DC Voting Rights---an Idea Whose Time has Come

The Christmas season is a time for concern towards those less fortunate than us. In a nation that prides itself on its democratic principles, the residents of the District of Columbia certainly qualify. They are nowhere in Congress represented with a vote on national issues.

When I, a Virginian, wrote to one of my Congressman (one of my Senators, actually) several years ago about the DC voting rights issue, I got back this nice letter saying that all is well on Capitol Hill. The US Constitution--Article 1, Section 8--mandates that Congress control Washington, DC. The exact wording is "The Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District."

So, in essence, what he was saying was "don't fret about DC being left out in the cold, all of Congress is looking out for her." But about the only time one ever hears about a Congressperson doing something notable in the D of C it's a sex scandal.

The federal government admitted that the Constitution was wrong about slavery, citizenship and voting rights when it passed the 13th through 15th amendments. And it went partway in recognizing the inequitable situation of DC when it passed the 23rd amendment giving Washingtonians a say in presidential elections. If they're allowed to vote for the presidency but have no vote in Congress, that's a glaring inconsistency!

When I, a Virginian--or a Texan, Iowan, New Yorker, Missippian, Arizonan, Minnesotan, Californian, North or South Dakotan, North or South Carolinian, Hannah Montanan, Georgian, Missourian, Floridian, New Mexican, Minnesotan, Pennsylvanian, etc.--want to query or comment to someone in Congress, I've got three people at the top of my list and they've all got a vote--my two Senators and my Congressional District Representative. And they're accountable to voters like me because I voted them into office and I can vote them out.

Now imagine you're a schoolteacher in the District of Columbia--assigned to give a civics lesson on democracy. What are you going to tell them? That at the time the Constitution was written, Washington DC was not a city? That the founding fathers didn't expect Congress to be in session more than a couple of months per year? That DC is a hostage to partisan politics? That home-rule was a failure? Though true, these are not very satisfying answers.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you're calling somebody a "shadow delegate"--she can walk and talk all she wants, she just can't vote--you know it's a farce.

A Public Relations Nightmare
It's a bad thing for the United States--not only because it's wrong, but because it's downright embarrassing. How can you project your image across the world as the defender of democratic ideals, and an enforcer of democratic elections, when within your own nation's capital, the entire populace is disenfranchised? That's about 600,000 people! It's absurd!

Don't think that this disparity between what we say others should do and what we do ourselves--this apparent hypocrisy--escapes the world politic. There are plenty of media outlets covering the US for an international audience these days. Every vote in Congress against DC Voting Rights, and every rally for it, gives networks like Al Jazeera and R-TV another excuse to take a potshot at ole' Uncle Sam.

Surely there's room for compromise. To wit, DC gives up its bid for statehood & senators in return for a full-fledged voting member in the House. Call it the US congressional voting district of Columbia. Making it happen this year would be a good New Year's resolution.


steve kearney