Activists See Gains In Quest For Vote
After Setback, D.C. Advocates Look to 2009
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton discusses last month's defeat, joined by council member David A. Catania, left, Chairman Vincent C. Gray, right, and Mayor Fenty.
(By Richard A. Lipski -- The Washington Post)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
In the 1970s, D.C. voting rights activists tried in vain to amend the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, the city's bid for statehood was rebuffed by the House. And now a D.C. vote bill has been blocked by Republican senators.
Will the District ever get a vote in Congress?
Proponents remain optimistic. They have revived a movement considered moribund just a few years ago. And, although prospects in the current Congress look dim, many believe next year's national elections could boost Democrats, who have pushed for more representation for the city.
But the quest remains bedeviled by three problems that have persisted for decades. First is partisanship: Republicans are reluctant to help create seats in the House or Senate for a strongly Democratic city. Second is a lack of national awareness that D.C. residents lack a vote in Congress. And, finally, city dwellers have failed to raise enough of an outcry that Congress feels pressure to act.
"We're in a better position today than for the last 30 years," said Bernard Demczuk, a leading D.C. voting rights activist in the early 1990s. But the issue still hasn't galvanized the city's nearly 600,000 residents, he said.
"We're not angry enough," he said. "I think there are 1,500 people who are angry."
The current bill was the first D.C. voting rights measure to pass the House and reach the Senate in nearly three decades. It was designed to assuage partisan concerns by pairing a House seat for the liberal District with one for Republican-leaning Utah, which just missed getting a fourth representative after the last census.
The bill did not seek two senators for the city, which could give Democrats a powerful boost in that 100-member body.
Still, some Republicans voiced suspicion that the measure could eventually lead to senators for the District, too. Only eight Republicans voted to begin action on the bill in a critical roll call Sept. 18, while 41 were opposed. All but two of the 51 Democrats voted in favor. Altogether, the bill fell three votes short of the 60 necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.
Partisanship is even more pronounced today than it was in 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment granting the District full Senate and House representation. At that time, the Republican Party even backed the measure in its platform. Republican lawmakers, then a distinct minority in both chambers, were roughly split on the amendment.
"That was before Republicans had a shot at real power," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who created the current compromise bill. Now that the balance in Congress is very close, Davis said, "it just becomes much more difficult, unfortunately."
The constitutional amendment ultimately failed in 1985 after being ratified by only 16 of the required 38 states. Supporters offered several explanations for the state legislatures' hostility, including racism and fear that D.C. representatives would support issues important to big cities, such as gun control.
