GOP Rejects D.C. Voting Plank

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:12:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Citizens of the District of Columbia can vote in a presidential election, but they have no voting representative in the House of Representatives and no representation at all in the Senate. A delegate to the Republican National Convention from D.C. reports that the voting rights issue was of primary importance to the D.C. delegation. They tried to introduce a voting rights plank into the Republican platform, but the measure found little support.

Of course it didn't. Too many Democrats live in D.C. The GOP has no interest in allowing citizens to vote if they might vote for Democrats. Better that they should go unrepresented in Congress, from the GOP perspective.

At the Democratic National Convention, the right to vote was taken more seriously: [more...]

"The nation's founders staked everything on creating a country where there would be 'no taxation without representation' anywhere in America. In that tradition, Democrats proudly support the vote in Congress for the 600,000 citizens of our nation's capital," [Eleanor Holmes] Norton said [in a speech on the Convention's second day]. Invoking Martin Luther King Jr., Norton energetically called for the Democratic Party to to follow the principle that all Americans should have equal rights — including full voting rights for the citizens of the U.S. capital. ...
Norton called on members of the U.S. Senate, especially Republican members, to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act, which cleared the U.S. House last year.
"If George Bush won't sign the D.C. Voting Rights Act, its most prominent co-sponsor, our next president, Barack Obama, will," Norton said.

< Rudy Learns to Count | Palin the Politician v. Palin the Reformer >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GOP Rejects D.C. Voting Plank | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If the Dems pick up the seats (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST

in the Senate they think they will, cloture is very likely.

I see a Supreme Court battle over this in the future.

: I'm pessimistic ... (none / 0) (#7)
by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST

don't think this will ever happen.
I think American politicians will still be debating this issue when our grandchildren have grandchildren.

Lack of Representation for D.C. residents (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by shoephone on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST

is one of the most unconscionable slights to ever exist in our voting system. It's not just because the district's residents are overwhelmingly Democrats. It's because they are people of color, particularly African Americans.

The Democrats in Congress have been primed and prodded to overturn this for years. Many groups have banded together to push for D.C. voting rights, not the least of which is, no surprise,
The League of Women Voters of the United States.

Two years ago, 20 local Leagues from around the country were chosen to receive grants and educate their communities about the importance of this issue. My Seattle League was one of those chosen.

There's a little problem with the constitution (none / 0) (#8)
by Cards In 4 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST

since D.C. is a district, not a state. The founders did not want the government to be in a state. I don't think this was set up to exclude people of color when it was written back in 1787.


: Of course it wasn't intended to exclude (none / 0) (#10)
by shoephone on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:03:50 PM EST

people of color in 1787. For cripes sakes, in 1787 blacks weren't even considered fully human -- but that little gem regarding sentient beings that are only 3/5ths human doesn't apply anymore, does it?
My firm belief is that the GOP/conservative opposition to D.C. voting rights is very much grounded in race.
But the bigger issue is how can we claim to support the concept of equal protection under the law when over half a million citizens are not permitted to elect their own representatives? It is absurd that vastly unpopulated states like Wyoming and North Dakota and Montana each get at least one congressional representative plus two senators and the residents of D.C. get nothing.
I don't doubt that the strict constructionists will cry foul if/when this comes up for a vote, but how strong a leg do they have to stand on when one considers that it wasn't until 1964 that D.C. residents were even given the right to vote for president and vice-president?

This link should work better (none / 0) (#3)
by shoephone on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:35:18 PM EST

for the LWV's involvement.

How come the Dems (none / 0) (#4)
by txpolitico67 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:46:06 PM EST

didn't get this passed when they were in charge, for um,I dunno, FORTY years???

As a gay DC resident, I expect to be able to (none / 0) (#9)
by Joelarama on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:19:37 PM EST

marry before I gain full representation.

And, as a Hillary-supporter-turned-Obama-supporter, I think neither the Democratic Party nor its presidential nominee can claim the moral high ground on voting rights -- after Florida and Michigan.

Good Idea (none / 0) (#11)
by Prosecutorial Indiscretion on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:31:39 PM EST

As a DC resident, I strongly support the idea of returning the non-federal portions of the District to Maryland, much as the Virginia portions again became a part of Virginia. The District would benefit strongly from the intermediate supervision of a state government, which could help prevent the wholesale corruption that too frequently affects DC government. A Washington, MD would also help create a unified and effective approach to the effects of gentrification in DC, which have hurt a lot of people and the abrupt and unguided influx of low-income residents to PGC has caused a lot of problems in that already-troubled county. Reducing the number of actors involved could also pay big dividends in terms of a unified MD/VA transportation approach, among other things.