fllibuster (0.00 / 0)
the procedure who cannot be named...when done by Republicans.

I wrote a couple of posts today about this from the Utah angle, and Bennett's vote is a farce.  He will kill it with his amendments if he gets his way.

Truth over balance, progress over ideology

What's with the Utah rider? (0.00 / 0)
  Utah ALREADY has representation in Congress. If the pro-DC forces had been smart about this, they would have insisted that the bill NOT include a special extra bonus congressman for Utah -- and then force the Republicans to explain why Utah uniquely did, in fact, deserve an extra congressman.

  The arguments would have been amusing, at the very least...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

It's going to get one in the 2010 redistrict anyway (0.00 / 0)
So I guess the logic is, since a DC vote will go to the Dems for sure, give the GOP an extra one to "sweeten" the pot so they'll do the right thing for once.

But they know they'll get that extra vote in Utah anyway, so I guess they'd rather keep a lot of blacks from being enfranchised, just like usual.

[ Parent ]
Democracy Is Pandering To Blacks (4.00 / 2)
This has all been explained quite clearly in the past.  There is no reason for GOP presidential candidates to debate issues of concern to the black community, since they have nothing to gain by "pandering to black voters."

Similarly, "No taxation without representation" is pandering when the people being taxed are black.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Give DC Statehood (0.00 / 0)
Let the republicans fight against that.

DC would be a more populous state than several deep red states, and that would give us 2 more Democratic senators too.

Either that, or just abolish DC, and have Maryland or Virginia take over the City.  Maybe leave the Capitol and White House as "DC" sort of like the Vatican city in Rome.

Either way, this filibuster should be noted and used against them.  They're so eager to spread Democracy in Iraq, but unwilling to practice it in the US Capital.  No wonder the Iraqis aren't buying what Bush is selling.

Hmm (0.00 / 0)
Not sure about giving denizens of Capitol Hill their own private city-state.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
D.C. Voting Rights Defeating In Senate | 27 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox