Token Voting Power Gone

A New York Times editorial today draws attention to the District's lack of voting representation.

The long suffering, and underrepresented, taxpayers of the District of Columbia are properly worried about their shrinking role in the new Republican-controlled House. Tucked into the changes enacted by Speaker John Boehner is a rule depriving the district of its one bit of token voting power in Congress.... read the full editorial here.

In related news, last week, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton reintroduced the same three bills she always drops in each Congress providing alternative ways to obtain representation -- (1) statehood; (2) representation in both the House and Senate without statehood; or (3) giving the District a single vote in the House.  What was it that Albert Einstein said about insanity?

Only full representation is acceptable.  But nothing will pass unless there is a strong push by the District's elected leadership (beyond a billboard or street naming) and grassroots movement from the citizenry.  That is largely absent. 

Having the District share federal voting representation with Maryland, while retaining Home Rule, may be most poltically viable from a national standpoint and historically justifiable.  Statehood is also a worthy goal. 

Until then, the District should focus on increasing our independence from the federal government.  We still don't fully control our courts, our prosecutors, our parks, our legislation, or our budget.  Becoming more like a state, even if not yet a state, would be a positive step.  It may be the only viable area for progress under a Republican House.

Puerto Rico: Key to DC Statehood?

There's a long history of new states being admitted in pairs in order to keep the balance of power in the U.S. Congress.  Yet, there seems to be little consideration of whether Puerto Rican statehood could be the key to the future status of the District of Columbia.

Early on our nation's history, states were admitted in pairs -- free states and slave states: Indiana and Mississippi (1816-17), Illinois and Alabama (1818-19), Maine and Missouri (resulting in the Missouri Compromise of 1820 specifying that Louisiana Purchase territory north of latitude 36° 30' would be organized as free states and territory south of that line would be reserved for organization as slave states), Michigan and Arkansas (1836-37), Iowa and Florida (1845-46), and Wisconsin and Texas (1848, 1845).  California followed by pledging to maintain the balance with one pro-slavery and one anti-slavery Senator (1850).

The U.S. has now gone the longest period of time since the last state was admitted - 51 years.  Those two states - Alaska and Hawaii - also represented a political compromise, which came in the charged context of the civil rights movement.  At that time, Hawaii was considered a Republican territory because it had mostly had Governors appointed by Republican presidents and Republican state legislatures.  On the other hand, many believed that Alaska would turn out to be Democratic (ironic in the Palin world).  Statehood for Hawaii, as the first state to have a majority nonwhite population, was expected to result in two pro-civil rights senators, endangering the ability of southern segregationist Democrats to maintain a filibuster.  The result was that both Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959.  Even the District's most recent failed quest for voting representation inwas based on giving Utah an additional seat in the House prior to the 2010 census.

That brings us to an interesting column by George Will in Sunday's Washington Post.  Will notes that there may be a popular misconception that because Puerto Rico is majority nonwhite and its residents make substantially less income per capita than even the poorest state, its voters favor Democratic candidates.  Not so.  Puerto Rico has a "very Republican" governor, Luis Fortuno and an overwhelmingly Republican legislature.   According to Will, 78% of Puerto Ricans are pro-life, 91% oppose same-sex marriage and 30% of the 85% who are Christian are evangelicals. A majority supports an agenda of tax and spending cuts, trimming public payrolls, and reducing the state budget deficit.  The Republican party platform, since 1968, has endorsed Puerto Rico's right to choose statehood.

Let's face it.  A closely divided Congress is not going to recognize D.C. Statehood if it means two additional Democratic Senators that would shift the balance of power.  A DC-PR compromise could maintain the balance of power in the Senate and give Republicans an additional bone for providing rights to D.C. residents -- the possibility of a slight gain in the House of Representatives.  Puerto Rican statehood would come with six House seats compared with just one vote for the State of New Columbia.

Puerto Ricans are still deciding whether they want to become a state or continue to enjoy a status that D.C. residents lack -- where they have the benefits of citizenship, but don't pay federal taxes (they also don't get to vote for President and have only a nonvoting delegate in the House).  They rejected statehood in 1967 and 1993, and were almost evenly divided in 1998.  The momentum, however, appears to be increasingly moving toward statehood.

With the Utah-DC idea off the table, is a DC-PR compromise worth seriously examining?

BOEE Maintains Jackson's Voter Registration

On Friday, I received a letter from the DC Board of Elections and Ethics addressed to Reverend Harry R. Jackson on which I was cc'd. The language of the letter is puzzling.

First, the letter was mailed to The Whitman even though Rev. Jackson claims he no longer lives there, but now resides at some other address within the District of Columbia.

Second, the letter states that Rev. Jackson provided "documents of your intent to become a qualified elector..." Was he not a qualified registered elector when he submitted the referendum on same sex marriage?

Finally, although the Board provided Rev. Jackson a copy of all documentation which we submitted to challenge his voter registration, the Board's decision was not accompanied by any of the materials Rev. Jackson submitted to maintain his registration. There is no indication in the letter of how Rev. Jackson explained away the facts that he owns homes in Maryland, works in Maryland, and only registered to vote in DC just outside of the 30 days necessary to propose a referendum. I am considering whether to exercise my right to appeal, but how do I make such a determination without the basis for the Board's decision?

The Board was helpful enough to send Reverend Jackson a new voter registration form to change his address.

Here is the full text of the letter:

July 22, 2009

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
910 M. Street NW #630
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This is written notification of the decision to keep your name on the list of active voters in the District of Columbia.

This decision is based on the fact that you timely filed with the Board an affidavit and documents of your intent to become a qualified elector in the District of Columbia. Therefore it was determined that you have met the qualifications to be a qualified voter in the Distict of Columbia.

Pursuant to D.C. Official Code 1-1001.07(e)(5)(C), any aggrieved party may appeal my decision, in writing, to the Board of Elections and Ethics within fourteen (14) days of mailing of this notice. The deadline for filing an appeal to my determination is August 5, 2009.

Additionally, in the documents you provided it indicates you have changed your address. Enclosed you will find a Mail-In Registration Form for you to complete and mail to the Board's office at 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 250N, Washington, DC 20001.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (202) 727-1085 or by e-mail at kbrooks@dcboee.org.

Karen Brooks
Registrar of Voters

Not Quite Done

I have not posted on TheOther35Percent in a while, but you can continue to read my posts on issues of local concern on Life in Mount Vernon Square. Some of the recent ones include:

• Signs of Progress: DCRA begins enforcing its billboard moratorium in response to our efforts. The Examiner covered the issue here.
• Will it Ever be Home Again: A discussion of the District's failed program to redevelop vacant properties into affordable housing. One of the many Home Again properties is discussed here.
• The Good News in Mount Vernon: Detailing progress and recent positive happenings in the neighborhood including new restaurants coming this fall.
• What Goes for Progress in Shaw: Will the District turn a vacant lot slotted for recreational and residential use into a massive parking lot? Why? The post is part of a larger discussion on the Bundy School property on the 400 Block of O Street NW. The Washington Post had a brief article on the community's engagement on this issue.

You can also read about our challenge (available here) to the validity of Bishop Harry Jackson's voter registration and his referendum to revoke the District's gay marriage recognition law (Rev. Jackson is the Pastor of a Maryland-based church, who lives and works in Maryland, but recently registered to vote using a D.C. address in order to serve as the principal proponent of the referendum):

• D.C. may revoke Rev. Jackson’s voter registration (The Blade, 7/10/09)
• Board of Elections informs Jackson of residency challenge (GLAA Forum, 7/2/09)
• 2 local activists want Jackson investigated (The Blade, 6/26/09)
• Two D.C. Residents Challenge Bishop Jackson (DC Wire 6/24 and Washington Post, 6/25/09)
• Mount Vernon at Center of Gay Marriage Controversy (Life In MVS, 6/10/09)
• Where does Rev. Jackson live? (The Blade, 6/9/09)

The DC Board of Elections has provided Reverend Jackson until the end of July to respond (letter here).

DC Government 2009 Wish List - Top 10

The top 10 areas that I'd like to see progress on in 2009 -- or at least the top 10 that come to mind at the moment....

10. DDOT addresses dangerous intersections, such as the crosswalks at New York Avenue NW at 4th and 5th Streets NW where pedestrians have 20 seconds to cross 6-10 lanes of traffic.

9. DC government disposes/better maintains the hundreds of vacant property it OWNS throughout the city, such as properties in the Home Again program.

8. MPD provides assurance that ShotSpotter (detects the location of gunfire instantly) is fully operation and producing results in the Third District.

7. Election reform ensures every citizen's vote is actually counted (no more touch screen ballots without a paper trail). Consideration of eliminating set-aside seats for minority parties on the DC Council and authorizing open primaries through a referendum vote.

6. Generally, more consistent enforcement of DC laws -- all of them -- and applying the law equally to all, i.e. permitting/construction and "quality-of-life crimes."

5. An effective, well-managed Advisory Neighborhood Commission representing the Shaw, Mount Vernon, and Penn Quarter neighborhoods.

4. Tax relief and other support for small businesses in areas that were hit by high property tax increases over the past decade so that they do not go under and find themselves replaced with more Starbucks and Subways.

3. The DC Council stops giving away public property (i.e. the Southwest waterfront for $1 a year for 99 years) without a transparent, open competitive bidding process. Next up: Franklin School?

2. Renovation of abandoned and neglected parks, such as Carter G. Woodson Park, 2nd and Massachusetts Avenue NW, 6th and N Street, or the Chinatown Park at 5th and Massachusetts Avenue NW. Let's see at least one more forward in 2009! Also - more dog parks.

1. When federal legislation to provide DC with a vote in the House fails yet again (or is declared unconstitutional), I hope the DC Council will restart discussion of true Home Rule issues (as opposed to license plates and billboards at the baseball stadium). Potential action items include having our own prosecutors and judges, an elected attorney general, placing federally-controlled small parks (aka "reservations") under DC control, and legislative and budgetary autonomy. DC Council passes a resolution urging Congress to move forward in one or more of these areas.

0.22883295194508009153318077803204%

With the gains Democrats made on the Hill and our incoming president's support of voting rights, the District might actually get a vote in Congress in the foreseeable future. Under the proposal that came up just a few votes short, the District would receive a voting seat in the House of Representatives, along with an additional seat for Utah. That means DC would have 1 vote out of 437 (the percentage above).

Now, that's the power to make a difference. Not. (Is it even constitutional, well, that's doubtful).

There's a reason why the Constitution provided for a U.S. Senate - so that residents of states with smaller populations would have at least some real influence in the Nation's governance. Wyoming has less population than DC and it has two senators. Several other states have populations just slightly larger than DC, such as North Dakota and Vermont, but they are not excluded from what is considered the more deliberative body of Congress. Alaska's population exceeds DC by just 95,000, yet we may soon have a Senator Palin telling us how to run our local affairs. You betcha! ;)

So what is the solution?

Well, first, why don't we talk more about achieving real Home Rule given the favorable political climate and higher faith in our local government? That means that our officials should be pushing hard for legislative and budgetary autonomy for the District, so that every law our D.C. Council-passes is no longer subject to Congressional review before it takes effect. It makes our legislative process a confusing, time-consuming nightmare. And it's a repeated slap in the face.

Second, let's achieve full self governance when it comes to our judges, our prosecutors, our courts, and our parks, much of which are controlled by the feds. These are incremental steps we can take toward greater Home Rule and there should be political will to achieve them.

Folks, these things do not require a Constitutional amendment.

Third, as we move toward Home Rule, let's also push for meaningful representation in the U.S. Congress. That may require thinking out of the box. What if we gave citizens of the District the opportunity to vote for one Senator in Maryland and one Senator in Virginia, rather than create two new seats in the Senate, in addition to a voting representative in the House? At least then, we'd have meaningful representation.

Or maybe we need to rethink the District's boundaries, creating a smaller federal district limited to the area immediately surrounding the mall, Capital, and White House, and a larger state encompassing some of the area retroceded to Virginia in 1847 as well as a portion of Maryland inside the beltway. I realize this may be a practical and political stretch, but it at least looks like a viable state -- with industry beyond government, lawyering, advocacy, and politics. It's about as likely as retroceding most of D.C. back to Maryland for the purpose of voting rights. We might as well talk about it.

I fear that achieving such a small step forward as a House vote may hurt momentum for true Home Rule and meaningful Congressional representation. Am I wrong?