DC Voting Rights
Most Americans assume that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote and a right to representation (two Senators and a Representative). However, this is not the case for the approximately 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. Although these citizens live in our nation’s capital, pay federal taxes and serve in the armed forces, they do not have representation in their federal legislature. District residents have no representation in the Senate and a non-voting Delegate in the House. As a result, DC residents are relegated to second-class citizenship. They are unable to bring grievances to influential Federal officials or reap the benefits Senators and Representatives are able to provide to their constituents.

While DC residents did have representation in the early 1790’s, DC residents lost their right to vote in 1801 after the passage of the Organic Act, when Congress voted to take control of the District of Columbia. This occurred just ten years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and a mere 26 years after the famous declaration by Sam Adams--“No Taxation Without Representation”-- a version on the motto remains on DC license plates today.

FairVote firmly stands behind the right of every U.S. citizen to have a meaningful vote. DC residents are no different than all other Americans and should not be treated as such. If Congress can take away voting rights of citizens, then surely it can replace them. Every DC resident should be able to elect a voting member of the House of Representatives and two U.S. Senators.

[ Learn more about the DC VRA ]

[ The District of Columbia and Presidential Nominations ]

[ For more information on the DC voting rights movement, visit DC Vote ]


 

D.C. Voting Rights
It's time for the Senate to debate the bill on the floor.

Published September 17th 2007 in The Washington Post
SUPPORTERS OF D.C. voting rights have to get 60 votes to advance the bill to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. This cloture motion is technical, but how the senators vote is entirely about principle. It is simply not right that U.S. citizens who live in the nation's capital are denied basic representation in their government. That a procedural gambit would be used to prevent a redressing of this wrong is inexcusable.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a vote on the motion to proceed for tomorrow afternoon. Sixty votes would mean that the measure is on track for debate and a vote on the floor. Failure to get the votes would probably doom the bill this year and would be a major setback to bringing democracy to the District. Even if supporters are successful, the measure faces further hurdles in debilitating amendments and delays, not to mention a veto threat from the White House. The bill would increase the size of the House from 435 members to 437, giving a voting representative to the District and another to the state next in line to pick up a seat, currently Utah.

The vote is likely to be close, and support is needed from Republican senators. Almost all the Senate's 51 Democrats and independents are said to back the bill, as do at least five Republicans. It helps that the measure is politically neutral, offsetting the mostly Democratic District with Republican-leaning Utah. That the bill was fathered by a Republican member of Congress from Virginia -- Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, who is horrified by the 200-year injustice of D.C. disenfranchisement -- further burnishes its credentials. Other Republicans of like mind include Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and former congressman Jack Kemp. Particularly powerful are the testimonials from leading African American Republicans, such as former senator Edward W. Brooke, who cite their party's great legacy in breaking down racial barriers. The last time a voting rights bill affecting African Americans was filibustered, it was the Democrats who were on the wrong side of history.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made no secret of his strong opposition or of his willingness to use any tactic to stop the measure. Those who would follow Mr. McConnell's lead and vote no on cloture should think long and hard about blocking a historic civil rights moment. They should think about what message they are sending to a city with an African American majority or to the nation. Senators who oppose this bill should be willing to stand up and have a debate on its merits on the Senate floor. Moreover, they should make sure that any vote about bringing justice to half a million people is not a matter of political party but of conscience.