|
DC Voting Rights Bill Now Dead
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
Steny Hoyer moved to table the legislation that would give DC partial representation in Congress today. I don't know how this has played outside the Beltway, but here in the DC Metro area this is political issue #1 this summer. And now it looks to be more or less dead, since Hoyer's vow of dedication to the cause was less than convincing.
The bill really suffered a setback when Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) attached a rider to the bill that would repeal DC's gun legislation that was at the center of the recent Supreme Court Heller v. DC decision. Democrats everywhere balked at that, and for shame. It's so stupid that a Republican (or Democrat) from a state as far away as Nevada can effectively determine the outcome of D.C.'s bid for fair and just representation.
A good rundown of the history of the legislation as well as details of its demise can be found at DCist:
http://dcist.com/tags/votingrights
It's pretty tragic that D.C.'s political affiliation is being touted as the main "block" to its aspirations of representation. As one commenter at DCist points out:
| quote: | | The fact of the matter is that there are 591,000 citizens being denied their representative vote in Congress--and they are being denied that right purely because of the way they will exercise that right. I can't imagine anything more fundamentally un-american. And as a retort to those who argue otherwise: federal city my ass. |
Kind of hard to disagree with that.
The blight on our democracy will persist.
:( |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
I completely support DC voting rights :)
To me it just seems like common sense. I haven't seen a valid argument against it that has rung true |
|
|
| Zharen |
| I never even thought about that. I think it would be geographic discrimination for the people of DC to not have voting rights. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
I completely support DC voting rights :) |
i agree that DC should have voting representatives in congress. However, the question then becomes, what about puerto rico, the virgin islands, and other territories? After all, all of those territories are subject to federal law.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
To me it just seems like common sense. I haven't seen a valid argument against it that has rung true |
the argument against representation is basically the text of the constitution. The constitution provides that the representatives are chosen by people of the states and that each state has two senators. I don't think there is a valid theoretical argument against DC voting representation. Obviously, the reason DC doesn't have a vote in congress is that the votes would certainly be democratic. Those republicans who oppose the right to vote need to be called out for blocking the right of the people of DC to an equal voice. Why does Senator Ensign care about the right of iraqis to vote but not the right of americans? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It's so stupid that a Republican (or Democrat) from a state as far away as Nevada can effectively determine the outcome of D.C.'s bid for fair and just representation. |
I agree with this statement as much as I agree with the other side of that coin... it's stupid that politicians in Washington who have never run a business in their lives can effectively determine the outcome for the way people operate in the private sector in, say, Montana. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I agree with this statement as much as I agree with the other side of that coin... it's stupid that politicians in Washington who have never run a business in their lives can effectively determine the outcome for the way people operate in the private sector in, say, Montana. |
Politicians are elected representatives of states like, say, Montana. At least Montana has a voice in the political process. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I agree with this statement as much as I agree with the other side of that coin... it's stupid that politicians in Washington who have never run a business in their lives can effectively determine the outcome for the way people operate in the private sector in, say, Montana. |
yeah, as lebez points out, the system was purposely designed such that each state has 2 senators and a number of representatives representing their interests in the federal government. That's the essence of a republic form of government. You have to take the good with the bad. If we didn't have a system in which politicians from various states had a say in federal law then we really wouldn't have a United States of America. We would have 50 separate countries. I'm not sure you would really advocate that.
To the extent that a federal law affects montana, at least the people of montana had advocates (2 senators and a few reps) with a vote. DC, on the other hand, has no say when federal laws affect its citizens. Moreover, DC local law is actually federal law, and could be determined by congressmen from the 50 states (that doesn't seem right to me). Obviously, DC has a local government (which is still part of the federal government), however, the power of the local government is given to DC by congress.
Anyway, this issue is a little different. We're talking about the fundamental right to vote being denied to americans in a particular part of the country by a senator across the country simply because they are going to vote democrat. I'm not sure how this would play out by democracts if DC was predominately republican, but i would certainly hope that democrats would still support the right of the citizens of DC to have a say in congress. It's not only fair, it's the right thing to do. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| I hear you guys... Lebez's comment just made me think out loud about state's rights vs. federal govt. power |
|
|
|
|
