D.C. Voting Rights Bill Clears Major Hurdle
The Senate will vote on a bill that would give Washington a voting representative in the House
Corrected on 02/25/09: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified one of the Democratic senators who voted against invoking cloture on the D.C. voting rights legislation. They were Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Max Baucus of Montana.
For voters in the District of Columbia, the time seems to have come. In a historic vote today, the Senate passed a measure that calls for a full vote on a bill that would give voting rights in the House of Representatives to the nearly 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C.
Since the nation's founding, voters in the District of Columbia, which has a population larger than the state of Wyoming, have been denied a vote in Congress. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's lone congressional representative, is allowed to participate in debate and craft legislation, but she is prohibited from casting a vote on the House floor.
Eight Republicans and 54 Democrats supported the measure to bring legislation that would change this state of affairs to a vote. The procedural motion was opposed by two Democrats—Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Max Baucus of Montana—and most of the Senate's Republicans.
Experts say the bill, which also will give an additional seat in the House to Utah, could be considered as early as tomorrow. Some Republicans had opposed the measure because they argued that giving Democratic-leaning D.C. a vote in the House would give the Democrats more of an advantage. To attract some GOP votes, the bill's sponsors added a representative to the conservative state of Utah.
"Congress truly made history today," says Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Votes, an advocacy group that has been pushing for the bill's passage for more than a decade. "Not since the 1970s has a piece of D.C. voting-rights legislation made it to the floor of the Senate. After years of protests, marches, and calls to Congress, District residents are finally on their way to having their voices heard."
The House passed a similarly worded bill in 2007, but with the threat of a veto from President Bush, the measure did not win the 60 votes it needed to move to a vote in the Senate. The issue then, as it has been for decades, was the legislation's constitutionality: While many legal scholars believe Congress has the power to give the District voting representation, others point out that the Constitution explicitly limits congressional representation to states. Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, made the point again today on the Senate floor, saying the bill's legal standing is "weak and will not survive in court."
With Barack Obama, who cosponsored the '07 legislation, in the White House, many political analysts believe that is where this legislation may be headed. "Victory is so close on this issue, but the fight's not over yet," says Zherka. The Senate will debate the bill tomorrow. The House is likely to consider it in the coming weeks.
Reader Comments
Thad Cochran
Unless he has switched affiliations, Thad Cochran is not a Democrat.
Equal Suffrage (cont'd)
The Declaratory Act of 1766 was an attempt by the British nation to arrogate to itself an Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority "in all cases whatsoever". Similarly, the District Clause attempts to arrogate to the American nation Absolute Power over an unrepresented minority "in all cases whatsoever". Both cases are highly rebuttable, since both seek tyrannical Absolute Power by the majority (and we know what Absolute Power does) over an unrepresented minority. The bedrock principle of "Consent of the Governed" is violated by such unwarranted assertions.
"VI. 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 public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good."
Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776
Continued, persistent violation of this fundamental, bedrock, first principle of modern democratic government undermines and erodes the very legitimacy of the rule of government over those excluded from participation in our representative, democratic, republican system of government. The nation must address this deficiency in our Constitution, with the goal of forming a More Perfect Union.
Equal Suffrage is an Inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) Right!
Founder George Mason said, "No free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
James Madison said "The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the Bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to."
Our Constitution is a document written in an attempt to "form a more perfect Union". One of the basic, bedrock fundamental principles upon which democracy and its variations (such as a democratic republic) are based is "Consent of the Governed". Consent is determined by majority consensus, with special protections afforded to the rights of minorities. One of the most basic implications of this approach is that "the people" consist of ALL of the people. If a minority of the people are excluded from even participating in the process of decisionmaking by the majority, that exclusion tends to erode the legitimacy of the entire system.
Such is the situation of the long-suffering residents of the District of Columbia. Excluded from participation in the national decisionmaking process nearly from the begining of the Republic by the tyranny of the majority (those living in the fifty states), their exclusion (along with the now-corrected one-time exclusion of blacks, women, and young adults under the age of 21) has tended to erode the legitimacy of the rule of law, under self-evident, bedrock, fundamental democratic principles such as Consent of the Governed.
Consent of the Governed has not been afforded denizens of the District since 1801. The current Constitution is hardly even their Constitution today, since they have not been afforded an opportunity to participate in decisionmaking that resulted in Amendments 12 through 27 (since 1801). The Courts, likewise, are hardly even their courts, since they have not had representatives with an opportunity to participate in decisions (advise and consent) regarding their staffing and operation, since 1801. Finally, the Congress is hardly even their Congress, since they have had no vote, and precious little voice, in either chamber, since 1801.
The denizens of DC, as part of the original thirteen colonies, are unrebuttably the same posterity, the same progeny, as those currently residing in the fifty states, for whom, as an indivisible Nation, the Founders pledged their "Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor" to secure Liberty. Of that there can be no argument. Other territories (Puerto Rico, Pacific Islands, etc) have a more tenuous claim on that position.
advertisement
