my D.C. Statehood Op-Ed
I'm in a very newspapery mood today, and just wrote a reponse to the prompt question on PostGlobal (WashPost.com)
You can read it there:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2006/11/28/post_8/comments.php?page=1#c782640
or here:
From where you write, who's gaining power, who's losing it, and who is coming in fast from the outside?
- David Ignatius & Fareed Zakaria
Posted at November 28, 2006 02:08 PM
» Liz Schwartz, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.
The recent elections in the disenfranchised capital of the U.S. was a boost in power for the status-quo. The centrist Democratic Party came out as a clear winner, and non-Democrat challengers had little opportunity to question mainstream opinion, namely over the issue of statehood.
Now that the election is over, the DC Statehood Green Party remains firmly against congressional bill H.R. 5388, which the newly elected mayor, Adrian Fenty, champions as a foot in the door for the District of Columbia's right to federal representation. However, few are paying attention to the third party's skepticism regarding the bill. Although it may not even reach the House floor in time to pass this year, the Statehood Greens fear that if it does pass, Congress will regard the issue as a fait accompli.
Last week, I attended a teach-in by the "Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition." There, Sam Jordan, former chair of the D.C. Statehood Party, gave historical evidence of Congress' "Rights by Race rule," adopted by Lyndon Johnson as Senate Majority Leader, through which Hawaii could only be admitted as a state once Alaska had also been admitted to counter-balance with its white majority. A similar proposal is included in the current bill, which proposes giving an extra, "at-large" representative to Utah. Some participants of the teach-in also suggested that the current push for city-wide gentrification may force out most of the black population, at which point statehood may become more likely, though tragically late.
Overall, H.R. 5388 is simply legal fluff because it would never be upheld as constitutional in a federal court. The Constitution says that only states can have a vote in Congress, and unless D.C. is given statehood, the city's representation would require a constitutional amendment. By giving the District one representative in Congress instead of the minimum of 3 given to states, one might say the bill "makes D.C. residents 'one-third citizens,'" as the D.C. Statehood Green Party proclaims on their website.
The disenfranchisement of the District goes beyond what most people know about it: simply lacking a vote in Congress, paying federal taxes without representation, and citizens dying in U.S. wars they had no say about. Congress also has veto power over city laws. It was precisely such power which allowed the federal body to terminate the 1998 Initiative 59 for medical marijuana, although it had passed with a 69% majority in D.C.. The Green Party's website states, "Congress has also forced D.C. to adopt 'zero tolerance' laws; ordered Mayor Williams (through the appointed Financial Control Board) to dismantle D.C. General Hospital, the District's only full-service public health facility, imposed a charter school system; and outlawed needle exchange to prevent HIV transmission." A commuter tax, which serves as key revenue in most other major US cities, is also consistently blocked by Maryland and Virgina representatives in Congress, while of course, D.C. has no leverage to push the issue. Such local laws are normally considered on a state level and are not the business of the federal government, with the possible exception of the judicial branch addressing inter-state litigation.
There are a number of other necessary details which would come with statehood, but suffice it to say, D.C. leadership seems satisfied with a slow, halting pace towards true self-governing power in the country's capital.
schwael at earlham dot edu
http://schwael.livejournal.com
You can read it there:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2006/11/28/post_8/comments.php?page=1#c782640
or here:
From where you write, who's gaining power, who's losing it, and who is coming in fast from the outside?
- David Ignatius & Fareed Zakaria
Posted at November 28, 2006 02:08 PM
» Liz Schwartz, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.
The recent elections in the disenfranchised capital of the U.S. was a boost in power for the status-quo. The centrist Democratic Party came out as a clear winner, and non-Democrat challengers had little opportunity to question mainstream opinion, namely over the issue of statehood.
Now that the election is over, the DC Statehood Green Party remains firmly against congressional bill H.R. 5388, which the newly elected mayor, Adrian Fenty, champions as a foot in the door for the District of Columbia's right to federal representation. However, few are paying attention to the third party's skepticism regarding the bill. Although it may not even reach the House floor in time to pass this year, the Statehood Greens fear that if it does pass, Congress will regard the issue as a fait accompli.
Last week, I attended a teach-in by the "Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition." There, Sam Jordan, former chair of the D.C. Statehood Party, gave historical evidence of Congress' "Rights by Race rule," adopted by Lyndon Johnson as Senate Majority Leader, through which Hawaii could only be admitted as a state once Alaska had also been admitted to counter-balance with its white majority. A similar proposal is included in the current bill, which proposes giving an extra, "at-large" representative to Utah. Some participants of the teach-in also suggested that the current push for city-wide gentrification may force out most of the black population, at which point statehood may become more likely, though tragically late.
Overall, H.R. 5388 is simply legal fluff because it would never be upheld as constitutional in a federal court. The Constitution says that only states can have a vote in Congress, and unless D.C. is given statehood, the city's representation would require a constitutional amendment. By giving the District one representative in Congress instead of the minimum of 3 given to states, one might say the bill "makes D.C. residents 'one-third citizens,'" as the D.C. Statehood Green Party proclaims on their website.
The disenfranchisement of the District goes beyond what most people know about it: simply lacking a vote in Congress, paying federal taxes without representation, and citizens dying in U.S. wars they had no say about. Congress also has veto power over city laws. It was precisely such power which allowed the federal body to terminate the 1998 Initiative 59 for medical marijuana, although it had passed with a 69% majority in D.C.. The Green Party's website states, "Congress has also forced D.C. to adopt 'zero tolerance' laws; ordered Mayor Williams (through the appointed Financial Control Board) to dismantle D.C. General Hospital, the District's only full-service public health facility, imposed a charter school system; and outlawed needle exchange to prevent HIV transmission." A commuter tax, which serves as key revenue in most other major US cities, is also consistently blocked by Maryland and Virgina representatives in Congress, while of course, D.C. has no leverage to push the issue. Such local laws are normally considered on a state level and are not the business of the federal government, with the possible exception of the judicial branch addressing inter-state litigation.
There are a number of other necessary details which would come with statehood, but suffice it to say, D.C. leadership seems satisfied with a slow, halting pace towards true self-governing power in the country's capital.
schwael at earlham dot edu
http://schwael.livejournal.com