Michael Bindner's DC Blog

To do list for Statehood

2010-08-15T14:52:00.002-04:00

Robert McCartney considers prospects for statehood in today's Washington Post. This is a good analysis, mainly because it deals with the two main obstacles. Linking those obstacles is what it will take to get this issue moving. If we need prisons and our neighbors fear commuter taxes, than the solution is to work out a deal for all commuter taxes to go to Virginia and Maryland to house our felony convicts, any District mental patients transferred to these states for institutional care and for bridge work on the Potomac and Anacostia rivers (which benefit commuter traffic).

There are two other things DC must do for statehood. The first is to redraw the lines of the residual District of Columbia in HR51. Right now, it includes the entire National Capital Service Area and the military bases in DC. It should not, because there are people who live on those bases who would be entitled to vote under the 23rd Amendment and because locating that area outside the new state would forever lose the leverage of the ability to tax that income (to house our prisoners and asylees). The related task is to have the President appoint an administrator for the National Capital Service Area to work out an annual reimbursement for providing District services to that area - and to pay the District back for all those years when there was no agreement (as required by the Home Rule Act). The candidate who comes out in front on that issue will be considered a hero - and Fenty is a fool for not pursuing this issue 3 years ago (it was discussed in his transition team). Hopefully, Vincent Gray will not be deterred from raising this issue loudly.

The final thing that must happen is for Statehood advocates to get over their pathological fear of discussion retrocession. It is time to include within HR51 language giving Maryland the opportunity to support retrocession or petition for retrocession. Inserting this language defeats the Republican argument that retrocession is the solution to the District's problems. In essence, to put this language in defeats their argument by giving them what they want - consideration of retrocession. Maryland has been long opposed to any such step, so it is an easy give. We could even ask them to consider it now to get the this issue out of the way. Indeed, all of what I have suggested could be done now (with the exception of redrawing the lines of the residual District), before a statehood bill is even considered.

The Myth of White Supremacy Falls to Science

2010-05-20T16:50:00.000-04:00

In the past few weeks, it has been revealed that non-African humans have a common genetic heritage with Neanderthals that is not present among those who have never left Africa (where Homo Sapiens evolved). Neanderthal man is a lesser species of Human - of lower intelligence, possibly pre-linguistic and of lesser emotional control with a less developed frontal lobe. This kind of blows the theory of white superiority out of the water. The hybrid is not as strong (watch sports lately?), more prone to violence and uncontrolled emotion, has unsightly body hair and is more prone to skin cancer. Indeed, the whole moral concept of Original Sin may describe the flaws in the character of hybrid humans rather than an endemic part of human nature - although Africa seems to have been infected with it by white colonization.

This should upset the whole basis for white priviledge - or rather should it into the perspective of a permanent inferiority complex which the white race can never live down - but only interbreed itself out of. This would only pollute the master species, of course, with lesser DNA - but it is a better alternative to true homo sapiens engaging in genocide against the rest of the planet (including African Americans, who are also polluted genetically by interbreeding with white slave owners).

What amazes me most is that no one else seems to have raised this point in reaction to the latest scientific news. I say most of this with tongue firmly in cheek - though not entirely. There are still people who regard the white race as God's gift to the planet. The new genetic analysis should prove that this is not the case - that there is no justification by white racists for any such claims when we are, in fact, the product of intermarriage with an inferior species.

The Christian Left: White Racial Superiority Disproven - Our Neanderthal Past

2010-05-17T18:16:00.000-04:00

The Christian Left: White Racial Superiority Disproven - Our Neanderthal Past

Gay Marriage and Catholic Charities

2009-12-03T12:53:00.003-05:00

The Council of the District of Columbia is in the process of enacting legislation establishing same-sex marriage within its borders. No church is required to celebrate these unions (although undoubtedly, some will), however if they are employers, they must cover gay spouses as if they were straight spouses. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has threatened to close up shop on Catholic Charities in D.C. if it must cover these spouses.

There has been quite a bit of blowback on this, with many posting rather nasty things about the Church on the Washington Post blogs on the story. Is it deserved?

Some of it is bigotry, however I think some of it is deserved, since it is a response to bigotry by the Church's leadership.The Church itself is not just the hierarchy. It includes the priests (some of whom are gay - possibly up to half according to survey research) and the people (many of whom have a gay child, sibling, parent or cousin).

I think the underlying reason for the hierarchy's opposition is not because they would have to compromise their beliefs, but because by the District opening up the door on marriage, they will face internal pressure to re-examine the issue - something they are loathe to do.The question of whether the Church is being bigoted should be examined in how it treats heterosexual spouses of those married in non-religious ceremonies. In terms of Church doctrine, these marriages are as illicit as a gay marriage (although, in truth, sacramental marriage results when the people concerned promise fidelity to eachother, not when the priest says the magic words). If the Church really has a problem providing benefits to people in illicit unions, it should object to providing benefits to spouses not married in a Christian ceremony.

Since it does not make such distinctions, and indeed should not be able to do so under law, it stands to reason it should also respect the civil law regarding gay marriage as an employer, and that failure to do so is bigotry.In prior days, Catholics rallied around the Church leaders, even when they were wrong. We don't do that any more, since most of us are a bit more free thinking than we used to be, having utilized Catholic education, including a fine collegiate system.

Sorry, Archbishop Wuerl, but I won't back your play this time. I also will withhold future contributions to Catholic Charities if you do anything to diminish services. I suspect there are other Catholics who will do likewise.

As gay marriage becomes recognized more and more, probably due to an eventual Supreme Court decision affirming the overturning of Proposition 8 in California (since the 9th Circuit will undoubtedly rule against it), many of us will demand that the Church actually celebrate gay unions (which, I suspect, is what the Archbishop is really afraid of).

Election postmortem

2009-11-04T11:16:00.002-05:00

As anyone with a television, newspaper or Internet connection knows, Republicans have captured governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, for the first time since the civil war, a progressive candidate has beaten the conservative in the 23rd congressional district of New York, and gay marriage was stopped by referendum in Maine (barely), while medical marijuana was enacted there.

In Virginia, the election was not even close as newly registered young and African American voters stayed home. Even though, at the last minute, the Catholic Church engaged in a full-court press on values issues, primarily abortion, this was not an issue that was highlighted by the winning candidate. Indeed, the Governor of any state has little to say about abortion, since Roe v. Wade quite correctly bars state action on this issue beyond regulating late term abortions (because who is and who is covered under law is quite properly a federal civil rights question under the 14th Amendment and because until someone is given legal recognition, their interests cannot constitutionally be considered by the state - which is why women have a right to privacy in obtaining abortion services in the first trimester until and unless Congress moves the date). Sadly, the voters that stayed home and the Catholics who voted for the Governor-elect will find that his economic policies will not benefit either them or the unborn.

In New Jersey, the result was surprisingly close, given the outgoing Governor's unpopularity. In both cases, the race was not decided on hot button social issues, but rather on the competence of the opponent. There was not victory for values based conservatism in either race. Indeed, in the only race where ideology and values were the focus of the race, the conservative candidate was beaten in a race which should have been an easy Republican victory. While that says as much about the nomination process as the race, it still provides a lesson on what the Republican Party needs to do to stay alive. From what I have heard about conservative preparations for 2010, however, this lesson seems lost on them. In the short run, what NY-23 means is another Democratic vote for health care. It almost makes me hope that this one vote is the margin of victory in the House of Representatives.

The fact that the election was close is actually quite telling. Five years ago, when citizen votes against gay marriage were more common and were largely a reaction to actions by the Mayor of San Francisco when he took constitutional interpretation into his own hands by performing gay weddings, the margins were much bigger. They are steadily growing smaller and as older, more conservative voters "age out," will likely go the other way.

More importantly, they show why it is not good for governments to put individual rights up to a vote. Luckily, the federal constitution can be used - and has been used - to overturn such folly - as it did when Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay rights legislation. This amendment was overturned by the federal courts because it was precipitated by malice towards gays and lesbians (such malice is hardly a Catholic virtue - indeed there is nothing in canon law which mandates or even allows legal discrimination against gays and lesbians). These precedents are being used in an effort to overturn California's Proposition 8 and I have every confidence that this challenge will succeed and be applied to all 31 instances where state constitutions were used to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. As I have said elsewhere, this misquote of scripture originates in the Genesis myth (and Catholics do now believe the story is mythical, not factual) and was used by Jesus not to condemn gay marriage but to affirm the equality of women within marriage.

When I was in marriage preparation with my soon to be wife, we were taught that neither the Priest nor the state make the marriage, rather the sacrament is performed by the two people getting married. It is only recognized by the state and witnessed by the Priest (and congregation). I was taught the same thing in Catholic High School. Aside from bigotry and a quaint (and unscientific) view of sexuality by a celibate clergy, I see no reason why this teaching does not apply equally to homosexuals. Indeed, if we wish homosexuals to listen to the Church regarding spiritual matters, we must listen to them when they inform us of how their sexuality occurs to them - especially if we are counseling monogamy. Telling young people that they are disordered leads many of them to suicide and equating promiscuous and monogamous sex leads some to situations where they acquire HIV. To a very real extent, our blood is as much on our hands as when society allows abortion (if not more so).

When (not if) the federal courts mandate gay marriage, I would hope that the Church celebrates them as a comfort to the families, since weddings (unlike marriages) are about the families letting go of their child (or parent) in favor of the new spouse. It is better that this letting go happen in the protective embrace of the Church, which can then use the occasion to counsel monogamy and fidelity in these relationships (which would be countercultural). Opting for gay marriage as a lesser thing actually damages marriage as a concept more than celebrating marriages would. Indeed, domestic partnership is not a good substitute for the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The Maine election also shows that, even if the public does not agree, the elected legislators in "blue states" are coming around to marriage equality. This has implications for when marriage restrictions are overturned by the federal courts. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as Speaker of the House, I cannot foresee any amount of backlash that will lead to a congressionally initiated constitutional amendment overturning such a ruling. Such an amendment could only come by constitutional conventions called by the states. If blue state assemblies cannot be counted on to ratify such an amendment (or even call the convention), there is no stopping marriage equality.

This issue was also important in the Attorney General's race in Virginia. I still find it troubling
that the Attorney General-elect has vowed to fight for the obviously federally unconstitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution which prohibits legal arrangements which simulate marriage, since he must vow to uphold the federal constitution. Of course, I think the closest he will be able to get to such a defense is joining in an Amicus Curie brief when this issue finally gets to the Supreme Court. I doubt he will even be able to write it (although from what I have heard of his legal skills, I hope he is the one to write it since I do not wish him success in such an endeavor).

Lastly, the easy passage of medical marijuana in Maine is also telling on the general prospects for conservatism. With the sexual revolution, marijuana use was a harbinger of the 60s (which actually began in 1959 in terms of cultural transformation according to a new book on the subject). If conservatism were really on the march, this effort would have failed. As opponents of such measures rightly point out, this is a toehold on general legalization and the end of their war on drug users generally. Just thought I would point that out to take some of the wind out of their sails after last night.

Excerpts from Musings from the Christian Left

2009-11-02T16:06:00.004-05:00

Geocities has gone away, so I have moved my essays on DC to this blog. Since posting them on the blog, I have moved them to their original publication date in June 2004. Here are the links to these essays:

DC Finance

Limiting Congressional Power over the District

DC Government

New Columbia Constitutional Questions

Call for a People's Constitutional Convention (this was done before I read the language in HR 51 which required popular adoption of the 1987 Constitution in order for statehood to occur).

Getting a Vote on Voting Rights and Statehood (still suprisingly current)

Racial Justice (reparations and affirmative action - since this was written, Virginia apologized for slavery)

Education, Welfare and Religion

Gay Rights

Professional Sports Teams and the Entertainment Industry (with props to Faith and Jude)

The Christian Left: Gay marriage and the Bishop of Portland, the Virginia AG race and the DC ballot initiative

2009-11-02T13:59:00.000-05:00

The Christian Left: Gay marriage and the Bishop of Portland, the Virginia AG race and the DC ballot initiative

Proposed Amended Draft for HR 51 - The New Columbia Statehood and Retrocession Act

2009-10-28T16:49:00.002-04:00

A BILL

To provide for the admission of the State of New Columbia into the Union or the Retrocession of the City of Washington to the State of Maryland.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `New Columbia Admission or Retrocession Act'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA
Subtitle A--Procedures for Admission
Sec. 101. Admission into the union.
Sec. 102. Process for admission or retrocession.
Sec. 103. Election of officials of State.
Sec. 104. Issuance of presidential proclamation.
Subtitle B--Description of New Columbia Territory
Sec. 111. Territories and boundaries of New Columbia.
Sec. 112. Description of District of Columbia after admission of State.
Sec. 113. Continuation of title to lands and property.
Subtitle C--General Provisions Relating to Laws of New Columbia
Sec. 121. Limitation on authority of State to tax Federal property.
Sec. 122. Effect of admission of State on current laws.
Sec. 123. Continuation of judicial proceedings.
Sec. 124. United States nationality.

TITLE II--RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Sec. 201. Continuation of revised District of Columbia as seat of Federal government.
Sec. 202. Treatment of military lands.
Sec. 203. Payment to State in lieu of tax.
Sec. 204. Waiver of claims to Federal lands and property.
Sec. 205. Preservation of scenic vistas.
Sec. 206. Permitting individuals residing in new seat of government to vote in Federal elections in State of most recent domicile.
Sec. 207. Repeal of law providing for participation of District of Columbia in election of President and Vice-President.
Sec. 208. Expedited consideration of constitutional amendment.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. General definitions.
Sec. 302. Certification of enactment by president.
Sec. 303. Statehood Transition Commission.

TITLE I--STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA
Subtitle A--Procedures for Admission or Retrocession
SEC. 101. ADMISSION INTO THE UNION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Subject to the provisions of this Act, upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 104(b), the State of New Columbia is declared to be a State of the United States of America, and is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever.
(b) CONSTITUTION OF STATE- The State Constitution shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
SEC. 102. PROCESS FOR ADMISSION.
(a) APPROVAL BY THE MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY –
Upon enactment of this legislation, the Governor of Maryland shall convene a special concession of the Maryland General Assembly to consider the permanent cession of those lands originally ceded by it to form the District of Columbia.
(b) APPROVAL OF ADMISSION BY VOTERS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-
(1) ELECTION PROCEDURES- At an election designated by proclamation of the Mayor, which may be the primary or the general election held pursuant to section 103(a), a general election, or a special election, there shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote in such election the following propositions for adoption or rejection:
`(A) New Columbia shall immediately be admitted into the Union as a State.
`(B) The proposed Constitution for the State of New Columbia, as adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to the Constitution for the State of New Columbia Approval Act of 1987 (D.C. Law 7-8), shall be deemed ratified and shall replace the Constitution for the State of New Columbia ratified on November 2, 1982.
`(C) The boundaries of the State of New Columbia shall be as prescribed in the New Columbia Admission Act.
`(D) All provisions of the New Columbia Admission Act, including provisions reserving rights or powers to the United States and provisions prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or other property made to the State of New Columbia, are consented to fully by the State and its people.'.
(2) RESPONSIBILITIES OF MAYOR- The Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure the submission of such propositions to the people. The return of the votes cast on such propositions shall be made by the election officers directly to the Board of Elections of the District of Columbia, which shall certify the results of the submission to the Mayor. The Mayor shall certify the results of such submission to the President of the United States.
(b) EFFECT OF VOTE-
(1) ADOPTION OF PROPOSITIONS- In the event the propositions described in subsection (a) are adopted in an election under such subsection by a majority of the legal votes cast on such submission--
(A) the State Constitution shall be deemed ratified; and
(B) the President shall issue a proclamation pursuant to section 104.
(2) REJECTION OF PROPOSITION- In the event any one of the propositions described in subsection (a) is not adopted in an election under such subsection by a majority of the legal votes cast on such submission, the provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective.
SEC. 103. ELECTION OF OFFICIALS OF STATE.
(a) ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not more than 30 days after receiving certification of the enactment of this Act from the President pursuant to section 302, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall issue a proclamation for the first elections, subject to the provisions of this section, for two Senators and one Representative in Congress.
(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELECTION OF SENATORS- In the election of Senators from the State pursuant to paragraph (1), the 2 Senate offices shall be separately identified and designated, and no person may be a candidate for both offices. No such identification or designation of either of the offices shall refer to or be taken to refer to the terms of such offices, or in any way impair the privilege of the Senate to determine the class to which each of the Senators elected shall be assigned.
(b) RULES FOR CONDUCTING ELECTION-
(1) IN GENERAL- The proclamation of the Mayor issued under subsection (a) shall provide for the holding of a primary election and a general election and at such elections the officers required to be elected as provided in subsection (a) shall be chosen by the qualified electors of the District of Columbia in the manner required by law.
(2) CERTIFICATION OF RETURNS- Election returns shall be made and certified in the manner required by law, except that the Mayor shall also certify the results of such elections to the President of the United States.
(c) ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES- Upon the admission of the State into the Union, the Senators and Representative elected at the election described in subsection (a) shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and Representatives of other States in the Congress of the United States.
(d) TRANSFER OF OFFICES OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS AND CHAIR OF COUNCIL- Upon the admission of the State into the Union, the Mayor, members of the Council, and the Chair of the Council at the time of admission shall be deemed the Governor, members of the House of Delegates, and the President of the House of Delegates of the State, respectively, as provided by the State Constitution and the laws of the State.
(e) CONTINUATION OF AUTHORITY AND DUTIES AND JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS- Upon the admission of the State into the Union, members of executive and judicial offices of the District of Columbia shall be deemed members of the respective executive and judicial offices of the State, as provided by the State Constitution and the laws of the State.
(f) SPECIAL RULE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERSHIP- The State upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law, except that such temporary increase in the membership shall not operate to either increase or decrease the permanent membership of the House of Representatives or affect the basis of apportionment for the Congress.
SEC. 104. ISSUANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.
(a) IN GENERAL- If the President finds that the propositions set forth in section 102(a) have been duly adopted by the people of the State, the President, upon certification of the returns of the election of the officers required to be elected as provided in section 103(a), shall, not later than 90 days after receiving such certification, issue a proclamation announcing the results of such elections as so ascertained.
(b) ADMISSION OF STATE UPON ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION- Upon the issuance of the proclamation by the President under subsection (a), the State shall be deemed admitted into the Union as provided in section 101.
SEC 105. PROCESS FOR RETROCESSION

(a) CONSIDERATION OF RETROCESSION
(1) Should the question section 102(a) fail, the General Assembly shall consider retrocession of the Territory of New Columbia, as described in Section 111. Should this question succeed, a Commission to draft a Charter for the City of Washington shall be constituted according to the Laws of the State of Maryland.
(b) APPROVAL OF ADMISSION BY VOTERS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-
(1) ELECTION PROCEDURES- At an election designated by proclamation of the Mayor, a general election, or a special election, there shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote in such election the following proposition for adoption or rejection:
`(A) The City of Washington shall immediately retrocede to the State of Maryland
`(B) The Charter for the City of Washington, as drafted pursuant to the New Columbia Admission or Retrocession Act
`(C) The boundaries of the State of New Columbia shall be as prescribed in the New Columbia Admission Act.
(2) RESPONSIBILITIES OF MAYOR- The Mayor of the District of Columbia is authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure the submission of such propositions to the people. The return of the votes cast on such propositions shall be made by the election officers directly to the Board of Elections of the District of Columbia, which shall certify the results of the submission to the Mayor. The Mayor shall certify the results of such submission to the Governor of Maryland and the President of the United States.
(b) EFFECT OF VOTE-
(1) ADOPTION OF PROPOSITIONS- In the event the propositions described in subsection (a) are adopted in an election under such subsection by a majority of the legal votes cast on such submission--
(A) the Charter for the City of Washington shall be deemed ratified; and
(B) the President shall issue a proclamation pursuant to section 106.
(2) REJECTION OF PROPOSITION- In the event any one of the propositions described in subsection (a) is not adopted in an election under such subsection by a majority of the legal votes cast on such submission, the provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective.
SEC. 106. ISSUANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.
(a) IN GENERAL- If the President finds that the propositions set forth in section 102(a) have been duly adopted by the people of the State, the President, shall, not later than 90 days after receiving such certification, issue a proclamation announcing the results of such elections as so ascertained.
(b) RETROCESSION TO MARYLAND UPON ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION- Upon the issuance of the proclamation by the President under subsection (a), the City of Washington shall be deemed retrocede to Maryland, who shall conduct elections for the officers of the City as provided under the Laws of the State of Maryland.
Subtitle B--Description of New Columbia Territory
SEC. 111. TERRITORIES AND BOUNDARIES OF NEW COLUMBIA.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), the State shall consist of all of the territory of the District of Columbia as of the date of the enactment of this Act, subject to the results of the technical survey conducted under subsection (c).
(b) EXCLUSION OF PORTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REMAINING AS NATIONAL CAPITAL- The territory of the State shall not include the area described in section 112, which shall remain as the District of Columbia for purposes of serving as the seat of the government of the United States.
(c) TECHNICAL SURVEY- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President (in consultation with the Chair of the National Capital Planning Commission) shall conduct a technical survey of the metes and bounds of the District of Columbia and of the territory described in section 112(b).
SEC. 112. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFTER ADMISSION OF STATE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, after the admission of the State into the Union, the District of Columbia shall consist of the property described in subsection (b) and shall include the Capitol Building, the United States and the legislative office buildings located adjacent to the Capitol Building.
(b) SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF METES AND BOUNDS- After the admission of the State into the Union, the specific metes and bounds of the District of Columbia shall be as follows:
Beginning at the point on Third Street Northwest and Constitution Avenue Northwest;
thence east Constitution Avenue Street Northwest to the intersection of Constitution Avenue Northwest and Louisiana Avenue Northwest;
thence northeast on Louisiana Avenue Northwest to North Capitol Street;
thence north on North Capitol Street to Massachusetts Avenue Northwest;
thence southeast on Massachusetts Avenue Northwest to First Street Northeast;
thence south First Street Northeast to C Street Northeast;
thence east on C Street Northeast to Second Street Northeast;
thence south on Second Street Northeast to Constitution Avenue Northeast;
thence west Constitution Avenue Northeast to First Street Northeast;
thence south on First Street Northeast to East Capitol Street Southeast;
thence east on East Capitol Street Southeast to Third Street Southeast;
thence south on Third Street Southeast to Independence Avenue Southeast;
thence west on Independence Avenue Southeast to Second Street Southeast;
thence south on Second Street Southeast to C Street Southeast;
thence west on C Street Southeast to First Street Southeast;
thence south on First Street Southeast to D Street Southeast;
thence west on D Street Southeast to Washington Avenue Southwest;
thence southeast on Washington Avenue Southwest to E Street Southeast;
thence west on E Street Southeast to the intersection of Washington Avenue Southwest and South Capitol Street;
thence northwest on Washington Avenue Southwest to Second Street Southwest;
thence south on Second Street Southwest to Virginia Avenue Southwest;
thence generally west on Virginia Avenue to Third Street Southwest;
thence north on Third Street Southwest to D Street Southwest;
thence east on D Street Southwest to Second Street Southwest;
thence north on Second Street Southwest to Independence Avenue Southwest;
thence west to Third Street Southwest;
thence north to Constitution Avenue Northwest to the point of beginning.
(c) Treatment of Certain Property-
(1) STREETS AND SIDEWALKS BOUNDING AREA- After the admission of the State into the Union, the District of Columbia shall be deemed to include any street (together with any sidewalk thereof) bounding the District of Columbia.
Subtitle C--General Provisions Relating to Laws of New Columbia
SEC. 121. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF STATE TO TAX FEDERAL PROPERTY.
The State may not impose any taxes upon any lands or other property owned or acquired by the United States, except to the extent as Congress may permit.
SEC. 122. EFFECT OF ADMISSION OF STATE ON CURRENT LAWS.
(a) IN GENERAL- The admission of the State into the Union shall not be construed to affect the applicability to the State of any laws in effect in the District of Columbia as of the date of admission, except as modified or changed by this Act or by the State Constitution.
(b) TREATMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS- All of the laws of the United States shall have the same force and effect within the State as elsewhere in the United States, except as such laws may otherwise provide.
SEC. 123. CONTINUATION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
(a) PENDING PROCEEDINGS-
(1) IN GENERAL- No writ, action, indictment, cause, or proceeding pending in any court of the District of Columbia or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall abate by reason of the admission of the State into the Union, but shall be transferred and shall proceed within such appropriate State courts as shall be established under the State Constitution, or shall continue in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as the nature of the case may require.
(2) SUCCESSION OF COURTS- The appropriate courts of the State shall be the successors of the courts of the District of Columbia as to all cases arising within the limits embraced within the jurisdiction of such courts, with full power to proceed with such cases, and award mesne or final process therein, and all files, records, indictments, and proceedings relating to any such writ, action, indictment, cause, or proceeding shall be transferred to such appropriate State courts and shall be proceeded with therein in due course of law.
(b) UNFILED PROCEEDINGS BASED ON ACTIONS PRIOR TO ADMISSION- All civil causes of action and all criminal offenses which shall have arisen or been committed prior to the admission of the State into the Union, but as to which no writ, action, indictment, or proceeding shall be pending at the date of such admission, shall be subject to prosecution in the appropriate State courts or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in like manner, to the same extent, and with like right of appellate review, as if the State had been admitted and such State courts had been established prior to the accrual of such causes of action or the commission of such offenses.
(c) MAINTENANCE OF RIGHTS TO AND JURISDICTION OVER APPEALS-
(1) CASES DECIDED PRIOR TO ADMISSION- Parties shall have the same rights of appeal from and appellate review of final decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in any case finally decided prior to the admission of the State into the Union, whether or not an appeal therefrom shall have been perfected prior to such admission. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the same jurisdiction in such cases as by law provided prior to the admission of the State into the Union.
(2) CASES DECIDED AFTER ADMISSION- Parties shall have the same rights of appeal from and appellate review of all orders, judgments, and decrees of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and of the highest court of the State, as successor to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in any case pending at the time of admission of the State into the Union, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the same jurisdiction therein, as by law provided in any case arising subsequent to the admission of the State into the Union.
(3) ISSUANCE OF SUBSEQUENT MANDATES- Any mandate issued subsequent to the admission of the State shall be to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or a court of the State, as appropriate.
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL COURTS- Effective upon the admission of the State into the Union--
(1) section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the second column by inserting `, New Columbia' after `District of Columbia'; and
(2) the first paragraph of section 88 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`The District of Columbia and the State of New Columbia comprise one judicial district.'.
SEC. 124. UNITED STATES NATIONALITY.
No provision of this Act shall operate to confer United States nationality, to terminate nationality lawfully acquired, or to restore nationality terminated or lost under any law of the United States or under any treaty to which the United States is or was a party.

TITLE II--RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERESTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SEC. 201. CONTINUATION OF REVISED DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS SEAT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
After the admission of the State into the Union, the seat of the Government of the United States shall be the District of Columbia as described in section 112 (also known as `Washington, D.C.').
SEC. 202. TREATMENT OF MILITARY LANDS.
(a) RESERVATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection (b) and notwithstanding the admission of the State into the Union, authority is reserved in the United States for the exercise by Congress of the power of exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such tracts or parcels of land located within the State that, immediately prior to the admission of the State, are controlled or owned by the United States and held for defense or Coast Guard purposes.
(2) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY- The power of exclusive legislation described in paragraph (1) shall vest and remain in the United States only so long as the particular tract or parcel of land involved is controlled or owned by the United States and used for defense or Coast Guard purposes.
(b) AUTHORITY OF STATE-
(1) IN GENERAL- The reservation of authority in the United States for the exercise by the Congress of the United States of the power of exclusive legislation over military lands under subsection (a) shall not operate to prevent such lands from being a part of the State, or to prevent the State from exercising over or upon such lands, concurrently with the United States, any jurisdiction which it would have in the absence of such reservation of authority and which is consistent with the laws hereafter enacted by Congress pursuant to such reservation of authority.
(2) SERVICE OF PROCESS- The State shall have the right to serve civil or criminal process within such tracts or parcels of land in which the authority of the United States is reserved under subsection (a) in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed within the State but outside of such tracts or parcels of land.
SEC. 203. PAYMENT TO STATE IN LIEU OF TAX.
In order to compensate the State for unavailable tax revenues and other effects on the revenues of the State resulting from the significant presence of the Federal Government within and nearby the State, the United States shall make a payment to the State for each fiscal year in such amount and under such schedule as Congress may determine (taking into account the recommendations of the Statehood Transition Commission under section 303).
SEC. 204. WAIVER OF CLAIMS TO FEDERAL LANDS AND PROPERTY.
(a) IN GENERAL- As a compact with the United States, the State and its people disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or subject to disposition by the United States.
(b) EFFECT ON CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES-
(1) IN GENERAL- Nothing contained in this Act shall recognize, deny, enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any claim against the United States, and any such claim shall be governed by applicable laws of the United States.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this Act is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpretation, or construction by the Congress that any applicable law authorizes, establishes, recognizes, or confirms the validity or invalidity of any claim referred to in paragraph (1), and the determination of the applicability or effect of any law to any such claim shall be unaffected by anything in this Act.
SEC. 205. PRESERVATION OF SCENIC VISTAS.
(a) SCENIC EASEMENT- The Secretary of the Interior shall take a scenic easement in the space above all lots within the State (in accordance with such terms and procedures as the Secretary of the Interior may establish, including terms and procedures relating to the payment of compensation towards the value of the easement taken), and such scenic easement shall be reserved by the United States. The scenic easement is described as follows:
(1) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the scenic easement shall be in all space above a lot beginning at a height equal to the sum of--
(A) the width of the street, avenue, or highway in front of the lot; and
(B) 20 feet.
(2) PROPERTY ON COMMERCIAL STREET- With respect to a lot on a business street, avenue, or highway, the scenic easement shall be in all space above the lot beginning at a height equal to 130 feet above the sidewalk of the street, avenue, or highway (or, in the case of property on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 1st and 15th Streets Northwest, beginning 160 feet above the sidewalk).
(3) PROPERTY ON RESIDENTIAL STREET- With respect to a lot on a residential street, avenue, or highway, the scenic easement shall be in all space above the lot beginning--
(A) in the case of a lot on a street, avenue, or highway 60 feet wide or less, at a height equal to the width of the street, avenue, or highway;
(B) in the case of a lot on a street, avenue, or highway more than 60 feet but less than 65 feet wide, at a height equal to 60 feet; and
(C) in the case of a lot on any other street, avenue, or highway, at a height equal to the lower of--
(i) the width of the street, avenue, or highway reduced by 10 feet, or
(ii) 90 feet.
(4) TREATMENT OF SPACE OVER CHURCHES- With respect to any lot on a residence street, avenue, or highway upon which a church is located (other than a church whose construction had not been undertaken prior to June 1, 1910), the scenic easement shall be in all space above the lot beginning at a height equal to 95 feet above the level of the adjacent curb.
(5) TREATMENT OF PLAZA OF UNION STATION- With respect to any portion of any lot affronting or abutting the plaza in front of Union Station upon which a building is located (other than a building erected prior to June 1, 1910), the scenic easement shall be in all space above the lot beginning at a height equal to 80 feet above the plaza.
(b) EFFECT OF SCENIC EASEMENT-
(1) NO PHYSICAL STRUCTURES PERMITTED- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may encroach upon any space in which the United States has reserved a scenic easement pursuant to subsection (a) with a physical structure.
(2) PERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENT BY CERTAIN STRUCTURES- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person may encroach upon a space in which the United States has reserved a scenic easement pursuant to subsection (a) with any of the following:
(A) A physical structure in existence on the date on which the Secretary of the Interior takes the easement.
(B) A spire, tower, dome, minaret, or pinnacle serving as an architectural embellishment.
(C) A penthouse over an elevator shaft, ventilation shaft, chimney, smokestack, or fire sprinkler tank, but only if--
(i) the structure is not used for human occupancy; and
(ii) the structure is set back from the exterior walls of the building upon which it is located at a distance equal to its height above the building's roof.
(D) An antenna.
(E) Construction equipment.
(F) A flagpole.
(c) RULES FOR INTERPRETING HEIGHTS- In determining the point at which a scenic easement in a lot begins for purposes of subsection (a), the following rules shall apply:
(1) Height shall be measured from the level of the sidewalk opposite the middle of the front of the lot.
(2) Any height otherwise determined under such subsection to be not greater than 60 feet may be increased by the distance between the highest point of any building located on the lot and the portion of any parapet wall or balustrade of the building that extends over such highest point, but in no case may any height be increased pursuant to this paragraph by more than 4 feet.
(3) If a lot (including a corner lot) fronts an intersection of 2 or more streets, avenues, or highways, a height shall be determined by using the width of the widest street, avenue, or highway involved.
(4) In the case of a lot on a street less than 90 feet wide on which building lines have been established, the width of the street shall be deemed to be the distance between the lines.
(d) AUTHORITY OF STATE TO DESIGNATE STREETS- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of the State to designate streets, avenues, or highways as commercial or residential.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE- The Secretary of the Interior shall take the scenic easement described in this section on the day before the State is admitted into the Union. The scenic easement shall be reserved by the United States on the date on which the State is admitted into the Union.
SEC. 206. REPEAL OF LAW PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking section 21.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect upon the date of the admission of the State into the Union, and shall apply to any election of the President and Vice-President of the United States taking place on or after such date.
SEC. 207. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
(a) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING AUTHORITY- This section is enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such these provisions are deemed a part of the rule of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in subsection (b), and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rule (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
(b) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF REPEAL OF 23RD AMENDMENT-
(1) MOTION MADE IN ORDER- At any time after the date of the enactment of this Act, it shall be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to offer a motion to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the 23rd article of amendment to the Constitution.
(2) PROCEDURES RELATING TO MOTION- With respect to the motion described in paragraph (1), the following rules shall apply:
(A) The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable.
(B) An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(C) A motion to postpone shall be decided without debate.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) The term `Commission' means the Statehood Transition Commission established under section 303.
(2) The term `Council' means the Council of the District of Columbia.
(3) The term `Governor' means the Governor of the State of New Columbia.
(4) The term `Mayor' means the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
(5) The term `State Constitution' means the constitution of the State of New Columbia, as adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia in the Constitution for the State of New Columbia Approval Act of 1987 (D.C. Law 7-8).
(6) The term `State' means the State of New Columbia.
SEC. 302. CERTIFICATION OF ENACTMENT BY PRESIDENT.
Not more than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall certify such enactment to the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
SEC. 303. STATEHOOD TRANSITION COMMISSION.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There is hereby established a Statehood Transition Commission.
(b) COMPOSITION- The Commission shall be composed of 17 members appointed as follows:
(1) 3 members appointed by the President.
(2) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House.
(3) 2 members appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(4) 2 members appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
(5) 2 members appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
(6) 3 members appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
(7) 3 members appointed by the Council of the District of Columbia.
(c) DUTIES-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall advise the President, the Congress, the Mayor (or, upon the admission of the State into the Union, the Governor), and the Council (or, upon the admission of the State into the Union, the House of Delegates for the State of New Columbia) concerning necessary procedures to effect an orderly transition to statehood for the District of Columbia and other matters relating to the assumption of the property, functions, and activities of the District of Columbia by the State during the first 2 years of the State's existence.
(2) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF LAWS TO NEW SEAT OF GOVERNMENT- In carrying out its duties under paragraph (1), the Commission shall analyze the laws of the United States that will apply to the District of Columbia after the admission of the State into the Union, and shall make recommendations to Congress regarding whether any of these laws should continue to apply to the District of Columbia after the admission of the State.
(3) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ANNUAL PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAX- In addition to any of its other duties under paragraph (1), not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall develop and recommend to Congress a methodology for determining the amount of and schedule for the annual payment to the State required under section 203, and shall base such methodology upon the methodologies used to determine the amount of other payments in lieu of taxes made by the United States to States and units of local government as compensation for the presence of Federal property which may not be taxed by such States and units of local government.

The Christian Left: DC Examiner Blog#links

2009-09-07T15:03:00.000-04:00

The Christian Left: DC Examiner Blog#links connects to my new blog on DC Examiner. The latest post is about Labor Day.

Comments for the Record: Pathways To Statehood & Full Self-Determination: Political And Constitutional Considerations

2009-06-01T16:37:00.001-04:00

Chairman Brown,

Thank you for the opportunity to again submit comments for the record.

The District could achieve much more in the way of self determination, even without statehood. Language could be inserted in the Charter requiring a vote of DC Citizens any time Congress alters the Charter. While this would be controversial, there is justification for it.

The U.S. Government asserts that the relationship of the Congress to the District is like that of a state legislature to a locality. This theory has been set forth in a variety of cases before the Supreme Court, and is also now echoed in Section 601 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The constitutional electors of the District of Columbia ratified the Home Rule Act, which is the only constitution for the District of Columbia Government. Section 704 of the Home Rule Act provided for acceptance or rejection of the Home Rule Charter by the electors of the District of Columbia. The Act acts not only as the charter for the municipal government, but also as the basic law or state constitution.

District Residents are entitled to Equal Protection of Law, with these rights trumping the powers of Congress to act as the supreme lawgivers created under the District Clause. In Bolling v. Sharpe, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the 5th Amendment extends due process and equal protection rights to citizens of the District of the same order as those granted to citizens of the states. In Bolling, which was decided with Brown v. Board of Education, the federal government asserted that it had the right to segregate schools because the Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process did not apply to the District. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, which applies to all constitutional rights, not merely the right to integrated schools.

In reserving the power to unilaterally amend its state constitution, the Congress has exceeded its presumed authority as state legislature. No other state legislature in the United States may enact changes to its state constitution, which in the District of Columbia is the Home Rule Charter, without enacting identical language in a subsequent session preceded by an intervening election or without a ratification vote of the electors of that state. Because none of the members of the state legislature for the District of Columbia, the Congress of the United States, are elected by the citizens of said District, the only viable method of ratification is by referendum. Any amendment to the Home Rule Charter that has not been presented to D.C. voters is enacted in violation of the equal protection rights of its citizens to approve or reject such matters, many of which are plainly against their interests, especially with regard to District finances.

Congress has also exceeded its authority as a state legislature by operating outside of a constitution ratified by the people of that state, in this case, the District of Columbia. State legislatures may charter localities because they operate under constitutions ratified by the people of the state. The people of the District of Columbia has no such constitution providing the people with their sovereign right over the state government, unlike every other American in a state or a territory which has ratified, or chosen not to ratify, a state constitution.

All amendments to the Home Rule Charter are void until such time as they are presented to the constitutional electors of the District of Columbia. Such a remedy would provide the people of the District of Columbia with the full protection entitled to them as citizens of the United States. The restriction on the power of Congress applies only to those cases where it usurps the constitutional authority rightly held by the people of the District of Columbia. It does not invalidate exclusive legislative authority over the District, but only “state” constitutional authority, which under a republican form of government resides only with the people.

There have been attempts to overturn the status quo by litigation, although these were not successful. No one has ever sued on just the right to vote on the District Constitution. While District residents might sue in the future, the fact that prior amendments were never challenged makes doing so a dicey proposition. The other way to protect the rights of D.C. citizens is by amending the Home Rule Act.

Section 303 of the Home Rule Act, which provides for amendments, is not listed as unamendable by referendum, so it is fair game for a Charter referendum initiated by the Council. Such a referendum is akin to a declaration of independence by DC voters. It gains national attention to the rights of DC citizens, as do the attempts in Congress to enact a legislative veto, the filibuster blocking such a veto, the subsequent legal challenge, and any attempts to circumvent the amendment through the budget process. Such attention raises the visibility of the plight of District residents.

Some object that the Home Rule Charter is hardy a constitution, and is in fact colonial legislation. Yet, however it was drafted; DC voters (who could have rejected it) accepted it. It can, and most likely should be amended wherever possible by provisions of the New Columbia Constitution ratified by District voters in 1982. The Council has the right to propose such amendments (as the charter amendments cannot be submitted by initiative), including those provisions allowing amendment initiatives.

If the Council were to propose such an amendment, it would likely lead to a court challenge. Such a challenge forces litigation of the rights of District residents to a republican form of government in a way that the Supreme Court could not dodge, as they dodged such a discussion in the appeal in Adams v. Bush., also known as the 20 Citizens lawsuit. If the District wins the challenge, Congress is required to abide by the law and submit the amendment to the voters. After it had been litigated, the Courts must side with any challenge by District residents to any “budgetary riders” or other legislation amending or revoking the Charter without a vote by District residents.

The other way to enact such provisions is to do so congressionally. If Congress enacted a charter amendment requiring ratification of its actions, a challenge is also likely, although the case is easier for DC to win.

Does such a provision sidetrack the movement for DC Statehood? I believe it has the opposite effect; as such a provision takes away Congress’ fun. Given the effort required to run roughshod over the rights of DC residents, Congress most would likely end its resistance to statehood for New Columbia.

Another action which the District can take unilaterally is to withdraw its consent to the Congressional presence by either a citizen initiative or council sponsored referendum to expel the Congress from the District of Columbia. While such an action would not be binding, it would certainly raise awareness of the dysfunctional nature of the federal presence. It could also be argued that the original statehood initiative was a vote to expel Congress from most of the District. Here is some sample language for you and the committee to consider:

Whereas the Constitution provides for the creation of a national capital and federal enclaves by cession of territory from the various states, and
Whereas the District of Columbia was created by cession of territory from the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
Whereas the passage of the Organic Act in 1801 was ruled to sever all ties between the District of Columbia and its donating states, and
Whereas the residents of the City of Alexandria and Alexandria (now Arlington) County sought and received readmission to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1847, and
Whereas political rights have been granted to the residents of all other federal enclaves, and
Whereas the citizens of the District of Columbia have been denied political
rights to both self-government and representation in the Congress of the United
States, and
Whereas, under Alexander v. Daley, the Organic Act's separation of the District from Maryland is found to be still in force, leaving no state with the authority to withdraw its consent for the cession of land for the creation of a national capital,
Therefore, the Citizens of the District of Columbia, by this instrument, do hereby withdraw their consent for the location of the national capital within its boundaries.

The beauty of this action if undertaken as an initiative is that the BOEE has to deny it ballot access, or if it grants it, the United States is sure to challenge it (and Council support of such a measure will assure it makes the news). The challenge to access will then be litigated before anyone has to get either cold or hot circulating a petition. While a Council sponsored referendum will not require either signatures or BOEE consent, it will still likely draw a federal action challenging its placement on the ballot.

The goal of such an effort is obviously not to expel Congress. What you do accomplish is forcing the United States and then the Courts to state that D.C. residents are not sovereign. A court case will attract media attention. Such a case is far easier to understand than Adams v. Clinton and, because there is an event to be litigated, it is an issue that the courts cannot dodge.

It may not come to this, however, as the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, the election of Al Franken to the Senate and the conversion of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party brings the District that it though was out of reach – 60 Democratic votes. This margin allows Statehood to come to a vote in the Senate, provided that the Democrats are united. Not even the National Rifle Association could stop such a vote, because theoretically states cannot be dictated to once statehood has been achieved. The other option for self-determination is as a home rule city in Maryland. Cities and counties are fairly autonomous, unlike their counterparts in Virginia. Frankly, as a Virginian, I can tell you that the relationship between the District and Congress is romantic compared to the dictatorial relationship between Alexandria and the Republican House of Delegates.

A hidden constitutional issue having to do with statehood is the status of the National Capital Service Area, which relates both to whether its workers pay tax and how its residents can vote. The boundaries of the NCSA have remained the same since the establishment of Home Rule in 1974. Both the 1982 Constitution of New Columbia and H.R. 51, the New Columbia Statehood Act considered in the 103rd Congress in 1993 follow the original borders. The current boundaries and a map obtained from the National Capital Planning Commission, are attached to this testimony.

Using the existing boundaries provides stability, however it does pose a danger. These boundaries contain most of the federal core. Income earned within them would not be available for a New Columbia state or territory non-resident income tax, as the income would be earned in the residual seat of government rather than in the state or territory. I have no doubt that the original boundaries were retained to take the non-resident income tax on the table, since without the Federal Core; the amounts subject to tax are greatly reduced. Dealing with the revenue issues at this time allow for a saner treatment of the NCSA. For purposes of providing service, I recommend that the original boundaries of the National Capital Service Area be maintained, but that the majority of it be included in the State of New Columbia and therefore subject to both New Columbia law and taxation. This would overcome one of the legislative objections to H.R. 51, that without an established government, there would be no prevailing law or judiciary in this area once statehood were enacted.

There are a limited number of civilian and military dwellings within the NCSA. The residents of these dwellings would be entitled to any voting rights enacted for the District of Columbia under S.160 (in the unlikely event it is found constitutional if enacted) as well as the seat of government’s three electoral votes.

Of more immediate import is the financial contribution made by the United States for the District’s military reservations. These should be included within New Columbia so that it may continue to receive impact aid. The next version of H.R. 51 should not exclude them from New Columbia for this reason, as well as their aforementioned status under the 23rd Amendment and S.160 if passed.

I recommend that a separate seat of government be delineated as the residual District of Columbia and that it include only the Capitol building and grounds and the House and Senate Office Buildings, the employees of whom file income taxes in their home states. The Seat of Government should only be separately established in the Statehood bill, so that the Territory can continue to enjoy the benefits of the 23rd Amendment. I am attaching an amended version of H.R. 51, the DC Statehood and Retrocession Act, which includes revised metes and bounds language to do this.

The State of New Columbia, as well as the current Government of the District of Columbia, will and does provide services to the National Capital Service Area. These include fire protection, police protection, sanitation and public works. When protests and national events occur, these costs increase dramatically. The maintenance of commuter routes into the NCSA must also be included in these calculations. The Home Rule Act provides in Section 731 for agreements to provide services between the District Government and the United States, including compensation for the District for the provision of such services. Section 739, clause (b) provides for the appointment of a Director of the NCSA. President Ford appointed the National Capital Planning Commission to draw the map of the NCSA, however no Administrator has ever been appointed. The result is that there is no process in place to provide reimbursement for services to the NCSA. The election of a new administration and the formation of this panel provides an opening to begin negotiations to receive compensation for services so provided and to seek an equitable adjustment for services that should have been provided under a support agreement dating back to the establishment of home rule. A Government Accountability Office study is appropriate to determine what level of service has been provided in comparison to federal payments received, which also include compensation of the ban on non-resident income taxation and for federal compensation for the Districts past assumption of the pensions of Police Officers, Fire Fighters and Teachers. Any amount found in arrears can be satisfied by the transfer of a portion of the District’s General Obligation Debt to the United States and the enactment of a no-year appropriation to fund future reimbursements through the NCPC. Such reimbursements can continue when the New Columbia Territory is organized and when statehood is attained.
An additional open issue, which has arisen since the beginning of Home Rule, is the disposition of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. In this instance, the District had an agreement with the United States which was never adequately funded. This formerly regional hospital presumably houses patients from the District, Maryland and Virginia, as well as patients referred to it by the Secret Service. If compensation for this facility is not collectable from the United States and surrounding jurisdictions, it should be returned to the Federal inventory.

The final obstacle to statehood are Republican objections that the proper solution is retrocession. These first surfaced in the modern area during the ratification debates for the voting rights amendment. This is ironic, since while the Republicans were insisting upon retrocession, the State of Maryland was voting for ratification. A continuing objection to statehood is that a state cannot be formed from another state without its consent. The state of Maryland and the Courts have taken an opposite position – that the passage of the Organic Act in 1801 separated the District from Maryland for all intents and purposes. Albaugh v. Tawes and Howard v. Maryland both affirmed this position when District residents wished to run for office as Marylanders and vote for Maryland Senators. Both of these positions cannot be true – although because Albaugh and Howard are the result of legislation, they could be undone by legislation. To avoid this issue altogether, the easiest fix is to include language requiring ratification by the State of Maryland in H.R. 51, or in any legislation granting voting rights through Maryland (which may be necessary if S. 160 is found unconstitutional because representation must come through a state – which was already held by Alexander v. Daley and Adams v. Bush). The amended copy of H.R. 51 I have provided includes such language.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide these comments for the record and to submit explanatory materials. Please feel free to contact me by email if I can be of further assistance.

Comments for the Record: The History Of The District Of Columbia And Its Impact On The Attainment Of Voting Rights And Statehood

2009-05-13T16:25:00.001-04:00

Chairman Brown,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for the record. For the District to know where it is going, it must have a clear understanding of its often troubled past. Since Faith Dane and Jude Crannitch introduced me to the Statehood movement in 1993, when we were marching every week to the House of Representatives to force a vote on the Statehood Bill, I have been an active participant in the movement. I welcome the opportunity to share some of what I have learned in the past 15 years.

From my unique perch in the Administration, I had the opportunity to bring a draft of Jamin Raskin’s article on voting rights to the attention of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. This article became the basis for the voting rights lawsuit, Alexander v. Daley. One of the details put forth in that article is evidence that the story of the “Insult in Philadelphia” upon which the District’s special relationship with Congress is founded was an early product of spin control. Congress justifies its meddling in District of Columbia affairs by an odd bit of history, the insult in Philadelphia. The Continental Congress was meeting in Independence Hall, while the Pennsylvania legislature was meeting upstairs. Revolutionary War veterans rallied outside to demand back pay. Congressional apologists like to assert that these soldiers were in rebellion against Congress. This is in fact a fairy tale. The veterans were demanding their pay from the state legislature, since they knew the Continental Congress had no money to give. Later on, in what amounts to a publicity stunt that was possibly arranged by one of their former generals, Alexander Hamilton, the soldiers did in fact jeer the Congress. The real insult to Congress was the fact that everyone knew that it had no power (the Emperor was without clothes).

Given the history of the District clause, one can argue that congressional power over the District is no longer necessary. Concerns over physical security as provided by a state have been overcome. When the District of Columbia was established, there may have been some question as to the vulnerability of Congress vis-à-vis the states. Over the last 200 years, the Federal government has become a huge and powerful bureaucracy, greatly overshadowing even the largest of states. Further, the military and police personnel directly at the service of the Federal government number in the millions, and are well equipped and armed like in no time in history. There no legitimate concerns over the physical safety and prestige of the national legislature that could justify the continued rule of Congress over the District of Columbia. Those concerns having to do with international terrorism are not unique to the national capital, and can be dealt with without continued domination of all of the District’s residents.

The justification for physical security from insult by people of a state has been overcome. The passage of the First Amendment of the Constitution has given protection to insulting speech directed at the Congress. The promise to adopt a Bill of Rights secured the ratification of the Constitution, modifying the intent of every provision contained therein. It must be noted that the Capitol Police have assisted District residents in the exercise of their rights to speak and assemble on congressional grounds to engage in such speech. Therefore, this justification for continued congressional authority over the District of Columbia has been overcome. To avoid insult, Congress must act in a way not to attract it, by giving free people their rights.

The U.S. Government asserts that the relationship of the Congress to the District is like that of a state legislature to a locality. This theory has been set forth in a variety of cases before the Supreme Court, and is also now echoed in Section 601 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The constitutional electors of the District of Columbia ratified the Home Rule Act, which is the only constitution for the District of Columbia Government. Section 704 of the Home Rule Act provided for acceptance or rejection of the Home Rule Charter by the electors of the District of Columbia. The Act acts not only as the charter for the municipal government, but also as the basic law or state constitution.

District Residents are entitled to Equal Protection of Law, with these rights trumping the powers of Congress to act as the supreme lawgivers created under the District Clause. In Bolling v. Sharpe, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the 5th Amendment extends due process and equal protection rights to citizens of the District of the same order as those granted to citizens of the states. In Bolling, which was decided with Brown v. Board of Education, the federal government asserted that it had the right to segregate schools because the Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process did not apply to the District. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, which applies to all constitutional rights, not merely the right to integrated schools.
In reserving the power to unilaterally amend its state constitution, the Congress has exceeded its presumed authority as state legislature. No other state legislature in the United States may enact changes to its state constitution, which in the District of Columbia is the Home Rule Charter, without enacting identical language in a subsequent session preceded by an intervening election or without a ratification vote of the electors of that state. Because none of the members of the state legislature for the District of Columbia, the Congress of the United States, are elected by the citizens of said District, the only viable method of ratification is by referendum. Any amendment to the Home Rule Charter that has not been presented to D.C. voters is enacted in violation of the equal protection rights of its citizens to approve or reject such matters, many of which are plainly against their interests, especially with regard to District finances.

Congress has also exceeded its authority as a state legislature by operating outside of a constitution ratified by the people of that state, in this case, the District of Columbia. State legislatures may charter localities because they operate under constitutions ratified by the people of the state. The people of the District of Columbia has no such constitution providing the people with their sovereign right over the state government, unlike every other American in a state or a territory which has ratified, or chosen not to ratify, a state constitution.

All amendments to the Home Rule Charter are void until such time as they are presented to the constitutional electors of the District of Columbia. Such a remedy would provide the people of the District of Columbia with the full protection entitled to them as citizens of the United States. The restriction on the power of Congress applies only to those cases where it usurps the constitutional authority rightly held by the people of the District of Columbia. It does not invalidate exclusive legislative authority over the District, but only “state” constitutional authority, which under a republican form of government resides only with the people.

There have been attempts to overturn the status quo by litigation, although these were not successful. No one has ever sued on just the right to vote on the District Constitution. While District residents might sue in the future, the fact that prior amendments were never challenged makes doing so a dicey proposition. The other way to protect the rights of D.C. citizens is by amending the Home Rule Act.

Section 303 of the Home Rule Act, which provides for amendments, is not listed as unamendable by referendum, so it is fair game for a Charter referendum initiated by the Council. Such a referendum is akin to a declaration of independence by DC voters. It gains national attention to the rights of DC citizens, as do the attempts in Congress to enact a legislative veto, the filibuster blocking such a veto, the subsequent legal challenge, and any attempts to circumvent the amendment through the budget process. Such attention raises the visibility of the plight of District residents.

Some object that the Home Rule Charter is hardy a constitution, and is in fact colonial legislation. Yet, however it was drafted; DC voters (who could have rejected it) accepted it. It can, and most likely should be amended wherever possible by provisions of the New Columbia Constitution ratified by District voters in 1982. The Council has the right to propose such amendments (as the charter amendments cannot be submitted by initiative), including those provisions allowing amendment initiatives.

If the Council were to propose such an amendment, it would likely lead to a court challenge. Such a challenge forces litigation of the rights of District residents to a republican form of government in a way that the Supreme Court could not dodge, as they dodged such a discussion in the appeal in Adams v. Bush., also known as the 20 Citizens lawsuit. If the District wins the challenge, Congress is required to abide by the law and submit the amendment to the voters. After it had been litigated, the Courts must side with any challenge by District residents to any “budgetary riders” or other legislation amending or revoking the Charter without a vote by District residents.

The other way to enact such provisions is to do so congressionally as part of the push for voting rights. D.C. voters are on record as supporting statehood for the District of Columbia. Voting rights are a step less than full self-determination. In order to make voting rights acceptable to the population, some form of enhanced self-determination is necessary. Requiring that D.C. residents ratify any changes to their own constitution would be such a compromise. If Congress enacted a charter amendment requiring ratification of its actions, a challenge is also likely, although the case is easier for DC to win.

Does such a provision sidetrack the movement for DC Statehood? I believe it has the opposite effect; as such a provision takes away Congress’ fun. Given the effort required to run roughshod over the rights of DC residents, Congress most would likely end its resistance to statehood for New Columbia.

Another action which the District can take unilaterally is to withdraw its consent to the Congressional presence by either a citizen initiative or council sponsored referendum to expel the Congress from the District of Columbia. While such an action would not be binding, it would certainly raise awareness of the dysfunctional nature of the federal presence. It could also be argued that the original statehood initiative was a vote to expel Congress from most of the District. Here is some sample language for you and the committee to consider:

Whereas the Constitution provides for the creation of a national capital and federal enclaves by cession of territory from the various states, and

Whereas the District of Columbia was created by cession of territory from the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and

Whereas the passage of the Organic Act in 1801 was ruled to sever all ties between the District of Columbia and its donating states, and

Whereas the residents of the City of Alexandria and Alexandria (now Arlington) County sought and received readmission to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1847, and

Whereas political rights have been granted to the residents of all other federal enclaves, and
Whereas the citizens of the District of Columbia have been denied political rights to both self-government and representation in the Congress of the United States, and

Whereas, under Alexander v. Daley, the Organic Act's separation of the District from Maryland is found to be still in force, leaving no state with the authority to withdraw its consent for the cession of land for the creation of a national capital,

Therefore, the Citizens of the District of Columbia, by this instrument, do hereby withdraw their consent for the location of the national capital within its boundaries.

The beauty of this action if undertaken as an initiative is that the BOEE has to deny it ballot access, or if it grants it, the United States is sure to challenge it (and Council support of such a measure will assure it makes the news). The challenge to access will When be litigated before anyone has to get either cold or hot circulating a petition. While a Council sponsored referendum will not require either signatures or BOEE consent, it will still likely draw a federal action challenging its placement on the ballot.

The goal of such an effort is obviously not to expel Congress. What you do accomplish is forcing the United States and then the Courts to state that D.C. residents are not sovereign. A court case will attract media attention. Such a case is far easier to understand than Adams v. Clinton and, because there is an event to be litigated, it is an issue that the courts cannot dodge.

It may not come to this, however, as the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, the election of Al Franken to the Senate and the conversion of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party brings the District that it though was out of reach – 60 Democratic votes. This margin allows Statehood to come to a vote in the Senate, provided that the Democrats are united. Not even the National Rifle Association could stop such a vote, because theoretically states cannot be dictated to once statehood has been achieved. The only major obstacle is the fact that four of the sixty Democratic votes needed are from Maryland and Virginia, which means that the Non-Resident Income Tax Issue and District finances in general must be dealt with.

The funding of education is an issue which, if handled, would help remove the need for a non-resident income tax. The issue arises because former District residents now residing in Prince Georges County, Maryland continue to enroll their children in District of Columbia Schools. Meanwhile, some Ward 3 parents leave the District when their children reach Junior High or High School age in order to send their children to Montgomery County Schools. Without speculation on their motivations, it is clear that in order to retain these families and provide for families who prefer District Schools, some arrangement with the State of Maryland for an integrated education finance system with a dedicated income tax is necessary. A portion of District and suburban Maryland tax revenues could go into a common fund for distribution based on enrollment, regardless of residency. Such a funds sharing arrangement will save money by ending the need to prove residency to enroll in school. It provides for the adequate funding of every student without requiring everyone to pay a non-resident income tax.

Another obstacle to statehood is the Federal funding of District felons and the Courts, which was enacted in 1997 as part of the Revitalization Act. At the time, this was necessary to assure the District of long run viability – and it provided a carrot to then D.C. Appropriations Chair Tom Davis because it allowed the closing of Lorton and the redevelopment of the property. At the time, the Commonwealth of Virginia had had excess prison capacity, which was used while the Bureau of Prisons made space in its system as cells opened and as contracts were finalized with Corrections Corporation of America (as mandated by the Act). With more progressive government in both the Commonwealth and the nation, the return of parole and the elimination of mandatory minimum drug sentences are a real possibility. This will lead to excess prison capacity in the region. A dedicated regional income tax to fund all area felons, which will be housed in Virginia and Maryland and supervised in all three jurisdictions, will prove more palatable to the District’s neighbors than a non-resident income tax.

Related to the issue of non-residential income taxes is the status of the National Capital Service Area. The boundaries of the NCSA have remained the same since the establishment of Home Rule in 1974. Both the 1982 Constitution of New Columbia and H.R. 51, the New Columbia Statehood Act considered in the 103rd Congress in 1993 follow the original borders. The current boundaries and a map obtained from the National Capital Planning Commission, are attached to this testimony.

Using the existing boundaries provides stability, however it does pose a danger. These boundaries contain most of the federal core. Income earned within them would not be available for a New Columbia state or territory non-resident income tax, as the income would be earned in the residual seat of government rather than in the state or territory. I have no doubt that the original boundaries were retained to take the non-resident income tax on the table, since without the Federal Core, the amounts subject to tax are greatly reduced. Dealing with the revenue issues at this time, as I have suggested above, allow for a saner treatment of the NCSA. For purposes of providing service, I recommend that the original boundaries of the National Capital Service Area be maintained, but that the majority of it be included in the State of New Columbia and therefore subject to both New Columbia law and taxation. This would overcome one of the legislative objections to H.R. 51, that without an established government, there would be no prevailing law or judiciary in this area once statehood were enacted.

There are a limited number of civilian and military dwellings within the NCSA. The residents of these dwellings would be entitled to any voting rights enacted for the District of Columbia under S.160 (in the unlikely event it is found constitutional if enacted) as well as the seat of government’s three electoral votes.

Of more immediate import is the financial contribution made by the United States for the District’s military reservations. These should be included within the territory so that it may continue to receive impact aid. The next version of H.R. 51 should not exclude them from New Columbia for this reason, as well as their aforementioned status under the 23rd Amendment and S.160 if passed.

I recommend that a separate seat of government be delineated as the residual District of Columbia and that it include only the Capitol building and grounds and the House and Senate Office Buildings, the employees of whom file income taxes in their home states. The Seat of Government should only be separately established in the Statehood bill, so that the Territory can continue to enjoy the benefits of the 23rd Amendment. I am attaching an amended version of H.R. 51, the DC Statehood and Retrocession Act, which includes revised metes and bounds language to do this.

The State of New Columbia, as well as the current Government of the District of Columbia, will and does provide services to the National Capital Service Area. These include fire protection, police protection, sanitation and public works. When protests and national events occur, these costs increase dramatically. The maintenance of commuter routes into the NCSA must also be included in these calculations. The Home Rule Act provides in Section 731 for agreements to provide services between the District Government and the United States, including compensation for the District for the provision of such services. Section 739, clause (b) provides for the appointment of a Director of the NCSA. President Ford appointed the National Capital Planning Commission to draw the map of the NCSA, however no Administrator has ever been appointed. The result is that there is no process in place to provide reimbursement for services to the NCSA. The election of a new administration and the formation of this panel provides an opening to begin negotiations to receive compensation for services so provided and to seek an equitable adjustment for services that should have been provided under a support agreement dating back to the establishment of home rule. A Government Accountability Office study is appropriate to determine what level of service has been provided in comparison to federal payments received, which also include compensation of the ban on non-resident income taxation and for federal compensation for the Districts past assumption of the pensions of Police Officers, Fire Fighters and Teachers. Any amount found in arrears can be satisfied by the transfer of a portion of the District’s General Obligation Debt to the United States and the enactment of a no-year appropriation to fund future reimbursements through the NCPC. Such reimbursements can continue when the New Columbia Territory is organized and when statehood is attained.
An additional open issue, which has arisen since the beginning of Home Rule, is the disposition of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. In this instance, the District had an agreement with the United States which was never adequately funded. This formerly regional hospital presumably houses patients from the District, Maryland and Virginia, as well as patients referred to it by the Secret Service. If compensation for this facility is not collectable from the United States and surrounding jurisdictions, it should be returned to the Federal inventory.

The final obstacle to voting rights and statehood are Republican objections that the proper solution is retrocession. These first surfaced in the modern area during the ratification debates for the voting rights amendment. This is ironic, since while the Republicans were insisting upon retrocession, the State of Maryland was voting for ratification. A continuing objection to statehood is that a state cannot be formed from another state without its consent. The state of Maryland and the Courts have taken an opposite position – that the passage of the Organic Act in 1801 separated the District from Maryland for all intents and purposes. Albaugh v. Tawes and Howard v. Maryland both affirmed this position when District residents wished to run for office as Marylanders and vote for Maryland Senators. Both of these positions cannot be true – although because Albaugh and Howard are the result of legislation, they could be undone by legislation. To avoid this issue altogether, the easiest fix is to include language requiring ratification by the State of Maryland in H.R. 51, or in any legislation granting voting rights through Maryland (which may be necessary if S. 160 is found unconstitutional because representation must come through a state – which was already held by Alexander v. Daley and Adams v. Bush). The amended copy of H.R. 51 I have provided includes such language.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide these comments for the record and to submit explanatory materials. Please feel free to contact me by email if I can be of further assistance.

Statehood and the 2008 Election

2008-10-23T16:32:00.002-04:00

Frankly, I am surprised no one has brought this up yet.

It is quite within the realm of possibility that there will be 60 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President-elect on November 5th.

If this occurs, the main political impediment to Statehood for New Columbia will have been cleared. All that will remain are the regional difficulties, although with 4 area Democratic Senators and Governors they will be not so much as in the recent past.

There is still a punch list of things to do to ease the transition, however:

Rewrite H.R. 51 so that the portion left in federal hands contains only the White House and the Congressional buildings. Failure to do so will put many potential non-resident income tax dollars out of reach and will also allow the military base residents to register and vote under the 23rd Amendment (and they would vote Republican).

Review the New Columbia Constitution as passed by the Council and make amendment necessary so that it actually survives a plebecite. Try expanding the House of Delegates and adding non-majority party epresentation at the ward level so that the GOP does not yell too loudly - as the vote may be close in Congress.

Work out an agreement for Virginia and Maryland to share our prison and mental health care costs in lieu of levying a non-resident income tax. This allows them to save face in supporting statehood.

Appoint an Administrator for the National Capital Service Area, especially that portion within New Columbia, and work out both a current services agreement to pay costs for providing services under a no-year appropriation and a reimbursement for all such costs expended in the past for when the Federal Government negligently refused to appoint the Administrator as provided under the law.

It is time for the Shadow Delegation to start doing their jobs, since they might actually triumph this time. Statehood is no longer a lost cause. Get to work!

The Christian Libertarian Party: I Like Mike

2008-01-15T13:08:00.000-05:00

The Christian Libertarian Party: I Like Mike

Barak Obama, Race and D.C. Statehood

2008-01-15T12:55:00.000-05:00

I am so going to get in trouble for this.

As my readers should know, let me state at the outset that I am not one of those right-wing-nuts who oppose Senator Barak Obama because of his Muslim upbringing (or for that matter his Catholic schooling – which I share) or because they would never vote for a black person due to their own unreconstructed neo-Confederism. My background is quite the opposite. I have spent a few hot August days marching (and helping organize) marches for civil rights and D.C. Statehood. Anyone who knows me knows that I was Marion Barry’s ward healer for upper Northwest Washington. Lawrence Guyot has called me an honorary soul brother.

The candidacy of Senator Obama has gained wide acceptance in the white community in part because he does not speak like civil rights leaders of the past. There is a good reason for this – he isn’t anything like them. The uncomfortable fact is that, should he be nominated or elected, no commentator (unless he or she is completely ignorant) is going to refer to the Senator as a descendant of African slaves. There is an entire shared history that he has no part of. He has never picked cotton and his family did not move to Chicago as part of the northern migration. He is the child of a black African. He is an African American because he was born here and has an American mother, not because he has faced generations of oppression at the hands of American white supremacists (although his family likely suffered under British colonialism, but that is a separate story). If he were to speak in the language of oppression, he would be considered a Wannabe. To call any controversy around his candidacy racism is stretching the point. The issue is more about color than race, if race requires an element of shared cultural experience which frankly the Senator cannot claim.

Obama has much more in common with the immigrant community, which is often at odds with the American descendents of slaves. Of course, if the Obama candidacy can heal that rift, so much the better. If the descendents of slaves are comfortable supporting a candidate who does not share that common history it is their right to do so. Barack Obama has the potential to unite the descendents of slaves with white liberals in a way that has not yet been seen before, although I hope this is not simply a form of settling for what is available. An Obama presidency will definitely have an impact on America’s youth in a profound way, so as a symbol his candidacy is powerful.

We do need to see some substance, however. From where I sit, the main piece of unfinished business in the civil rights movement is the status of our nation’s capital. The question is, will Obama settle for voting rights in one house of Congress or will he go all the way and not only support, but also champion DC statehood? As or more important than that, will he appoint an Administrator for the National Capital Service Area as mandated by the Home Rule Act and empower that Administrator to negotiate an agreement to annually and automatically reimburse the District for services rendered and as importantly provide some financial settlement for those years when no agreement was possible because the office was vacant? How he and his competitors deal with these questions should be the standard as to whether one of them deserves the support of the African American community.

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Holistic Politics

2008-01-15T01:11:00.000-05:00

The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Holistic Politics

The Christian Left: The Political Spectrum - 2007 Edition

2007-08-23T00:48:00.000-04:00

The Christian Left: The Political Spectrum - 2007 Edition

The Christian Libertarian Party: My Unity*08 Candidacy

2007-08-23T00:27:00.000-04:00

The Christian Libertarian Party: My Unity*08 Candidacy

Voting Rights Clears a Hurdle.

2007-04-19T15:11:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports that today is the day in the House. The Democrats have found a way to keep a gun control vote from happenning and a way to forestall amendments. I am not sure either strategy is good.

Allowing the gun ban to be attached to the legislation effectively moots the case going forward through the appeals process, which will prevent the Roberts Court from gutting the current meaning of the Second Amendment. It is likely that the GOP, upon realizing this, will request that this language be stricken from the bill in conference.

As to the GOP amendments, they should be allowed, as well as a vote on statehood and on allowing other options to grant full citizenship to residents of the District. These items will be debated in the Senate, where debate cannot be cut off. I see no reason for the House to squelch debate and let the Senate have all the fun. Of course, the die is now cast and the bill will likely pass out of the House. The real debate will occur in the other chamber (where DC has no representation). Does anyone else see how a full debate on these matters is better held there?

UPDATE: Both Bills have passed. Let's see what happens in the Senate or in conference. It would have been nice if the conference committee had the benefit of a full and vigrous debate in the House. Too late.

A Radical Proposal for DC Governance Post Voting Rights

2007-04-19T13:39:00.000-04:00

This is going to raise howls in the statehood movement, assuming anyone is reading this blog, which I doubt based on the lack of debate it engenders. I will send a copy to DCWatch tomorrow, which will engender some debate.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

With voting rights closer to passage, giving the Delegate full status, I would propose the following:

Repeal the Home Rule Act and replace it as follows:

Establish a Council-Manager form of government. Limit candidacy for the Council to members of the House and Senate who reside within the District. Allow these individuals to run in four classes: Majority House, Minority House, Majority Senate and Minority Senate. These should be designated using the usual formula for a joint committee of Congress. The actual selection will be made by District of Columbia voters (which leaves staffers out of the voting pool). There should be no primary, so that all voters will be able to select the Republican members, not just the local Republican Party. The election would obviously occur in February or March after the seating the new Congress, with declaration of candidacy required 45 days before the election.

The locally elected Council would also function as the Joint Committee on the District of Columbia and would serve as both the authorizing and approrpriations committee. Include in the rules of each house that the District's budget will be considered under a closed rule in the House with a point of order against any amendments in the Senate requiring sixty votes to suspend it or to amend the rule.

To make sure that this becomes a powerful committee, place jurisdiction over all of the Monuments and the Architect of the Capitol under this committee, as well as the Capitol Police. Also, give the Chair of the Committee the title of Mayor, with appointment power over all boards and commissions.

This proposal would only become law if ratified by District voters. Any amendment to it must also be so ratified. The act should also contain a bill of rights, etc. It should also contain initiative and recall provisions. Not every act would be an Act of Congress. It would pass DC Laws as the city council, not as a congressional committee.

This is, of course, a thought experiment, put out to you for comment. The experiment would only work if someone wanted the job. The size of the committee would be set based on the number of members and Senators actually living within the District. Likely the number of matters handled by the committee would be smaller, especially in contracting. Of course, there would be no bring home the bacon factor. However, if your voters kicked you out and you had a good DC rep, you could always run here, giving the post of DC Representative a bit of competition. What say you all?

Call Their Bluff

2007-03-24T18:39:00.000-04:00

The House Republicans want to repeal its gun laws to consider voting rights. Call their bluff. Repeal will make moot the coming Supreme Court case, killing any chance that the brand new Rogers Court will have a shot at applying the DC decison nation-wide, thus validating the recent NRA legal theory on the Second Amendment (which flies in the face of decades of precident which says that the Second Amendment applies to militias and not individuals). Let it come to a vote, so that Norton can vote no for the sake of plausible deniability. This should never have been allowed to stop the vote, since the GOP was bluffing. To Mr. Conyers and Mrs. Norton: come over to my place for poker. You are welcome anytime.

In the words of Emily Latella

2007-03-22T15:01:00.000-04:00

Never mind.

The Rules Committee passed a closed rule on Voting Rights. Thomas has not yet been updated to show how it fared, but I doubt that the GOP have the votes for anything but what the speaker wants.

UPDATE: I just called the Delegate's office. A motion to recommit was passed on the rule. Apparently, reconsidering the District's gun laws will be a requirement to consider the bill. This is a poison pill which Norton may not swallow. I would suggest making a deal allowing for Rohrbacher and taking off consideration of gun laws, since this will likely go to the Supreme Court docket anyway.

Debate All Options

2007-03-22T11:30:00.000-04:00

In today's Washington Post, lone GOP Councilmember Carol Schwartz calls for GOP support for the voting rights legislation to be debated in the House.

This is a start, but so much more is possible in this debate. From the concentration of the leadership on an up or down vote on the Norton voting rights bill, it appears that it will come to the floor under a closed rule. This is regretable, since this legislation will probably foreclose the consideration of other options in the near future, options which merit consideration and which lack the constitutional problems of the current bill.

The first alternative which must be considered is Rep. Dana Rohrbacher's bill to grant voting rights in both the House and Senate through Maryland. This gives total representation without greatly altering the balance of power in the Senate and with less constitutional questions (provided it is amended to involve the DC government in redistricting and to allow Maryland to consent to the arrangement). The prior Norton bill on full voting rights should also receive a floor vote.

The second set of alternatives is to debate the final status of the District now. H.R. 51 should be made in order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, since we know it is constitutional, although provisions could be added to provide for a federal administrator for the National Capital Service Area (which should be honored in current law but are not) and to decrease the size of the seat of government under the bill to the congressional compound only in order to include those federal workers withing the NCSA in the area of New Columbia subject to a commuter tax and to prevent service members residing on D.C. military bases from voting under the 23rd Amendment.

An alternative to H.R. 51 is an Organic Act for the District, which would put it on the road to statehood without conferring statehood. It would provide for the creation of a territorial government, which would look more like a state than a city, and would provide for a reconsideration of the New Columbia Constitution (which currently exists in two forms, one ratified by voters and the second amended by the Council to be voted on after passage of H.R. 51 - although both are over twenty years old). Such a new constitution might have an expanded legislature, with minority party representation at the district level (states do not have wards) in order to break the preception that New Columbia would be a one party state. A thriving second party in the state legislature will make it possible for one of its standardbearers to eventually be elected Governor, Senator, or Representative, withdrawing a long-time objection to statehood.

By the way, another way to alter this perception is to elect Carol to the Shadow Senate seat, or some other Republican since she does not support statehood.

Another option to be considered in the second group is Ralph Regula's bill for retrocession. Some of my colleagues in the Democracy movement think consideration of this is anathema. However, it should be considered if only to put a stake in its heart. For the same reason, this option should also be voted on by the Maryland General Assembly. If they firmly reject it, it is dead. Until a vote is taken, it is still an option. If the option is formally eliminated, statehood actually gains strength, provided certain financial arrangements are worked out, like regional transporation funding for the tristate area, common education finance for Maryland and New Columbia and a common corrections system for Virginia and New Columbia. Doing all of this eliminates the need for a "commuter tax" which would allow the region's Democratic Senators to vote for statehood without bankrupting their states, which are not economically viable if the District gets its fair share of local revenue.

Of course, there is the possiblity that neither statehood, territorihood or citihood (what they are now calling retrocession) will get a majority. In this case, there are other options, which should be added to the bill.

Worldright proposes an equal rights constitutional amendment designed to keep Congress out of purely local matters, as well as grant voting rights. This may at least pass the Congress, although ratification will have the same issues as it did the last time a voting rights amendment was considered. When the amendment was originally considered, Republicans fought it saying that retrocession was the correct step. In order to avoid this argument again, Maryland should act to foreclose this option by considering and rejecting retrocession.

There is another option as well for enhancing District self-government. That option, as blog readers know, is to require that any amendment to the Home Rule Charter imposed by Congress be ratified by the electorate. Curently that is not the case, and debating language to do so will educate the public to this fact. In every other jurisdiction, when a state legislature (which is how Congress styles itself) wishes to change the basic law of the state (and for better or worse, the charter is that law, having been ratified by District voters) it must either hold an intervening election (not applicable to DC) or present the matter to the voters - or both. To not do so is a violation of the equal protection rights of District residents as delineated under Bolling v. Sharpe. Making this simple change will profoundly alter the relationship with Congress. If Congress can no longer use the District as a laboratory without the consent of its residents, it may give up on its role over all but the congressional complex, clearing a major hurdle to statehood.

Will the Democrats allow a rule to consider all of these options? I doubt it. This debate is as much about politics as it is about progress. To not have a full and healthy debate with all of the options on the table is truly shameful, although I won't be holding my breath.

The Christian Left: Hell is Freezing Over

2007-02-25T06:31:00.000-05:00

The Christian Left: Hell is Freezing Over contains may comments on Virginia's apology for slavery. Give it a look.

The Norton - Fenty Rift

2007-02-10T15:32:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a rift forming between Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Mayor Adrian Fenty. The prior Mayor owed his job to his service to the Control Board, which passed the budgets he recommended as CFO. While he gutted District services and almost unilaterally shut the place down in the Blizzard of 1996, the citizens didn't get it so he remained popular. Most importantly, he knew not to bite the hand that fed him, so he did not challenge Eleanor publicly when she repudiated statehood.

The new Mayor has no such need for fealty to the Delegate who would be Emperess, although she seems a bit miffed at this. Here is the 411 on what's going on now.

Last year, several of us got together to talk about the Davis-Norton (now Norton-Davis) bill for voting rights and we roundly dissed it as providing 1/3 representation. Among our number, Sam Jordan (the once and future candidate for Council and past chair of the DC Statehood Party) suggested that the road to statehood is through the passage of an Organic Act by Congress. An Organic Act would give District citizens permission to organize a territorial government and submit a state constitution. Such a territorial government would be organized like a state, rather than a city - alleviating the perception that DC is just another city rather than a state in waiting. Now, guess who was on the Transition Task Force on Statehood? Without revealing our recommendations to the Mayor, you can guess from what is going on now that Norton and Fenty have different approaches to this issue.

Last week, I buttonholed once and future presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich. He is looking into an Organic Act. If Norton will not champion statehood, she might have to get out of the way while others do.

Welcome Mayor Fenty

2007-01-03T11:04:00.000-05:00

Congratulations on your inauguration.

As I understand it, the transition team has recommended to you an avenue to seek statehood through the congressional passage of an Organic Act to direct the formation of a territorial government and the perfection of our petition for statehood. We are waiting to see what you will do. Don't listed too much to Mrs. Norton, as if you let her guidance limit your options the District will never have full citizenship.

Again, congratualtions.

The Clock is Ticking on Voting Rights

2006-11-11T15:19:00.000-05:00

It today's Post, it is reported that incoming Speaker is backpedaling on her opposition to the Davis Bill, since it might put Jim Matheson's seat in danger.

She offered instead the largely ceremonial vote in the Committee of the Whole (that could be undone for margins where it actually means something). After a firestorm of calls on a radio call-in show, she stated that if Matheson's seat is assured, she might go along. Congresswoman Norton's remarks in the article about the clock runing out seem to be designed to lower expectations (or deflect blame) should the session end without any action.

As many opponents have said, this bill does not go far enough, because it ignores voting rights in the Senate. Unless 9 votes can be found to end debate, voting rights in the Senate in any other manner than through Maryland look like a non-starter. Of course, the danger is that if senatorial representation is dealt with, it may take the sails out of the movement.

I don't think so, as there is always another congressional outrage on the horizon. Given the baseball stadium deal, deficits and a renewed Control Board are but a bad check away. Additionally, if and when the District is enfranchised in Maryland Senate races, the Republicans can about kiss any GOP candidacy goodbye. Out and out retrocession would seal that fate in all races, so you know that is never going to happen. It is more likely that the Maryland GOP would become statehood's strongest advocates if the alternative were to be forever locked out of the Senate.

There is another way that Senate voting rights might pass. If Statehood were enacted along with voting rights for the residents of the National Capital Service Area, you would have three new electoral votes for New Columbia, two Democratic Senators, one Democratic Representative and three existing electoral votes for the residents of D.C.'s military bases, along with two likely Republican Senators and a Republican representative. In this case, there is no need to mess with Utah.

Of course, this is never going to pass. For many, statehood is not really about justice, but about advantage for the Democratic Party. If that is the case, the cause is not deserving.

The Rohrbacher Bill seems to be the best hope for full represenation, at least for now. The key question is, will this be available to vote on this month?

Voting Rights Update

2006-09-19T01:44:00.000-04:00

I found the testimony not covered in the Washington Post article on the Committee web page. The testimony was about what I would expect, but it would have been good to have published more of it in the article. Even the harshest deadline would have allowed that.

What was unexpected was for Ken Starr to come out for voting rights, although not too terribly so, since some think voting rights is a way to shut up the statehood movement (Marc Fisher among them, if you read last week's blog on the subject).

The comments I provided to the committee can be found here.

Voting Rights Bill Up for Amendment

2006-09-15T11:43:00.000-04:00

Mary Beth Sheridan reports in the September 15 Washington Post on Chairman Sensenbrenner's objections to an at-large member for Utah. The article virtually ignored the rest of the hearing, providing a paragraph at the end about witness testimony (which I would have liked to hear more about). I will check online for it. Maybe I will also see my own comments, which are posted below in a modified form (I left out the opening and closing paragraphs):

No matter what you feel about the final result, the legislation should be advanced to the floor, where it might be considered with similar measures, specifically H.R. 5410, No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2006 (Norton); and H.R. 190, District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (Rohrbacher). The full House must be given the opportunity to work its will on this issue, so that some form of representation is passed for the citizens of the District of Columbia, most especially those currently serving in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

H.R. 5388 has been modified to overcome most of the partisan objections to the bill. Its only flaw is that it does not address representation in the Senate, although I trust that this comes from inter-chamber humility on Mr. Davis’ part rather than any desire to continue to deny District of Columbia residents full voting representation. The purported constitutional flaw is a canard, as Congress can correct it under its plenary power.

H.R. 5410 does not have this flaw, but it also does not provide the political expedient of an additional house seat for the other party, which is a necessary expedient for passage.

H.R. 190 provides full voting representation in both parties, albeit through the State of Maryland. If there are any constitutional objections to Mr. Davis’ legislation, they are overcome by this bill. This thwarts the wishes of some democracy advocates, particularly my friends in Stand Up for Democracy in Washington, DC. Their major fear is that dealing with this issue will close the book on statehood for the District, their ultimate goal. While their point on the District’s status vis-à-vis Congress is valid, it will still be valid after some measure of representation is granted in both chambers. The one flaw in Mr. Rohrbacher’s legislation is that it ignores one small legal matter, the coordination of voting and redistricting matters. It would be prudent to add the mechanism of an interstate compact between Maryland and the District of Columbia to his legislation to include the District in deliberations on congressional redistricting and to provide for consistent voter registration between the two jurisdictions.

There still remains the issue of self-determination for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Congressional control has been justified by the well known insult in Philadelphia, whereby veterans of the Continental Army insulted the Congress. The incident often referred to, however, may have been a hastily arranged publicity stunt designed to arrange for support of a model federal city which would be a showplace for the world. Any glance at the roadways around the Capitol and the District’s overall infrastructure deficit shows that this experiment has failed, largely because of the District’s lack of voting representation, as members will take care of their own districts and states before they provide for a model federal city. The passage of one of these bills may well correct this part of the problem, although it does not resolve every issue.

Returning to the incident in Philadelphia, the real insult to Congress was not the hastily arranged insult but the fact that the Continental veterans had not come to complain to Congress, but to the Pennsylvania legislature. Congress was a non-entity in their eyes. The power and prestige of the Congress is now without question. It need no longer retain its plenary power over the District in order to reinforce it.

Two options for correcting this issue are often bandied about: retrocession to Maryland (Mr. Regula’s bill) and statehood. Retrocession has been foreclosed by the refusal of the State of Maryland to consider the matter and the stated opinion by most of its leaders that the idea is a non-starter. Statehood is not even on the table, if for no other reason that it has two constitutions, one which has not been ratified and the other which stands so little chance of garnering congressional approval that it has never even been presented. While there are efforts to resolve this ambiguity afoot in the District, they will not bear fruition before the end of this session.

There is a third option that is not often discussed but is very real. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the United States where the state legislature, in this case the Congress of the United States, can unilaterally change the constitution of the state without an intervening election or ratification vote by the citizens, even though the closest thing the District has to a constitution, the Home Rule Charter, was ratified by the voters of the District of Columbia. Once the power to reject a constitution has been given, the power to amend it by popular vote is inherent and a matter of equal protection under the law. This right of equal protection vis-à-vis the Congress was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Bolling v. Sharpe (citation omitted), so the Congress cannot hide behind the plenary power clause in ignoring it in this matter. While one may argue that the Charter is not a constitution, this can be dealt with by noting that Charters exist in all other jurisdictions under state constitutions, which the District does not have. In that light, the Charter is the constitution and the equal protection violation maintains.

This injustice can be easily corrected and doing so will redress the balance between the Congress and the citizens of the District in a way which does not foreclose congressional involvement in issues having to do with the maintenance of the federal city, while leaving the District to look to its own affairs. Simply provide for a ratification vote in Section 303 of the Home Rule Act whenever Congress amends it. This does not diminish the authority of Congress in all matters, just in those where it acts as the state legislature for the District of Columbia. It is entirely appropriate to do so and failure to do so is in fact tyranny. Of course, such an amendment would itself require District voters to consent, although I am sure that will be easily granted.

The National Capital Service Area - Finances, Voting Rights AND Statehood

2006-09-09T13:25:00.000-04:00

One of the open issues in the drive for statehood is the question of "what's left." This recently came up in discussions on the Stand Up for Democracy discussion list. In 2000, I organized a workshop (along with the Committee for the Capital City) discussing strategies for the movement after a victory in Adams v. Clinton, the 20 Citizens lawsuit. Both statehood and reunion with Maryland were explored. Of course, as you all know, victory did not only not come, but the issues raised were not addressed by the Court. The discussion was valuable, even if it was premature. One of the issues raised was how to draw the boundaries for what is left in the National Capital Service Area. The 1982 Constitution ratified by the voters, as well as the now dormant proposed 1987 Constitution, used the boundaries enacted in the Home Rule Act. This is a problem, since any income earned in that area would not be subject to a non-resident income tax (which shows that this issue is a red herring as an objection to statehood as currently drawn, since most commuters work inside the NCSA). At the 2000 meeting, it was suggested by longtime D.C. Statehood Party member Lou Aronica that these boundaries be readdressed, because of the commuter tax issue.

The maintenance of the NCSA is one of the failures of the D.C. Government. The Home Rule Act allows the District to seek reimbursement from the Administrator of the NCSA for services rendered to it. President Ford named the National Capital Planning Commission as permanent administrator, yet the District has not seen fit to seek the reimbursement it so richly deserves. Doing so would reopen the question of compensating the District equitably, leading in time to an approriation for these purposes. A no-year appropriation would be best, since this would not be subject to the vagaries of partisan politics. Presumably, such an appropriation would be durable, that is, it would last even in the event of statehood for New Columbia.

This still leaves open the question of redrawing the lines of the NCSA to capture the income from as well as reimbursement for services too, the non-residents who work within it. This is a key question regardless of whether one prefers statehood or reunion with Maryland, since keeping this income out of the mix may sour the deal for Maryland, since then it would not be able to ask for commuter taxes on all of those Virginians. This is good, as it means that Maryland's congressional delegation become natural allies in any discussion on resetting the boundaries of the NCSA.

There is an even more urgent factor in this debate, the question of Presidential and congressional voting rights. How we draw these boundaries is important, not only for commuter taxes, but because under Evans v. Cornman, residents of federal enclaves have a right to vote. Currently, the ANC boundaries are drawn to include all federal land - including the Navy Yard, Bolling Air Force Base and Fort McNair. These military members and their families, who have a right to vote at home, also have a right to vote in District elections instead. ANC Commissioners represent these individuals whether they vote or not and technically military members can run for ANC.

This is a salient fact and the reason we must consider redrawing OR NOT redrawing the boundaries of the NCSA. If we redraw the boundaries to include these military members and their families within New Columbia (or Maryland), they will still vote at home and the 23rd Amendment will be a moot point. However, if we leave the NCSA boundaries as they are, these military families suddenly have a reason to register to vote in the District of Columbia. Not only that, but overseas American soldiers have an interest in changing their home addresses to one of these bases. Why is this? THREE REPUBLICAN ELECTORAL VOTES, TWO SENATORS AND A CONGRESSMAN (should voting rights pass and include senatorial representation). This might actually be the compromise needed for New Columbia to achieve statehood. Granting statehood under current law would give three electoral votes to the new state and three to those who remain - a net three for the party in power. It makes voting rights attractive in the Senate to the party in power. So attractive that the Democrats may fillibuster the measure.

Here is where the MOVEMENT needs to do a morals check. Is the movement really about self determination or is about partisan advantage? If it is about partisan advantage, the movement loses its moral focus (which the Republicans doubt it has anyway). If we are really sincere, we will take statehood under these terms, with no net Democratic gains - and even a small loss. This should not be important, since the failure of the last two Democratic presidential candidates had more to do with a bankrupt electoral strategy (win the "Blue States" rather than running a truly national candidate) than with the electoral map.

Expel Congress

2006-09-09T11:32:00.000-04:00

About a year and a half ago, Faith came to StandUp! seeking support for a July 4th event hwere District residents declare their independence from the United States. She has been making this argument for years and I had always dismissed it as a bit nuts, but then it occurred to me that the equivalent of this is to do a citizen initiative to expel the Congress from the District of Columbia. For the first two decades in the life of the District, Congress held the possibility of removing the Capitol to another place as a sword of Damoclese to force compliance on all issues, especially financial. Now that all the original land speculators are dead, I say we return the favor.

The importance of such an effort is that the United States must oppose it, denying the right of the District's residents to expel Congress and thus confirming that the District has no right to self-determination. This argument will be explosive, even more so if accepted by the Courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

A serious referendum to throw out Congress is about the only thing the District of Columbia can force the United States to admit that the District is a colony. The 20 Citizens lawsuit tried to force these admissions and the United States merely demured on the factual statements and ignored the actual arguments which were never addressed in any finding or opinion. While we cannot prove ex parte communication occurred to ignore the major issues, the proof is in the pudding. The great thing about a citizen initiative is that it cannot be stopped unless they admit what we want them to admit. Again, it is not about the actual issue, but getting the Solicitor General to say that the District does not have the right to self-determination in his legal brief.

If the initiative sponsors, the United States is effectively smacked down. If the initiative sponsors lose, then the Court is on record in saying the the District is a colony and its residents have no right to self-determination - which is the declaration that the 20 Citizens were fishing for but could not get.

The lawsuit will be filed when the DC Board of Elections and Ethics denies ballot access. The United States will undoubtedly intervene and what was implicit will be made explicit. If the initiative sponsors win, then the government will likely want to make a deal because they have too much to lose to allow the District residents a vote on this issue.

If they want to deal, aside from a star in the flag and voting rights in both Houses, we must demand that Congress cease and dissist from unilaterally amending the District Charter without the consent of D.C. voters. This can be done by inserting language in Section 303 of the Home Rule Act. The other method is to challenge the next attempt to amend it unilaterally. This is further discussed on my web page. The important thing about this effort is that it takes the fun away from Congress. In theory, it acts as the state legislature. However, no state legislature that I know of can unilaterally amend the state constitution without some form of popular check, either a ratification vote, an intervening election, or both. By taking their fun away, we take away the main obstacle to statehood.

What is required to get this effort off the ground. First, we need initiative sponsors and a committed group of petition circulators. Second, and as important, we need legal representation, most likely the ACLU. Doing this will surely attract attention, since this issue will be explosive. If the Free DC movement wants its arguments out there, this one of the most effective ways to do it. It would certainly put pressure on Congress and take some of the attention off of voting rights.

Call for a People's Constitutional Convention (Geocities Rescue)

2006-09-08T13:31:00.002-04:00

Proposed Goal: To recommend to the Council of the District of Columbia a proposed New Columbia Constitution and Home Rule Act Amendments to be submitted to District of Columbia voters. Even if the Council proposes and submits a different constitution, the goal of resolving the problem of two New Columbia Constitutions will be achieved. This action will advance statehood by removing a major obstacle, a single ratified constitution acceptable to the Congress. If state structures are put in place for the current District Government, the cause is even further advanced, especially if Congress resists and elevates the issue.

Proposed Membership: Six members from each ward and 3 at-large (51 total), to be elected by an open caucus of District voters among nominees drawn from StandUp! other Team Democracy members, the DC Statehood Green Party, the DC Republican Party, the ANC Assembly and ANC Commissioners, and the Democratic State Committee Statehood Caucus, the State Committee as a whole and ward level Democratic Committees. Candidates must certify that they support statehood for New Columbia to be put forward for nomination. Outreach: StandUp! members will visit the DC Statehood Green Party, the DC Republicans, the ANC Assembly and the Democratic State Committee Statehood Caucus. ANC Commissioners and members of the Democratic State Committee will be notified by mail two months prior to the first convention session (the Board of Elections and Ethics should have this list). DSC members will be asked to notify their ward committees.

Proposed Convention Organization: The convention will draft its own procedures. However, we will recommend that it break into committees to consider the various articles: The Bill of Rights, the House of Delegates, the Governor, the Judiciary, Finances and the National Capital Service area, Amendments, General Provisions. The various committees will be empowered to call witnesses, especially the House of Delegates Committee. The House of Delegates Committee will consider especially the size of the House and the number of Delegates from each ward. The committees will present their recommendations to the full convention, which will vote on their recommendations and approve final constitutional language, amendments to the Home Rule Charter and the text of the referenda (see attached sample).

DC Finance (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T23:00:00.000-04:00

My original intent was to include the various essays presented below appear in different chapters, with the section on D.C. finance in the previous chapter and an essay on the rights of District residents to self-government in the chapter before on Social Politics. After looking over my collected writings on the subject, however, I realized that this topic contained more than enough material to stand alone. The difficulties the District faces are as much to do with the national legislature, as they are to do with its own mistakes. Given the national passion for pointing out the human rights foibles of other nations, the treatment of the District is an international.

Some may wonder why I follow an essay on abortion with an essay on District of Columbia finance. Those who know about District politics easily guess, however. One key component in budget autonomy for the District of Columbia is the Hyde Amendment attached to the annual District of Columbia Appropriation, which is passed by Congress rather than being solely the province of the elected leaders of the District Government.

Abortion, Medicaid and Budgetary Autonomy
Legislation has recently been introduced to provide for budgetary autonomy for the District of Columbia. This legislation allows the locally passed budget to become law after the customary period of congressional review required of all District legislation. Congress passes, as appropriations legislation, any direct support for the District of Columbia, such as funding of the incarceration of its felons or its presidentially appointed court system. This act gives the District the same financial autonomy as any state or city. Many states have a much higher portion of federal land than the District, yet Congress does not pass their budgets directly. A main effect of this legislation is to allow the District Government to carry on its affairs, even during a federal budget crisis or in the face of a presidential veto of the congressional mischief that occurs when different parties control the Hill and the White House (and even when one party controls both houses, as the recent school voucher battle demonstrates). This improves the District’s position, shifting the balance of power between the District and Congress. For instance, a Democratic president has the freedom to veto a District Appropriation with school vouchers or other riders without shutting down the District Government. Of course, this provision may backfire on Democrats if they win back Congress in 2004 while the President is reelected. For instance, a voting rights bill attached as a budgetary rider passed in such circumstances draws a Bush veto without shutting down District services. It is no wonder that the President supports budgetary autonomy.

One rider that tends to inflame passions is the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of Medicaid funding for abortion services. Budgetary autonomy means that the District Government could attempt to circumvent this provision by inserting it in the local budget and then securing enough Democratic votes in the Senate to block any joint resolution of disapproval. This change in the balance of power causes some in the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice community to oppose budgetary autonomy. To avoid such a step, and to stop what for years was the annual drama around the amendment to the District budget (which had more to do with fundraising than abortion), two options come to mind.

The more likely and less desirable option is to add the Hyde Amendment to the budgetary autonomy act itself, which is a killing amendment for Senate Democrats. The other preferred option is full federal funding of the District’s Medicaid expenditures. With the aging of the baby boomers and the District’s substantial elderly and poverty populations, Medicaid is a continuing cause of budgetary worry. The inability to tax all income earned in the District means that the biggest potential safety valve to a certain budgetary explosion is not available. The only other option is full federal funding of these expenditures. As you have probably already guessed, this also extends the Hyde Amendment prohibition to all District Medicaid costs, regardless of budgetary autonomy.

Mental Health Care and Corrections
Mental health care is a related issue. In 1978, as part of the District's assumption of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, the federal government agreed to make certain contributions toward the renovation of physical plant. The federal government never paid these obligations. This damages the ability of the District to provide adequate mental health services, especially to homeless individuals with mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction, to properly serve the citizens of the District. Many of these patients are in fact either federal or were originally regional, i.e. residents of Virginia or Maryland, although their care is now funded solely by District taxpayers and the District’s Medicaid entitlement. Ideally, the federal government and the region share in the cost of these services. St. Elizabeth’s Hospital is both a local and a national tragedy. It is better to close this facility and transfer its patients to regional and private facilities at federal and regional expense. (including the type of facility I have described elsewhere). Regional cost sharing on this matter goes a long way in compensating the District for taxes it has a right to collect.

Corrections for the District are now federally funded. These provisions need to be revisited, especially those provisions which require that these inmates be held in private, often for profit, prisons. Citizens of good conscience are right to oppose prisons that are operated for profit. They often result in cruel and unusual punishment for the inmates and that they create pressures for greater and greater penalties for offenders to keep these facilities full, which is a danger to all of our liberties. It is preferable to create an arrangement that trades corrections services for some of the inherent financial liability incurred by our neighboring state governments for their continued opposition to a non-resident income tax.

Education Finance
Education finance is a matter of continuing concern. In FY 1999, Senator Lauch Faircloth inserted a provision into the District Appropriation to further guarantee that parents from Prince Georges County who send their children to District schools be made to pay tuition. Meanwhile, white parents continue to move to Montgomery County rather than send their children to District Junior High and High Schools. It is time to solve both problems. Allow students to attend any public school in the region as if they lived in that school district. (including public and private charter schools). Have them report their true residence to the school district, which collects the cost of tuition from the County or District Government where they reside. This ends both the free rider problem in DCPS and the middle class and white flight from the District of parents of junior high school students.

Regional Finance
It is past time to commission a joint study by the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service on the current impact of current prohibition on non-resident income taxes. Explore the possibility that some services be regionally funded, such as education, corrections, Temporary Aid to Needy Families and mental health, in lieu of the establishment of non-resident income taxes.

Examine the impact of current commuting patterns. Such a study likely exposes a large flow of income from the Tyson’s Corner technology center to the Maryland suburbs. This circumstance, as well as the loss of revenue from the personal property tax on vehicles, has plunged Northern Virginia counties into a fiscal crisis that exceeds the one from which the District has recently recovered. Armed with these results, form regional authorities and tax structures and jointly forestall many of our common problems from Loudon County to Baltimore City.

Jim Moran of Alexandria put such a study in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Tom Davis, in what was undoubtedly a short-sited move, took the study out. Such a move is short –sighted because it shows that many commuters from Maryland to Northern Virginia who are liable for the payment of non-resident income taxes to the Commonwealth don’t pay them. Of course, Northern Virginia developers don’t want this fact in the public domain, since it makes their location less attractive to business.

Infrastructure and the Federal Payment
It is also past time for further study of a regional transportation authority to set a uniform gas tax for road repairs and improvements in mass transit, reducing gridlock and smog. Such an authority benefits the entire region, not just the District, although the infrastructure deficit in the District is most telling and not entirely the District’s fault.

During the later part of the 1980s and the early 1990s, a large portion of the District budget went to fund a pension liability that was transferred to the District without the assets which had been paid into the pension system by covered teachers, fire fighters and police officers. During the time of this obligation, District taxpayers funded $2.2 billion in pension assets which were not there responsibility to accumulate in the first place, and which have since been raided to fund non-District spending priorities. The drain of the unfunded pension liability led to disinvestment in infrastructure, which in turn has resulted in a large infrastructure deficit, which the current Mayor estimated at over $2 billion.

Some federal payment is appropriate for services rendered to the federal government. It is interesting to note that the National Park Service receives reimbursement from the Secret Service for coverage of presidential motorcades, while the Metropolitan Police Department does not. When the federal payment existed, it was understood to include these costs, as well as the costs of roads and fire protection for federal buildings. Since that payment has been withdrawn, no such provision exists. It is time to restore it.

It is time to audit of all expenses incurred by the District that serve the Federal Government since Home Rule. Many of these may be reimbursable, including those instances where the federal payment was cut in violation of the home rule act formula accepted by the citizens. Compare these expenses to the various federal monies received, including the federal payment the District appropriation, impact aid in the Defense Appropriation and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes in the Interior appropriation. It is likely that the District is owed money. Send an invoice for this amount to the National Capital Planning Commission, which is the agent of the President in administering the National Capital Service Area. Include promised but unappropriated sums for accepting St. Elizabeth’s plus a reconsideration of how much the District gave up due to the transfer of the pension liability (it is absurd that it ever had to pay it in the first place). One possible form of repayment is the assumption of a portion of the District’s General Obligation Debt and a mechanism to bill additional NCSA support costs in the future.

A Legacy of Broken Promises
The financial history of the District is a serious of broken congressional promises. Over the past two hundred plus years, local investors and taxpayers have consistently been called upon to make up for the lack of federal financing for what are arguably federal expenditures.

Congress has a history of inadequately funding D.C. public works. Lack of adequate federal support began with the sale of land to finance the construction of public buildings, rather than direct financing or borrowing to accomplish this purpose. From the start, the federal government refused to adequately fund the construction of roads. (See Constance McLaughlin Green, Washington, A History of the Capital 1800-1950, pp. 39-41). It was not until the territorial government period that an adequate program of civil engineering was undertaken. While there was regrettable corruption in the contracting process associated with these improvements, these irregularities were no more or no less prevalent then those found in similar cities at the time (for example, Republican Boss Tweed in New York). Of note, while the Commissioners did install extensive waterworks, these were then allowed to decay over much of their administration, leading to the current need for mass replacement of pipes and sewers.

Federal support has been decidedly inadequate to fund the District, despite adequate federal taxes received from the District. This century has seen a declining level of federal support, from 50% of District tax revenues shortly after the turn of the century to no direct unencumbered support in the current fiscal year. While a large percentage of the District budget comes from federal funds, the same can be said for the budgets of all states and many cities. With the advent of home rule, a formula based federal payment was established to compensate the District for lost revenue, and additional expense, due to the federal presence. Despite the inadequacy of the formula from DC’s perspective, this methodology did not survive for long. It was replaced with several other methods that, with one exception, led to lesser and lesser discretionary federal payments, without a lifting of federal restrictions on the District's ability to raise revenue. This payment was finally eliminated as part of the re-assumption of the pension liability for certain employees previously funded under the federal system.

Since the institution of Home Rule, the Congress of the United States has abrogated its agreement to provide an adequate federal payment based on factors accepted by District voters. District voters, after having agreed to certain conditions, were promised certain compensations. The Congress has unilaterally reduced this compensation without first obtaining the consent of these voters and must therefore repay District taxpayers for the shortfall. It must do more than that, however. It must cease meddling in District affairs.

Limiting Congressional Power over the District (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T05:00:00.001-04:00

The Historic Justification for Congressional Interference

Congress justifies its meddling in District of Columbia affairs by an odd bit of history, the insult in Philadelphia. The Continental Congress was meeting in Independence Hall, while the Pennsylvania legislature was meeting upstairs. Revolutionary War veterans rallied outside to demand back pay. Congressional apologists like to assert that these soldiers were in rebellion against Congress. This is in fact a fairy tale. The veterans were demanding their pay from the state legislature, since they knew the Continental Congress had no money to give. Later on, in what amounts to a publicity stunt that was possibly arranged by one of their former generals, Alexander Hamilton, the soldiers did in fact jeer the Congress. The real insult to Congress was the fact that everyone knew that it had no power (the Emperor was without clothes).

Given the history of the District clause, one can argue that congressional power over the District is no longer necessary. Concerns over physical security as provided by a state have been overcome. When the District of Columbia was established, there may have been some question as to the vulnerability of Congress vis-à-vis the states. Over the last 200 years, the Federal government has become a huge and powerful bureaucracy, greatly overshadowing even the largest of states. Further, the military and police personnel directly at the service of the Federal government number in the millions, and are well equipped and armed like in no time in history. There no legitimate concerns over the physical safety and prestige of the national legislature that could justify the continued rule of Congress over the District of Columbia. Those concerns having to do with international terrorism are not unique to the national capital, and can be dealt with without continued domination of all of the District’s residents.

The justification for physical security from insult by people of a state has been overcome. The passage of the First Amendment of the Constitution has given protection to insulting speech directed at the Congress. The promise to adopt a Bill of Rights secured the ratification of the Constitution, modifying the intent of every provision contained therein. It must be noted that the Capitol Police have assisted District residents in the exercise of their rights to speak and assemble on congressional grounds to engage in such speech. Therefore, this justification for continued congressional authority over the District of Columbia has been overcome. To avoid insult, Congress must act in a way not to attract it, by giving free people their rights.

Congress as State Legislature
The U.S. Government asserts that the relationship of the Congress to the District is like that of a state legislature to a locality. This theory has been set forth in a variety of cases before the Supreme Court, and is also now echoed in Section 601 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The constitutional electors of the District of Columbia ratified the Home Rule Act, which is the only constitution for the District of Columbia Government. Section 704 of the Home Rule Act provided for acceptance or rejection of the Home Rule Charter by the electors of the District of Columbia. The Act acts not only as the charter for the municipal government, but also as the basic law or state constitution.

District Residents are entitled to Equal Protection of Law, with these rights trumping the powers of Congress to act as the supreme lawgivers created under the District Clause. In Bolling v. Sharpe, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the 5th Amendment extends due process and equal protection rights to citizens of the District of the same order as those granted to citizens of the states. In Bolling, which was decided with Brown v. Board of Education, the federal government asserted that it had the right to segregate schools because the Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process did not apply to the District. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, which applies to all constitutional rights, not merely the right to integrated schools.

In reserving the power to unilaterally amend its state constitution, the Congress has exceeded its presumed authority as state legislature. No other state legislature in the United States may enact changes to its state constitution, which in the District of Columbia is the Home Rule Charter, without enacting identical language in a subsequent session preceded by an intervening election or without a ratification vote of the electors of that state. Because none of the members of the state legislature for the District of Columbia, the Congress of the United States, are elected by the citizens of said District, the only viable method of ratification is by referendum. Any amendment to the Home Rule Charter that has not been presented to D.C. voters is enacted in violation of the equal protection rights of its citizens to approve or reject such matters, many of which are plainly against their interests, especially with regard to District finances.

Congress has also exceeded its authority as a state legislature by operating outside of a constitution ratified by the people of that state, in this case, the District of Columbia. State legislatures may charter localities because they operate under constitutions ratified by the people of the state. The people of the District of Columbia has no such constitution providing the people with their sovereign right over the state government, unlike every other American in a state or a territory which has ratified, or chosen not to ratify, a state constitution.

Limiting Congressional Power Over DC
All amendments to the Home Rule Charter are void until such time as they are presented to the constitutional electors of the District of Columbia. Such a remedy would provide the people of the District of Columbia with the full protection entitled to them as citizens of the United States. The restriction on the power of Congress applies only to those cases where it usurps the constitutional authority rightly held by the people of the District of Columbia. It does not invalidate exclusive legislative authority over the District, but only “state” constitutional authority, which under a republican form of government resides only with the people.

There have been attempts to overturn the status quo by litigation, although these were not successful. No one has ever sued on just the right to vote on the District Constitution. While District residents might sue in the future, the fact that prior amendments were never challenged makes doing so a dicey proposition. The other way to protect the rights of D.C. citizens is by amending the Home Rule Act.

Section 303 of the Home Rule Act, which provides for amendments, is not listed as unamendable by referendum, so it is fair game for a Charter referendum initiated by the Council. Such a referendum is akin to a declaration of independence by DC voters. It gains national attention to the rights of DC citizens, as do the attempts in Congress to enact a legislative veto, the filibuster blocking such a veto, the subsequent legal challenge, and any attempts to circumvent the amendment through the budget process. Such attention raises the visibility of the plight of District residents.

Some object that the Home Rule Charter is hardy a constitution, and is in fact colonial legislation. Yet, however it was drafted, DC voters (who could have rejected it) accepted it. It can, and most likely should be amended wherever possible by provisions of the New Columbia Constitution ratified by District voters in 1982. The Council has the right to propose such amendments (as the charter amendments cannot be submitted by initiative), including those provisions allowing amendment initiatives.

If the Council were to propose such an amendment, it likely leads to a court challenge. Such a challenge forces litigation of the rights of District residents to a republican form of government in a way that the Supreme Court could not dodge. If the District wins the challenge, Congress is required to abide by the law and submit the amendment to the voters. After it had been litigated, the Courts must side with any challenge by District residents to any “budgetary riders” or other legislation amending or revoking the Charter without a vote by District residents.

The other way to enact such provisions is to do so congressionally as part of the push for voting rights. D.C. voters are on record as supporting statehood for the District of Columbia. Voting rights are a step less than full self-determination. In order to make voting rights acceptable to the population, some form of enhanced self-determination is necessary. Requiring that D.C. residents ratify any changes to their own constitution would be such a compromise. If Congress enacted a charter amendment requiring ratification of its actions, a challenge is also likely, although the case is easier for DC to win.

Does such a provision will sidetrack the movement for DC Statehood. I believe it has the opposite effect; as such a provision takes away Congress’ fun. Given the effort required to run roughshod over the rights of DC residents, Congress most likely ends its resistance to statehood for New Columbia. Before statehood is even an option, however, the District of Columbia Government is in dire need of reform.

D.C. Government (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T05:00:00.000-04:00

To say Congress must butt out is not to say that the District of Columbia Government is not in need of reform. It simply says that reform must come from within. Two areas are in need of reform if there is to be any hope for statehood. The first is the day-to-day structure of government. The second is the proposed Constitution for the new state. The basic departmental structure has never worked. While there have been some changes since the advent of home rule, much more can be done. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs is a favorite target for budget cuts. It was especially gutted during the mayoralty of Sharon Pratt Kelly. The number of inspectors was cut drastically, although the effect of these cuts actually hurt business more than it helped it, by increasing waiting time and increasing the propensity for graft. I have offered a few basic changes to the current administration on several occasions, both publicly and privately, but to no avail. I summarize a few of them here.

Parks and Recreation
The most obvious candidate for reorganization is the Department of Parks and Recreation. Aside from swimming pools, recreation centers and programs for youth and the inherent need to raise grant funds, Parks and Recreation must contend with community gardens, trash removal from park facilities and grounds maintenance. This includes cutting the grass at all of those little triangle parks resulting from L'Enfant's diagonal avenues.

Sanitation
Many municipalities have separate sanitation departments, which remove the trash and cut the grass on all city property. In the District, Parks and Recreation shares these responsibilities with the Public Works Department's Solid Waste Management Administration. Perhaps now is a good time to consider consolidating these operations in a new, cabinet-level, Department of Sanitation.

Health
One of the other responsibilities currently housed in DPW Solid Waste is the sanitary inspection of both homes and business. Separate these; with the inspection of homes remaining in the new Department of Sanitation and the inspection of business transferred to the Department of Health, which then forms a unified strategy for restaurant hygiene, a major source of our current rat problem. Transfer zoning enforcement for restaurants to Health from DCRA. Cross training is then possible between sanitation, alcoholic beverage control, food safety and zoning. Imagine an adequately staffed corps of well-trained and highly visible inspectors. Additionally, use a portion of the sales taxes collected by these establishments toward funding these activities. The result is a cleaner District.

Youth
Transfer the remainder of Parks and Recreation to a Mayor’s Office on Youth, the same way the Office on Aging was created. This Office contains parts of Human Services and Employment Services, as well as the Mayor’s Youth Initiative. Consolidate operations for youth and coordinate with D.C. Public Schools and Metropolitan Police Department’s Youth and Family Services Division.

Community Services
Services for communities are also scattered throughout the government. Consolidate them and raise their visibility through the creation of a Department of Community Services. Create it from the Office of Planning, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the Department of Housing and Community Development. A Department of Community Services includes planning, housing inspection, residential building permitting and inspection, rental property enforcement and residential community development.

Economic Development
A companion Department of Economic Development includes commercial non-residential building permitting and inspection, as well as commercial development activities. Such reorganization benefits both the residential and commercial sectors, providing a much needed focus to the needs of each.

Charter and Constitution Reform
The political structure of the District Government is partly to blame for its dysfunction. The District is a essentially a one-party state. While there is the occasional investigation into the conduct of the Executive Branch by the legislative, by and large abuses go unexamined. More importantly, a culture of unanimity has emerged in the legislative branch. Such unanimity is ultimately damaging, since it encourages the kind of cooperation that sweeps the hard questions under the rug.

It is way past time to devise ways to increase the debate in the legislature. Do this by increasing the number of wards, making the Councilmembers more responsive, and by providing the same diversity at the ward level that exists among the at-large members. In the District, at least two of the four at-large members are of a different party than the majority. This results in token diversity. Real diversity occurs if each ward had three members, with no party nominating more than two candidates.

A final legislative reform is to have the Chair elected by the body from among the five at-large members, rather than having the voters select the Chair directly. This assures that the Chair has the backing of the majority without the need to pursue consensus at all costs. The selection process itself is healthy, as it creates at least two factions, which most likely endure and provide for real debate. Of course, this body is no longer just a city council. Give it the more state-like name House of Delegates, since it exercises state functions.

For the same reason, replace the Mayoralty with a Governorship. The names the District uses for its officers affect how it is treated. If it elects state officers, it is treated like a state. Also make these changes to the proposed state constitution for New Columbia.

New Columbia Constitutional Questions (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T03:00:00.000-04:00

Here is some suggested language for a referendum between the two constitutions:

Ballot Questions on Amending the Constitution of New Columbia & the Home Rule Act

Question 1. Shall Article I. Bill of Rights be replaced with the Bill of Rights adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 2. Shall the Home Rule Act be amended to include the language adopted in Question 1, adding a new Part H?

Question 3. Shall Article II. The Legislative Branch, be replaced with the amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia (except Section 202. Constitution Amending Procedure)?

Question 4. Shall the Home Rule Act be amended to include the language adopted in Question 3, renaming the Council the House of Delegates and expanding it to twenty-five or forty?

Question 5. Shall Article III. The Executive Branch, be replaced with the amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 6. Shall the Home Rule Act be amended to include the language adopted in Question 5, abolishing the Office of Mayor and establishing the Office of Governor and providing for an Attorney General?

Question 7. Shall Article IV. The Judicial Branch, be replaced with the amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 8. Shall the Home Rule Act be amended to include language adopted in Question 7, transferring Judicial appointment to the Governor (if so provided in Question 6) and, if Question 7 fails, providing for Retention Elections for Judges?

Question 9. Shall Article V. Suffrage, Article VI. Education, Article VIII. Banking and Corporations, Article IX. Land and Environment, Article X. Public Services, Article XI. Health, Housing and Social Services, Article XII. Labor, Article XIII. Local Government Units and Article XVI. Intergovernmental Relations be stricken and replaced with Article VIII. Independent Agencies and Article X. Miscellaneous as proposed by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 10. If Question 9 should fail and Question 4 succeed, shall Article V. Suffrage, Article VI. Education, Article VIII. Banking and Corporations, Article IX. Land and Environment, Article X. Public Services, Article XI. Health, Housing and Social Services, Article XII. Labor, Article XIII. Local Government Units and Article XVI. Intergovernmental Relations be added to the Home Rule Act as Section I or where otherwise appropriate?

Question 11. Shall Article VII. Finance and Taxation be replaced by the amended Articles adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 12. Shall Article XV. Initiative, Referendum and Recall be replaced by the Amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 13. Shall Article XVII. Amendment and Revision be replaced by the Amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia (Section 202)?

Question 14. Should Question 13 fail, shall the Home Rule Act be amended by Article XVII of the Constitution of New Columbia?

Question 15. Shall Article XVIII. Transition be replaced by the Amendment adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Alternative Language
If a less complicated ballot is preferred, the question of which constitution is to chosen can be presented to the voters in summary form, as follows:

Question 1. Shall the Constitution of New Columbia ratified in 1982 be replaced by the Constitution adopted by the Council of the District of Columbia?

Question 2. Shall the Home Rule Act be amended by substituting, where appropriate, the language of the Constitution of New Columbia which succeeds in Question 1?

Getting a Vote on Voting Rights and Statehood (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T02:30:00.000-04:00

There are a variety of ways to obtain either voting rights or statehood for District residents. Voting rights are possible through the enactment of a constitutional amendment, although a statute is enough if the plenary power of the Congress over the District is cited as the authority. Such rights come through either Maryland or in the District’s own right, although the latter seems likely given the razor-thin margins of control in both houses of Congress. Voting rights through Maryland necessitates an interstate compact with Maryland to determine the method of redistricting congressional seats, since it is settled law that the District is no longer a part of Maryland. Either statehood for New Columbia or reunification with Maryland also give voting rights to District residents, as well as full self-government. Neither requires a constitutional amendment, although Maryland has to consent to reunification. Defenders of the status quo, primarily in the business community and Congress (who both like the current arrangement), play off proponents of the various solutions against each other. Do not allow this to continue. Currently, proponents of each solution are working together to draft a common strategy for voting rights and full self-determination. I personally went to great lengths to bring everyone to the table. Now that we are working together, it is harder to play both sides against the middle (although some are trying).

To enact any solution, a three-pronged approach is essential. Unless reunion with Maryland is debated and voted on by both the DC electorate and the Maryland House of Delegates, a voting rights amendment has no chance of ratification. Additionally, while reunion is a viable option, Congressional Republicans will never support even holding a statehood vote. The corollary is also true. No vote for reunion will be acceptable to DC voters unless statehood is also fully pursued. Even a push for voting rights must contain statehood as an option, lest forces for statehood feel that the movement for self-determination has been co-opted by the business community as a way to deny District residents their full rights. Before any of these strategies are pursued, they must all be “ready for prime time.” This means that before a vote is taken in either the House of Delegates or the Congress on the options (statehood, reunion, voting rights), the problems with the New Columbia Constitution must be resolved and the same changes should be made to the Home Rule Charter. Likewise, charter language for Douglass County, Maryland must be worked out.

Voting Rights are, of course, a temporary solution. This does not nullify their usefulness. As Northern California seeks their own state without losing voting rights, the District is to gain them while seeking statehood. Voting rights for the District as a stand-alone entity are not timely, given the current division of Congress. Voting rights through Maryland is only temporary, as they lead to either retrocession or statehood. They lead to retrocession if redistricting which includes District voters does not forever make the congressional races in the Washington suburbs uncompetitive for Republicans. They lead to statehood if Republicans find themselves shut off of the Senate and lose congressional seats permanently as well.

Many believe that reunion with Maryland is preferable to the status quo, including some long-time statehood advocates. If this is to be pursued, an economic study of the benefits to Maryland of including the District is necessary, as is the drafting of an organic act for the Douglass County Government. After this groundwork is laid, a bill is to be introduced in the Maryland General Assembly to grant voting rights to the District, directing the Governor of Maryland to negotiate an interstate agreement with the District of Columbia to include the District of Columbia citizens within its congressional redistricting. That bill is debated with amendments offered in the debate to pursue each option. One amendment calls for full union with the District of Columbia. Another supports statehood for the District, with the option that voting rights in Maryland be negotiated until this occurs.

The District must also take action on the question of voting rights, retrocession and statehood. Either an Act of Council or an Initiative is offered to direct the Mayor (or Governor) to negotiate a redistricting agreement with Maryland. A referendum is also offered giving District voters the choice between statehood and reunion with Maryland. This matter was last presented to District voters over 20 years ago. Much has changed since then, so it is time for another vote. Such a vote also involves the public in the discussion, as there is nothing like an election to get people interested. Large blocs of the District are not necessarily for statehood. Giving them a chance to vote for reunion is healthy, as even statehood is tyranny if the population doesn’t want it.

A voting rights bill is currently up for debate in the Congress. The debate on this bill also includes consideration of all of the possible options. The underlying bill provides voting representation through the state of Maryland subsequent to the negotiation of an interstate compact to provide for redistricting beginning in 2010 (with the current Delegate seated immediately as a member of the Maryland delegation). An amendment provides voting rights for the District as if it were a state. Other amendments to be considered are full reunion between the District and Maryland and statehood for New Columbia. An amendment providing for a constitutional amendment for voting rights is also in order, although this requires a 2/3 majority to succeed.

Some believe that statehood requires a constitutional amendment. This is not the case, as long as some portion of the District is held out as the Federal Capital. The current constitution duplicates the National Capital Service Area in the Charter. This is problematic, because this area includes military bases with housing. Presumably, these individuals gain the District’s three electoral votes, while New Columbia also has three votes. Of course, this may be just the needed compromise, as it gives the Republicans just the reason they need to support statehood.

In any case, legislation is needed to automatically fund the costs of services provided to the National Capital Service Area by the District of Columbia or the State of New Columbia. Enact a no-year appropriation; payable after authentication by the National Capital Planning Commission, who is the administrator for the area by Executive Order by President Ford. Split the NCSA into two parts, one that remains a federal enclave after statehood or reunion with Maryland and one that remains part of whatever entity is created.

Racial Justice (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T02:00:00.000-04:00

Race is a key factor in several issues, many of which are covered in separate essays on education, crime and the District of Columbia. Two issues are covered here, reparations and affirmative action.

Reparations for the Descendants of African Slaves
No topic is more volatile than reparations for the descendants of African American slaves. It is an issue that deserves a lot more light and a lot more heat. I attempt here to provide the former and encourage the latter. The basic question is whether the United States Government apologizes for slavery and compensates the descendants of African American slaves for this grievous sin perpetrated upon their ancestors. The United States made reparations to surviving Japanese Americans it interred during the Second World War, an action that strengthened the call for similar treatment in the African American community. Germany has compensated Jews for the Holocaust, mandating both public and private payment. Indeed, the United States, through its support of Israel, attempted to wipe its own stain for allowing this tragedy by not vigorously opposing it and by not allowing fleeing Jews entry prior to the war (though the U.S. now arguably owes some form of reparation to the Palestinian people). Of course, the reparations made to the Japanese were different than that made to the Jews, as the United States Government was directly responsible for the internment, but only indirectly responsible for the Holocaust.

What responsibility does the United States have for slavery? As a nation, did the United States Government establish the slave trade? No, it did not. At the founding of this nation, slavery is the issue that came close to preventing its establishment. Even at the beginning, this nation was not of one voice regarding slavery, with some founders in favor of abolition and some for preservation, though many thought it a temporary condition before the invention of the cotton gin made the institution profitable. This is why the Constitution set a date in the future for stopping the international slave trade – it was predicted to be unprofitable by then.

Randall Robinson of TransAfrica maintains that the United States benefited from slavery through collection of export taxes on cotton. This cannot be true, as part of the original compromise on slavery was the banning of export taxes – which was an advantage to the cotton industry that benefited mightily from this exemption. The taxes that were collected were on imports, which resulted from the use of cotton credit and every other credit. As we know from our current trade economics, the propensity for import does not require export, which means those tariffs are collected anyway.

The United States, on balance, did not foster slavery, and at great human and financial cost finally ended it by defeating the Confederacy. If anything, a debt of thanks is owned to it that wipes out the stain of both Dred Scott and of any indirect participation due to the cotton trade.

This does not mean, however, that the United States is without blame for its conduct toward African Americans, subsequent to the abolition of slavery. The United States has made certain promises that it has ineffectively kept. The promise of America is equality, yet as a direct result of governmental inaction or ineffectiveness the position of African Americans in our society is grossly unequal in several ways, to which I return after addressing the responsibility of certain others for the institution of slavery.

While the United States is not directly responsible for slavery, there are those institutions who are and who must apologize and pay some form of reparations. Chief among these is those states that enforced a condition of slavery, whether or not these participated in the treasonous war against the United States. My current home state of Virginia is chief among those who are obliged to apologize for both slavery and for segregation. (Update: They actually did). As a jurisdiction that allowed slavery, the District of Columbia need also apologize, as well as the Congress for enforcing slavery within the District. While its national participation in slavery is tangential, its participation in slavery in the District was direct. The descendants of slaves who were resident in the District of Columbia during slavery must be compensated by the District of Columbia, as should the descendants of Maryland and Virginia slaves by their respective states.

Certain private concerns must also compensate the descendants of slaves, principally the cotton, tobacco and sugar industries. The sugar industry must go even further, as it still practices a form of chattel slavery to harvest sugar in the developing world. If this does not cease ban this sugar from import into this nation. The labor movement needs to atone for its part in segregation by compensating those to whom it denied membership and by aggressively recruiting African-American youth.

Subsequent to slavery, the United States allowed certain conditions to exist that require compensation. Chief among these conditions is the sharecropper system. Until the advent of automated harvesting technology for cotton, poor blacks were held in virtual slavery to grow and harvest cotton for the profit of rich landholders, as if slavery were never abolished. Any survivor of this system must be directly compensated for this backbreaking labor. This compensation should come primarily from the cotton industry, but also from the United States Government.

The United States continues to allow, through inadequate enforcement, the perpetuation of discrimination of African Americans in the areas of employment and housing, and for allowing rampant violations of its wage and hour and environmental laws where African American and Latino workers or residents are concerned. Provide adequate funding to assure sure enforcement of equal employment, fair housing, wage and hour and environmental laws, particularly where the victims are African American. Locally, one of the most glaring examples of environmental racism is the odor from the Blue Plains facility, whose primary victims are the African American citizens of Ward 8 in the District and the Inner City neighborhood of Alexandria, although as a nearby neighbor I can testify that odor knows no race.

Governmental action has damaged the African American family. The United States Government has required that to receive economic assistance, families must break up. To a great extent, this has been an act of intentional discrimination against the African American male, as has the enforcement of our nation’s drug laws, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine, which fall hardest on black males though they are not by any means the exclusive users. It is past time for the repeal of these onerous provisions.

African Americans have received a secondary public education, due to the link between educational funding and property taxes. This link must be forever broken. Education is a redistributional activity, to be funded by a progressive income tax.

Finally, it is time for the progressive movement to apologize. After the Civil War, the radical Republicans made several promises to freedmen. Many of these were not kept, or were discarded when the White House was at stake in the election of 1872. Eventually, the Democrats became the heirs to this tradition, although one cannot tell from their last stint in the White House. Arguably, it is the Green Party of the United States that is now the heir presumptive to the progressive cause. It is for this reason that the Green Party of the United States must take the first action and apologize to the descendents of slaves for promises that have not been kept.

One obvious form of reparations is affirmative action, which we discuss next.

Affirmative Action
Affirmative action at schools of higher education needs reworking for it to survive. I offer a fairly straightforward proposal. In each state, assess the success in college of the graduates of all high schools in the state in terms of both grades and test scores. Admit applicants whose marks indicate that they are sure to succeed academically, based on the performance of those who have gone before. Admit those whose marks indicate that they have little chance of success to the state’s community college system or to an open enrollment university. Both of these steps are the easy part. The controversy arises in how to treat the vast majority of individuals in the middle. Admit the remaining applicants based upon a lottery for the remaining slots. This system is fairer than trying to second-guess academic success and failure based on some tortured process. No one can argue with the fairness of random chance, except self-important selection committees and legacy admissions, which are also ended.

Affirmative action and even non-discrimination in a small business setting is hard to design and enforce. The best alternative is to just set up your own business - which people do frequently. There, affirmative action is accomplished with economic development loans. Enforce anti-discrimination laws with much more vigor. Establish an inspection arm for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Send identically qualified agents as applicants into recruitment and housing situations and compare how the members of the various races, genders, etc. are treated. It is likely that there is much to inspect. In a variety of situations, including an employment interview for a conservative think take, I have heard people say that they would never hire someone in a protected class of fear of a discrimination suit. What they don't realize is that they already have discriminated, for not hiring someone for that reason is both discrimination and actionable. There is a saying in public health inspection that the best form of education is a fine. The same is likely true in the world of housing and employment. Fines are also attractive because they fund the inspection program, which is why what I am suggesting is not the common practice. The majority would rather not believe that racism is as common as it is.

The Christian Left: Gay Rights (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T01:00:00.000-04:00

The Christian Left: Gay Rights (Geocities Rescue)

Professional Sports Teams & the Entertainment Industry (Geocities Rescue)

2004-06-01T00:01:00.000-04:00

Any discussion of egalitarianism eventually turns to the question of how to pay celebrities. There is a perception by the critics of equality that somehow egalitarians seek to remove excellence from the American way of life, making mediocrity a virtue. While this is true of some egalitarians, it is certainly not the view of the Christian Left. We like our sports stars and our headliners and believe they should be paid well for that winning season, best selling novel, double platinum record or box office smash. What we don’t particularly like, however, is the poor pay of emerging talent or the lack there of in big college athletics, or the fact that starving artists and actors have to turn to waiting tables or, for runaways in Hollywood or New York, prostitution. We also believe that professional sports teams, record labels and studios can get along without such highly paid executives and owners. It is amazing that it is still acceptable for old white men to own the efforts of 20 and 30-year-old athletes, considering the team they sponsor their property. The ownership structures of Cooperativism are offered as way to change this. Let us address athletics first.

Professional Sports Teams
Every few years, it seems the contract between the owners and players association of one of our professional sports leagues comes up for negotiation. When this occurs there is talk of a strike or lockout if negotiations aren’t going well. One year, the football players did strike and the owners fielded replacement players. I wondered at the time, and still do whenever a strike occurs, why the players don’t go out and field replacement coaches, mascots and owners? While the owners do own the broadcast rights, the equipment and the team logo, if the players truly wish to make a statement, and improve their bargaining position, they buy new gear, pick new team names and find a venue and someone to broadcast the games. It doesn’t take rocket science to organize and televise a sports event (except the part about launching the satellites to broadcast the games, but the networks make those arrangements, not the teams). Given the choice between watching replacement players or replacement teams, most fans watch the real players with the new mascots, at least I would. Am I suggesting that the players do this? Not exactly. I am suggesting something far more radical.

It is well past time to replace the ownership structures of both major and minor league sports. Player salaries are now high enough to establish Employee Stock Ownership Programs (ESOPs) or Worker Cooperatives for each team, with players on any minor league farm team included in the ownership structure. Cooperatives are preferable to ESOPs for some teams, because in cooperatives each member has one vote. ESOPs are better for teams with minor league components, giving the more experienced major leaguers a bigger proportional say. What is important is that each month of the season, each active player is paid an equal number of shares in the franchise. When a player is traded, shares in the old team are sold back to the team and shares in the new team are purchased with the proceeds.

Retired players keep their shares and their voting rights until sold back to the franchise. This provides stability and wisdom in the management of team affairs that otherwise does not exist if only active players had voting rights. Allowing retired players to hold onto their shares also allows them a long-term income from the franchise. It provides an incentive to players to keep salaries somewhat within reason, both in paying higher salaries to minor leaguers and in not making salary demands which bankrupt the team and jeopardize their own retirement security. Up front salaries are lower with a greater team ethic, with more team rather than individual rewards for a successful season, although stars are still paid incentive bonuses for individual excellence.

Non-player employees are given some share of the ownership and voting rights. Vendors and cleaning crew, in particular, are notoriously underpaid for their work. While they might not be entitled to share in the income from the broadcast rights, they are at least be entitled to a healthy share of the gate proceeds as a separate class of owner.

Some portion of the ownership of the team goes to the jurisdiction sponsoring the team, especially when the municipality provides the stadium. This forever ends the threat of moving the team in order to force the building of a new stadium, at least without the consent of the host city. Once upon a time, the Green Bay Packers were about to move and the municipality stepped in and bought the team, selling shares to the citizens. To this day, the favorite professional sports team of the Communist Party is the Green Bay Packers. A similar arrangement is possible for at least a portion of the ownership group of most teams to the extent that the municipality provides the venue. This public ownership portion may also include the stadium employees, although if this is done they still pay a just salary for their efforts and an owner’s share of the gate proceeds.

Changing the ownership structure of professional sports changes how they operate. If players are co-owners, the team effort is strengthened. A share of the ownership by the stadium crew only improves the experience of attending games (especially in the sanitary facilities). Anything is possible, even a better sense of geography in professional football, so that the Indianapolis team plays in a division with its neighboring teams rather than with southern teams. They might even recognize that Dallas is not on the East Coast while the Carolinas are. (Don’t tell me that a twice-yearly game between a Washington team and a Carolina team wouldn’t develop into a juicy rivalry).

Transition to a more cooperative ownership system occurs on a team-by-team basis or occurs all at once as the result of a labor dispute. Just suggesting it has an impact on relations between owners and teams. One place to start might be in the Washington area, where two groups are bidding for relocation of a baseball team from Montreal. Perhaps the structures I have outlined here are useful to any relocated team, assuring the municipality, the owners and the stadium personnel have the say in the team that they so richly deserve. Adoption of employee ownership by any team, or by an entire sport, is a powerful culture statement that the day of the plutocratic owner has ended and a new era of employee-ownership has arrived. A similar impact occurs if adopted in the entertainment industry.

Employee-owned Entertainment
For every star in the entertainment industry, there are many who do not make it, due to lack of talent, training or opportunity. The purpose of increasing equality in the entertainment industry is not to make everyone a star, or even to diminish the awards that stars get. It is to improve the opportunities of those who are trying to make it and to guarantee that everyone’s contribution is awarded justly, from talent to craft. It always saddens me when I hear stories of some platinum album holding musical group from the fifties, or even today, who unknowingly signed away their ownership to some producer, manager or record label. Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks had it right when they created United Artists. It is too bad that they were so far ahead of their time.

When I first got involved in the D.C. statehood movement prior to the 30th Anniversary March on Washington, I met Faith Dane and Jude Crannitch. They were, and still are, pushing her Stars War idea to expand funding for arts education through tithing artists’ foundations and matching these tithes with government funds, bringing back the spirit of the WPA Arts and Theater Project of 1935. I don’t agree with all the details of the plan, but their concept is sound.

Instead of taxing artist foundations to expand arts education and apprenticeship, I propose a Business Income Tax credit to provide for entertainment industry funding of arts education and apprenticeship. This is similar to the credit provided to other industries for the education of their employees, although the credit for the arts includes more broad based education, as well as direct support of up and coming talent. These increased funds provide an avenue for young artists to hone their craft without making sacrifices or compromises that their mothers do not approve of.

The ownership of entertainment companies is also an area where Cooperativism provides a useful solution to the problem of inequality. Art and craft unions invest a portion of their pension funds in the acquisition of the stock of entertainment companies. Also, if personal retirement accounts are enacted as part of Social Security reform, entertainment workers are able to invest a part of their accounts into the stock of the record label or studio where they have a contract or have worked during the prior quarter. Each employee, whether a star or a grip, invests the same employer contribution in these funds. Over time, their employees slowly but surely control the big entertainment conglomerates and greater equality naturally results.

More broad-based ownership results in more equitable contracts for young talent and even leads to the righting of old wrongs that have not yet been redressed. Stars still make big money for bringing in the fans, although that money comes as a percentage of the grosses rather than as an up-front payment. There is also a bit more sharing of money and credit among cast and crew in an employee-owned Hollywood. Like professional sports, employee-ownership in the entertainment industry shows that the concept has truly arrived.