Photo courtesy of the office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton
D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton

D.C. voting rights supporters say they aren’t stepping out of the ring yet

by MESHA Y. WILLIAMS

It’s shaping up to be the biggest fight in local politics this year: D.C. versus members of Congress over whether the city should get voting rights.

Legislation will be re-introduced in April on the House floor calling for the city to gain full and equal representation in Congress. Supporters of the voting rights bill are determined to stay in the ring in hopes of winning this latest round in the House, after suffering a setback last week due to what they described as mean-spirited, partisan politics.

“I think the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up and have our citizenry stand up and say, ‘Let’s put an end to this nonsense,’” said Mike Brown, the district’s shadow senator who participates in Senate debates but cannot vote.

If the D.C. voting rights bill passes, Brown won’t get to vote, but his counterpart in the House will. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.) has served as the non-voting delegate since 1991. She can introduce legislation, serve on committees, and speak on the floor, but she can’t vote.

Norton and Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) joined together last spring and introduced the voting rights initiative calling for the House to increase from 435 to 437 members, netting a new seat for D.C. and another one for Utah.

Supporters said the bill is a good balance because registered voters in D.C. primarily vote Democratic, and registered voters in Utah primarily vote Republican. They said voting rights is a basic civil right that D.C. residents deserve.

Opponents say the constitution didn’t intend for the nation’s capital to be a state. They believe if the District wants to achieve full voting rights, leaders should address changing how the city’s constitution is tied with Congress. Opponents said in order for what supporters want to do, D.C. would have to consider itself as either a part of Virginia or Maryland to have voting rights.

Advisors to President Bush stepped into the debate and said they would recommend the president veto the legislation if it reached the White House.

Supporters of the current voting rights legislation know they are in the biggest fight of their political lives and have experienced disappointment over the issue before. In December, House Republican leadership decided not to consider legislation before the 109th Congress ended, causing the bill to die in session.

In the past week, when the bill was brought again to the House floor, expectations were high for its passage because of the new Democratic leadership. Instead, bickering and the political rhetoric heated up.

Last week, the bill was expected to pass in the House. But in an effort to kill the bill, a group of Republican congressmen, including Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex), proposed the idea of tying legislation to the city’s gun control laws.

Smith and leaders such as Louie Gohmert (R-Tex) have been criticized for their actions during the most recent floor hearings.

Beth McGin, a spokeswoman for Congressman Smith, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, emphasized that Rep. Smith isn’t against the idea of voting rights. Rather, he believes there is a better way of achieving voting rights that doesn’t violate the constitution.

McGin said Smith was trying to make the point that if D.C. is going to be made a state, then under the constitution they should also be entitled to having all rights granted to them and that includes the right to protect themselves, which they aren’t able to do under current laws.

Voting rights supporters believe connecting the issues is a ploy to sway more Democrats from the voting rights issue and further weaken the city’s gun laws, which are some of the toughest in the nation.

The maneuver angered D.C. voting rights supporters who said they are now more determined than ever to achieve their goal this session.

Brown described Congress’ relationship with the city as an abusive one. He said for too long D.C. has allowed its political and financial destiny to be dictated by Congress. This recent Congressional maneuver shows why the city should rally together and fight against the small group of Republicans who are denying citizens their basic rights, he said.

Brown hopes all D.C. residents will take part in a rally to be held in April coordinated by Mayor Adrian Fenty’s office.

“We don’t have a say on national issues and aren’t a part of the national dialogue,” Brown said. “Congress is currently leaving out some important people who need to take part.”

But some Republicans believe another approach should be explored.

Raj Bharwani, a spokesman for Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), said some parts of the legislation concern his boss who has been a long-serving member on the Judiciary Committee. He disapproves of a portion of the D.C. bill giving Utah a fourth House seat that is not tied to a distinct geographic district.

“He’s not opposed to the voting rights bill if it were done in the right way,” Bharwani said. The right way, in the opinion of the congressman, would be to approach the issue from a constitutional standpoint and making sure that all sides have equal votes.

Since 1871, D.C. has had an elected official serve in the House without having voting rights. Around that time, Congress established territorial government in the city determining how the district is represented on the federal level.

In the mid-1870s, the non-voting delegate was abolished and later reinstated in 1970. A push for full voting rights for D.C. surfaced in 1978; it took almost seven years before a constitutional amendment was voted on and later failed in Congress

Kevin Kiger, communications director for D.C. Vote, an organization working on the passage of the voting rights bill, said he doesn’t understand why Republicans won’t allow democracy to thrive in the city when American troops are fighting in Iraq for the same cause.

He and others have suggested racism may be at play because 60 percent of D.C.’s 580,000 residents are African-Americans.

Other speculations on why House Republican members have dug in their heels on the issue include politicians not wanting to open the door for the possibility of D.C. having two elected senators to serve the city.

However, McGin said the issue boils down to a constitutional one for some House leaders.

Karen Rose, chair of DC for Democracy, the largest progressive organization that includes community leaders and activists who want to effect a change in the city, said it’s easy to beat D.C. down because the city doesn’t have much political muscle.

“It was frustrating to see an initiative that was crafted in good will and had bi-partisan support take a hit,” she said.

The latest obstacles have made supporters determined to do something historic for D.C.

“It has hardened our resolve to get this done,” Rose said.