Ah, voting rights for D.C. residents. At last, we’re onto a substantial topic. You know, the United States isn’t the only democracy in the world, nor is it the only country with a federal government. It isn’t even the only country with a federal government that has a federal district as a capital. But it IS the only democracy that does not permit residents of the capital city to vote in the national legislature. That is unconscionable.
How to remedy this? There are several suggestions.
Statehood.
D.C. has been lobbying for statehood for years, and for many blacks this is the only option that is worth considering. I do not oppose statehood, but most Americans do not consider D.C. a state and are loathe to give it two senators. I think we should try other options.
Retrocession
This isn’t a bad idea. Do we really need most of D.C. as a federal district? After all, it isn’t as if Virginia is in any danger of contolling the CIA or Pentagon anymore than Maryland is of controlling NSA. Many Republicans would agree to this–since Maryland is already a heavily Democratic state and the most they might lose would be one House seat. The only problem is that too many of my fellow Marylanders see (wrongly in my opinion) Washington as a liablity than an asset. Also, many Washingtonian see this (also wrongly) as a land grab by Maryland. I see it as a magnaminous inclusive gesture that would be beneficial to both parties. Unfortunately, it isn’t going to happen.
Let D.C. residents vote in Maryland or Viriginia elections.
Evidentally at one point in Washington’s history, this DID happen. Personally, I’m opposed to this. If there should be no “taxation without representation”, then there should also be no “representation without taxation.” Is it fair for Maryland representatives or senators be beholden to constituents who do not pay state income taxes?
Voting rights ammendment
This has already failed, but I think that if a new ammendement were proposed that would merely give them representation in the House, then it might work. However, it must have bipartisan support. If enough brain-dead Republican oppose any measure that would enfranchise D.C. residents, this ammendment won’t get past Congress, let alone the states.
Exempt D.C. residents from federal income tax
This suggestion has my utter contempt. Anyone who thinks that the right to vote is less valuable than the amount of taxes we pay should move to China…
I’ve got you beat–I’ve lived in the D.C. area for all my life…32 years, in fact. No one should have to move out of D.C. to have to vote for a member of Congress. Besides, I don’t think that the crime rate in D.C. is that much worse than the suburbs. The homicide rate is WAAYY down, for one thing.
If more Americans actually bothered to vote, D.C.'s disenfranchisement would be more of an issue. Then again, does anyone believe that if most of D.C. residents were white that there WOULDN’T be voting representation in Congress?
Good point, which is why I think the “statehood or nothing” strategy is a bad idea. How would they feel if D.C. had a voting representative in the House–which is supposed to represent the people–but not the Senate, which is supposed to represent the states?
If you mean Parris Glendening, he won re-election in 1998 and can’t run in 2002. I wasn’t aware of him making such a statement. I seem to remember that it was his predecessor, William Donald Schaefer that favored retrocession. If anyone can cite a quote where Glendening stood on this issue, I’d be grateful.
I have no idea which governor made the statement. I had seen in passing (usually when the statehood issue comes up) several pundits say “the governor said” without specifying which governor. Since I saw most of these comments in the last two years, I leapt to the rash conclusion that it was the current governor.
Okay, then, why not require that DC residents pay Maryland State taxes and allow them to vote in the MD senatorial election? If DC residents so badly want to avoid the MD State Income tax, then they’ll forego the Senator…their choice.
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
i don’t have a cite for you, but it makes sense to me - I’ve always understood that was the origin of the name “British Columbia” - to distinguish the British territory around the Columbia watershed from the American territory.
jti, I believe the issue with the founders was the belief that if the nation’s capital was located in a state, then it would present the national government with a conflict of interest in dealing with that state. Keep in mind that before the American Civil War, and especially before the Constitution was ratified, the states thought of themselves as almost-nations. Hence the term “State”, instead of “Province”. When the Constitution was ratified, the states initially had to overcome some reluctance to subjugate themselves to a national government. This discomfort continued in the debate over Federalism (soon after the Constitution was ratified), and was one of the many causes of the Civil War. Even now, there are echoes of the Federalism/State’s Rights debate in the two-party system, with Republican rhetoric about small government (State’s Rights) and Democratic rhetoric advocating government involvement in a variety of issues (Federalism).