DC Voting Rights Tour: First Stop, New Hampshire

In September, a House-approved bill granting 600,000 citizens in the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress for the first time, fell just 3 votes shy of overcoming a Republican filibuster for an up or down vote in the Senate. Republican Sen. Orin Hatch declared that the tactic of filibustering against civil rights had been "resurrected" and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty observed that "not since segregation has the Senate blocked a voting rights bill."

DC Councilman David Catania was there when the vote went down and he decided to take action. As he told the Washington Post, "We've talked ourselves to death about this issue, but we need to take our show on the road and build allies."

Catania reached out to New Hampshire state Representative Cindy Rosenwald who serves with him on the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices (a group Catania spokesman Ben Young told me doesn't make them too popular with Inside-the-Beltway folks!). At Catania's urging, Rosenwald crafted a resolution for the New Hampshire legislature that Young said "expresses regret" that New Hampshire Senators John Sununu and Judd Gregg "voted to deny the District of Columbia the right to be represented in Congress." Young noted that once Rosenwald decided to proceed, voting rights advocacy organization DC Vote was instrumental in the effort.

"We've been in constant contact with Rep. Rosenwald and helped to prepare for Wednesday's hearing [on the bill]," DC Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka told me. "We've also helped to promote the legislation to the media there and here in DC."

New Hampshire's House committee on state-federal relations will hear testimony on the resolution on Wednesday – the day after the primary – and witnesses will include Fenty, Catania, and Zherka. In all, the mayor, nine councilmen and the DC shadow (non-voting) congressional delegation will attend the hearing.

This is a smart and important effort spearheaded by Catania who has no short supply of courage and backbone. He's openly gay and was first elected to his at-large seat in 1997 as a Republican in heavily Democratic DC. He became an Independent in 2004 after speaking out against President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and then opposing his reelection.

Young said this is the very first time that DC's elected officials have left the city to push the voting rights issue. As Catania told the Post, "I want to cause these members of Congress who are voting against voting rights . . . to wonder, ‘What will this mean to me back home?'"

Indeed, Zherka said that New Hampshire is the "first leg of a multi-stop road trip" that will make sure constituents know which senators are standing in the way of voting rights for the citizens of the District. Over the next few months DC Vote will meet with media, coalition affiliates, students and others in Montana, Oregon, West Virginia and Kentucky.

"Rep. Rosenwald's bill supporting democracy for all Americans echoes the sentiments of many who have learned about DC's lack of voting representation," Zherka said. "New Hampshire is just one of many states DC Vote will visit to educate Americans about the disenfranchisement of the more than half a million District residents who pay taxes, serve on juries and fight in wars yet are denied a vote in Congress."

Comments (12)

1. KvH: Young said this is the very first time that DC's elected officials have left the city to push the voting rights issue. As Catania told the Post, "I want to cause these members of Congress who are voting against voting rights . . . to wonder, ‘What will this mean to me back home?'"

   So, will DC's elected officials travel to every state where one or two Senators voted against DC Representation? Now, let's talk about why underdog Ohio State is kicking Tiger butts....

   Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 10:31pm

2. Oops, I heard the TV wrong....LSU 24, Buckeyes 10!!!

   Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 10:33pm

3. President Obama moves first out of the box in 2009 on DC Statehood (and don't kid yourself, this is what it's about. Otherwise, the SIMPLER and LESS PARTISAN move would be incorporation into Maryland)....

   it'll blow up in his face.

   Want DC rezzies to vote?....Make them citizens of Maryland.

   Want to score partisan political points instead and push for statehood incrementally?....it'll be a disaster politically.

   Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 10:33pm

4. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 11:00pm

   The "DC Statehood" people are pushing an incrementalist agenda. Because they know if they go for the whole smash, it'll bomb. So...

   they're dishonest, or disengenuous if you want to be generous.

   First, get DC reps in the House as voting members. Then after they're estabalished as "real" Representatives...start complaining about how "DC residents have no representation in the SENATE!".

   So they get non-voting delegates to the Senate. Then the push is for them to be considered "full Senators" and Constitutionally only ONE WAY for that to happen....statehood.

   And the biggest lie "It's about their democratic rights, not partisanship....it's just a 'pleasant coincidence' that it guarentees the liberal wing of the Democratic Party two permanent House members and two permanent Senators!"

   Again, want DC folks to have represntation? Make it part of Maryland, give MD two new Congressional districts (made up of the DC), and let the fine US Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin represent them.

   That is....IF it truly is about "democracy" and not a cheat to score some political power.

   Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 09:43am

5. ...could someone explain to an ignorant European, what the underlying reason is, why the American constitution denies the residents of DC a representative in the House and Senate. Are they also deprived of their right to vote?

   I mean, as utterly unbelievable this sounds today, I'm sure there was some kind of a logical reason for that when the Constitution was written, right???

   Posted by elziax at 01/08/2008 @ 12:51pm

6. Posted by ELZIAX 01/08/2008 @ 12:51pm

   There was. Nobody thought anybody would be "living in the Capital".

   Essentially the idea was that housing in the District would likely be limited to the Congress-people and the President and maybe some AAdministration...but not "ordinary citizens".

   So...it was determined to keep it "apolitical". With the growth of DC as a city since the early 1800s, it developed its own population, many of whom do not work directly for the Government.

   But the move to "giving it representation" is a fair idea being implemented by less-than-honest people, who are MORE interested in using its demographic (95% straight Dem ticket voting) to insure additional "free" power in the Congress.

   The land is contiguous with most of Maryland, so LOGICALLY it would make since to incorporate it into MD. PARTISAN POLITICALLY though, it doesn't gain a big advantage for one side...and thus incorporation is poo-poo'ed.

   Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 1:31pm

7. Folks seem to obsess with the partisan political consequences of DC Statehood and overlook the shameful fact that nearly half a million U.S. Citizens have only a limited right to representation (the 23rd Amendment gave DC residents the right to vote for President, so there's precedent to go all the way). I agree with MASK that the authors of the constitution didn't think "anybody would be 'living in the Capital,'" but I don't believe they ever imagined they would be disenfranchising more than twice the existing population of the U.S. in 1776 either. I can't picture Thomas Jefferson voting down S. 1257.

   To say that "logically" DC should be incorporated into Maryland because they share a border ignores the fact that the District of Columbia has its own distinct existence and unique needs with the huge federal enclave that would be submerged by annexation. That the politics are overwhelmingly Democratic is moot, it's simply fodder for Rove-like spin from both sides of the aisle. If we follow that logic, Virginia should get West Virginia back since the Civil War is over, and Texas (this is maybe not such a bad idea) should be returned to Mexico.

   If you strip away the bogeyman of "shadowy" partisan figures promoting DC Statehood, and a mincing of the phrasing in the constitution that would make Clarence Thomas proud, all you have left is the problem of half a million people who don't have a fundamental right to congressional representation, and a serious embarrassment for a country founded on the principles of democracy.

   Posted by Canada Ted at 01/08/2008 @ 2:29pm

8. Posted by CANADA TED 01/08/2008 @ 2:29pm

   Aside from generalities like "they have their own special needs"....NOBODY in the pro-DC Statehood Move (and I'm glad atleast that you're honest about the ultimate goal) can point to ANY "insurmountable problem or roadblock" for the District to not become part of Maryland.

   If it's a matter of programs or money...Congress can give the Maryland State Government an aid package for 10 years and spent 20 Billion (That's a drop in the bucket for what we've spent in Iraq).

   But I think the REAL reason the DCS people balk at MD incorporation is quite simple...it's not an extra two Senators and the permanent political party affiliation AND IDEOLOGICAL affiliation of those Senators. (It's not that they'd just be "Democrats", but obviously quite liberal Dems...effectively two "Charlie Rangel/John Conyers" US Senators).

   Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 4:02pm

9. Posted by MASK 01/08/2008 @ 4:02pm

   "But I think the REAL reason the DCS people balk at MD incorporation is quite simple...it's not an extra two Senators and the permanent political party affiliation AND IDEOLOGICAL affiliation of those Senators. (It's not that they'd just be "Democrats", but obviously quite liberal Dems...effectively two "Charlie Rangel/John Conyers" US Senators)."

   Mask, you are way behind the times and politics of DC. Your "coded" vision of the DC electorate is not the reality. The "Chocolate City" you seem to imagine does not exist. Stephen Colbert summed it up well at the Correspondents dinner last year when he called it the "Chocolate City with the marshmallow center."

   Wyoming had approx. 509,000 residents as of 2005. DC had 581,000 residents as 2005... What make the folks in DC any less deserving of representation? Since there are MORE folks in DC than in Wyoming why not just fold Wyoming into Montana?

   Posted by nyknicks12 at 01/08/2008 @ 9:06pm

10. Posted by NYKNICKS12 01/08/2008 @ 9:06pm

    For the LAST TIME....I WANT the folks in the D of C to have representation.

    So...incorporate them into the State of Maryland and GIVE IT TO THEM!

    Or keep pushing a BLATENTLY partisan move to garner two "free" Democratic Senators and face a fight and Repubs move to see that we have "North and South Utah".

    Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 10:07pm

11. Posted by NYKNICKS12 01/08/2008 @ 9:06pm

    Wyoming had approx. 509,000 residents as of 2005. DC had 581,000 residents as 2005... What make the folks in DC any less deserving of representation? Since there are MORE folks in DC than in Wyoming why not just fold Wyoming into Montana?

    Pure sophistry. Wyoming was specifically accepted into the union as a State. DC was specifically NOT accepted as a State because it is the seat of the federal government. Almost all of the residents of DC are either directly or indirectly dependent on the federal government for their livelihoods, and DC was specifically created so that it WOULD NOT have the status of a State in terms of Congressional representation.

    And MASK is right, of course, on this issue: it's a BLATANT and OBVIOUS power play by the Democrats to obtain more guaranteed votes in Congress, which is why they will never accept the most logical and fair solution, which is to give DC residents the right to vote in Maryland elections (since Maryland is where DC was carved out of in the first place).

    Posted by pontificus at 01/08/2008 @ 10:36pm

12. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/08/2008 @ 10:36pm

    And MASK is right, of course, on this issue: it's a BLATANT and OBVIOUS power play by the Democrats to obtain more guaranteed votes in Congress, which is why they will never accept the most logical and fair solution, which is to give DC residents the right to vote in Maryland elections (since Maryland is where DC was carved out of in the first place).

    Actually, DC was carved out of Maryland and Virginia. However, the folks in Alexandria Cty, VA were upset about a portion of their city being "ceded" to the feds because of the efforts to outlaw slavery in the capital. Alexandria was a major slave port and market. Being part of DC was potentially very bad for business. So the land was retroceded to VA. in the 1840s.

    Those calling for a modern retrocession to MD haven't bothered to take into account that Democratic Party politics is FIRMLY entrenched in MD especially in Prince George's County and the city of Baltimore.

    Why does ANYONE think those folks are eager to have an influx of a couple hundred thousand affluent and voting Democrats diluting Maryland's extant political fiefdoms and adding to the political rugby scrum in Annapolis?

    To paraphrase Ken Starr (no paragon of partisan liberalism) the Constitution doesn't say anything about DC resident's voting. As mentioned by yourself, at the nation's founding there was no expectation that folks would actually live in DC.

    By the way, the folks who make their living either directly or indirectly through the federal government are those folks who turn the DC metro area into one of the worst commuting nightmares in the nation. Most fed workers live in MD and VA suburbs with quite a few workers coming in every day from West Virginia and Delaware.

    But I digress...

    Starr also asserts that Congress has the power and authority to change the federal district's status because this ain't the town of malaria mosquitoes, limestone temples and muddy streets named after the States anymore. By that reckoning the Constitution states in Article I, Section 8 that 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...

    Also, assuming that the congressional seats created by statehood would automatically and permanently filled by Democratic Party members ignores the fact that two At-Large seats on the DC City Council are held by republican Carol Schwartz and David Catania who ran and won as a republican.

    Posted by nyknicks12 at 01/09/2008 @ 7:54pm