Friday, April 20, 2007

The House voted yesterday to finally give the District voting rights, although the Senate has yet to consider the bill and President Bush has threatened to veto it as unconstitutional. Sterling Tucker, 83, is watching the matter closely. While Greater Washington Urban League president, he served as a member of the first appointed D.C. Council from 1969 to 1974. After home rule was granted in 1974, Tucker was chairman of the District's first elected council and was active in the push that led to congressional approval of the 1978 D.C. voting rights bill. That proposed constitutional amendment died after failing to win ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Tucker spoke yesterday about the long battle for District voting rights. These days, he heads a project to establish help centers in churches for people with HIV/AIDS and substance abuse problems.

-- Lynne Duke

Q. What really is on the table when we talk about voting rights for the District? Why has it been elusive?

A.It is a political fight, in my opinion, solely and completely. There is no philosophical justification for the people in the capital of the largest country in the free world not to be able to participate fully in their government, the electoral processes of their government.

Is it all about seats in Congress?

It's about seats in the Congress. It's about control over the nation's capital.

Why is that so important, the control?

Because it's the seat of government and the largest percentage of the Congress; they don't want to give the control of this city to local people. And certainly it was because we were a greatly majority black city. We still are, but not in the percentages we once were. They didn't have any confidence in our ability to lead, first of all. They didn't want to entrust that leadership to us.

So are you saying that if the District were a predominantly white locality that it would have had the vote years ago?

I believe so. Yes, I believe so.

So back then, what was your sense of how long it would take? Did you think there was momentum going and it was just a matter of a few years?

Once we got an elected form of government, what I thought would be the case was as the Congress and the country saw that we could govern, that we would get more and more power.

Why hasn't there been more of a movement involving masses of people over all these years?

I think it's because the federal government is not oppressive to Washington. If it were, then they would feel it. Most people, I think too many people, feel it is a philosophical argument, one which does not touch their lives, affect their daily living.

Do you think that younger folks view people of your generation as people who didn't get it done?

Well, that's a very good question, because if they did they'd be correct. But you've got to take the long view of this issue and the question is: Is progress being made toward it? . . . I think my generation advanced the ball.

You've been here before. You've been at this point before. So is there any sense of a cynical view about this?

I'm not really a cynic about anything. I'm an optimist. I get more done being that way. Being a cynic is a personal state of mind, and it takes your energy away and takes you out of the ballgame. So I think that things that are good for society generally will always have an opportunity in a democratic process of coming to reality.

Do you think you'll live to see full representation?

No. Nope, I don't have that expectation at all. But I hope it will come.