D.C. Voting Rights Supporters Have Best Shot Yet With Obama in the White House
Washingtonians, many of whom also think that D.C. wasn't granted congressional representation for years because of its large black population, are ready to put their days in the political wilderness behind them. "The righting of this historic wrong is long overdue," Norton said after introducing her bill. "The people of the District have been the direct target of a terrorist attack but they have no vote on how the federal government provides for their homeland security . . . It is time to grant a vote to those citizens living in our nation's capital so their voices can be rightfully heard."
Norton has said she hopes to get the legislation passed by next month, so a D.C. representative can have a say on the Obama administration's economic recovery plan. A court challenge, experts say, would be likely to follow.
- Read more by Justin Ewers.
- Read more about voting.
Reader Comments
to Cengiz Pamir:
No it is not. Re-read Article I Section 8 Clause 17, which says:
"[Congress shall have the power]...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,..."
Nowhere does it say that representation is forbidden.
As a resident of DC, I have to say, quite frankly, it is NOT really OUR Constitution anymore. We have not had an opportunity to participate in amendments 12-27 (since 1801). It is NOT our Congress, we have no vote and precious little voice (since 1801). They are NOT EVEN our Courts; we have had not say in their staffing or operations for over 200 years (since 1801). We have in effect been evicted from our own native land, and we want back IN!
I respectfully suggest that it is not in the long-term interest of this country, nor is it in any way compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded, to continue to exclude, alienate, and disillusion the population of this nation's capital. If you recall, the original Constitution, in spite of "all men are created equal", counted non whites as three-fifths of whites for roughly the first fifty years (say 1770-1820); black men were not allowed to vote (and then reluctantly in many cases) until 1870; women were not allowed to vote until (after who-knows-how-many bedroom skirmishes) 1920; 18-20 year olds were sent to war but not allowed to vote until 1970. All of these recognized deficiencies in our Constitution have been, over time, remedied. An additional deficiency has been identified and needs to be remedied. Catch 22 is that DC denizens cannot petition their representatives to correct this deficiency because they HAVE none.
In 1978 Congress passed an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification that would have made DC a state. Only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified. In 2000 DC's complaint was heard by the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and the response was basically "Go away, kid, ya BOTHER me!
The Virginia Bill of Rights (written by George Mason, instrumental in our Bill of Rights, and mentor to, among others, Jefferson and Madison) says, in Article 6:
"That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Do we still believe this or do we not?
As a resident of DC, I have to say, quite frankly, it is NOT really OUR Constitution anymore. We have not had an opportunity to participate in amendments 12-27 (since 1801). It is NOT our Congress, we have no vote and precious little voice (since 1801). They are NOT EVEN our Courts; we have had not say in their staffing or operations for over 200 years (since 1801). We have in effect been evicted from our own native land, and we want back IN!
I respectfully suggest that it is not in the long-term interest of this country, nor is it in any way compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded, to continue to exclude, alienate, and disillusion the population of this nation's capital. If you recall, the original Constitution, in spite of "all men are created equal", counted non whites as three-fifths of whites for roughly the first fifty years (say 1770-1820); black men were not allowed to vote (and then reluctantly in many cases) until 1870; women were not allowed to vote until (after who-knows-how-many bedroom skirmishes) 1920; 18-20 year olds were sent to war but not allowed to vote until 1970. All of these recognized deficiencies in our Constitution have been, over time, remedied. An additional deficiency has been identified and needs to be remedied. Catch 22 is that DC denizens cannot petition their representatives to correct this deficiency because they HAVE none.
In 1978 Congress passed an amendment and sent it to the states for ratification that would have made DC a state. Only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified. In 2000 DC's complaint was heard by the Supreme Court (Adams v. Clinton) and the response was basically "Go away, kid, ya BOTHER me!" and suggested we seek another venue.
If the supreme law of the land becomes destructive toward the lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of the people, " it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Virginia Bill of Rights (written by George Mason, instrumental in our Bill of Rights, and mentor to, among others, Jefferson and Madison) says, in Article 6:
"That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Do we still believe that, or do we not?
Madison and Mason (and others) recommended "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles" as we refine our Constitution over time "in order to form a more perfect Union."
Mr. and Mrs America: I believe the ball is (as they say) in YOUR Court.
DC Voting rights
Isn't it specifically/literally in the constitution that they get no representatives since it is the capital. The belief during the writing of the constitution was that the capital would already have inordinate influence and hence giving it reps would give it overbearing influence. Also the capital is not a state but a territory.
How can congress pass a law that is plainly against the constitution. Furthermore if they are given representation then shouldn't every territory in the U.S. such as Peurto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands... be given representation as well?
advertisement
