e-Transition: Democracy and Voting Rights

Public Awareness Campaign

Download democracy_and_voting_rights_etransition_publicawareness.pdf

Recommendations of the "Steps to Statehood" Subcommittee of the Democracy & Voting Rights Working Group of Adrian Fenty's Mayoral Transition Team

Download steps_to_statehooddvr.doc

Democracy & Voting Rights Pre-Transition Team Executive Summary

Download democracy_voting_rights_executive_summary.doc

Retrocession -- Time for Another Look?

Let me be the first person on this project to bring up the "R" word.

Retrocession is far from a magical solution, and it may be politically infeasible. It leaves me a bit uneasy. But I do think it's time to take another look at this option for solving our voting rights and self-determination problems.

What is retrocession? It's the return of a portion of the land known as the "District of Columbia" to the state that ceded it originally. Virginia took back its portion in 1847 for a variety of reasons, which is why Falls Church is not part of today's District. For modern purposes, retrocession would give most of the current District back to Maryland. A small area of federal land, now known as the "National Capital Service Area" would remain the District of Columbia as specified in Article I, §8 of the Constitution -- and would be subject to the same Congressional oversight that currently governs the entire District.

Advantages to retrocession could include:

1. Constitutionality. Any effort to give voting rights to the District of Columbia will be met with constitutional scrutiny. The U.S. Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Similarly, from Amendment 17: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote." (Emphasis mine.) If District residents became residents of a state (Maryland), this problem would be solved.

2. True Home Rule. The District, if severed from the National Capital Service Area to become part of Maryland, would enjoy the same degree of home rule as every other city in the United States. Congress would no longer control our budget or our legislative process.

3. Congressional Representation. The District would likely have its own congressional district, complete with a voting representative, and the ability to vote for Maryland's two senators.

4. More Electoral Participation. Often overlooked in the debate over District rights is that our underrepresentation does not start and end with Congress. District residents have 19 paid elected officials. We have none of the elected city or county officials, county board, state legislator or state constitutional officer positions that are available in other jurisdictions. This lack of elected representation costs the District politically, especially when it comes to decisions made on a regional basis. It also means there are very few positions to which young politicians can aspire.

5. Smaller, Better Government. By sharing the Maryland state government infrastructure that's already in place, the District would not have to duplicate functions common to states. The savings to taxpayers would be enormous.

The major obstacle for retrocession is a political one. District voters have expressed a preference for statehood numerous times, though not recently. Title 1 of the DC Code still contains a New Columbia Constitution. But the District has taken no meaningful steps toward statehood in recent years. This could be because of a large influx of non-native residents who are not as invested in the idea of statehood. It could also be because the primary, most vocal supporters of statehood have categorically opposed any steps toward self-determination that fall short of their ultimate goal. The final reason could be that statehood, as a distant and extremely difficult objective, has given our local elected officials something to support verbally while doing very little to improve our political situation in the meantime.

Is it possible that a city with 1/16 the land mass of Rhode Island could become a self-sustaining state? Sure it is. But the better question is whether it's time to take another look at a statehood alternative. I argue that it is.

Historical information about retrocession (from the DC Vote site)

Defining NARPAC's suggestion E-x-a-c-t-l-y

NARPAC suggests that Mayor Fenty seek  higher-level Constituionally-required Congressional oversight for our national capital. Here are the answers to Karen's four questions:

1. We advise Mayor Fenty to announce, preferrably immediately following his election, that he will seek a more appropriate relationship with Congress. He should ask Congress to a) get away from tinkering with DC's annual budget througth four "dregs" subcommittees; b) form a Joint Committee on the Nation's Capital City, populated by  senior House and Senate committee chairmen, to help develop the world's finest capital city; and c) start helping DC with x) its very costly infrastructure needs; y) its tough two-state, ten-county regional relationahips; and z) its valid demands for better representation in Congress.

2. Congressional Committee re-arrangements are generally decided before each new Congressional session opens, and the membership assigned. If this proposal  doesn't "grow legs" by early December, 2006, you can forget it for at least two years..

3. The only cost (or is it really a benefit?) is to force Mayor Fenty to get to know the new House and Senate leadership just as soon as he can arrange to meet with them, welcome them to HIS city, and ask 'em to set things right.  (Can he give them "keys to the city"?  Didn't Tony Williams have a new one designed?)

4. NARPAC can pick up the costs of phone calls,  taxi fares, and a couple of lunches if the city or the matyor-elect can't spend its own money on  relations with Congress.  We probably can't afford to pick up the cost of the symbolic "keys".

Putting Voting Rights in a Broader Context

NARPAC quite obviously has no objections to the quest for voting rights for all qualifying Americans. Nevertheless, in the absence of a broader “Vision for DC” than has been put forward so far, we would prefer to couch this goal within a larger context of “Federal and Regional Government Relations”.  And into that broader sweep, we would add (at least) two other elements which could bring the city greater concrete benefits, though they might fall short in the “feel good” category:

a. Change Congressional Oversight to a Joint Committee::

We see little future for statehood, but we find the current Congressional oversight by four junior-member Congressional subcommittees (once called “dregs” assignments by a senior Senator) not only demeaning, but focused on the wrong objective (annual budgetary control). We doubt the reality or the wisdom of trying to eliminate Congressional oversight, constitutionally mandated, and we don’t simply want to raise DC to the equivalent of 50 other states. We would prefer to have DC treated as a unique national asset, and overseen by a Joint Congressional Committee on the National Capital City, using senior Congressional members, and focusing on DC’s large and unfilled infrastructure needs. The objective would parallel Adrian Fenty’s desire to make DC “the best city in the world, the national capital of the United States of America”.

b. Expand Regional Cooperation on Common Regional Problems:

NARPAC sees no way for DC to compete successfully with the other metro area jurisdictions in either growth or modernization as long as it holds about 12% of the region’s wealth, and about 40% of the region’s households in poverty.  Rather than try to squeeze the suburbs with a dubious “commuter tax”, we would prefer to see DC take the lead in strengthening regional organizations in all the region’s Class I problems: poverty, education, health, crime, transportation, etc. We think that if DC could get higher-level Congressional oversight (above), then Congress could provide substantial incentives for strengthening regional organizations, perhaps by greater use of regional grants for regional problems.

c. Initial Fenty Priorities:

If a) and b) above are added to your preferred Voting Rights initiative, we find issue a) above to be the only one that is truly time-sensitive. Any changes in Congressional Committee structure are made prior to the opening of the next session in January. Voting rights has no such tight deadline, and b) above might better wait until higher level Congressional oversight can be brought to bear.      

We recognize this could deflect some attention from your own long-established goals in the near term, but we have found no other reliable avenue to get this suggestion considered quickly.

Universial Voter Registration

Download universial_voter_registration.doc for comment

Promoting the Right to Vote

Download promoting_the_right_to_vote.doc for comment

How do we make DC residents care?

Friends,

I'm excited to be taking part in this conversation. When I moved here from Illinois six years ago, I gave up not only congressional representation, but representation at the state and county level as well. That's frustrating.

But what I've found is that most of my fellow DC residents aren't as frustrated as I am. Whether it's the working poor who are more concerned about the next paycheck and the cost of housing, or the newly-transplanted wealthy in expensive condominiums who may not even be aware of the situation, I'm wondering what it takes to make people care.

Why?

It's the congressional representatives of other jurisdictions who have the ability to undo our injustice. Making them care hinges on making their constituents care. But how can we make their constituents care if we can't even demonstrate that we care?

DC voting rights protests typically draw hundreds of people. But there are about 575,000 of us. How do we turn out the bodies, and show Congress that we're serious?

100% Youth Voter Registration

contact: Ryan Griffin (301) 270-4616 / rgriffin@fairvote.org

Attached.  Download 100_registration.doc