PLEASE FORWARD, LIBERALLY

Frustration at the top, energy from below.  I've been doing these e-mail newsletters since 2003 when it was limited to the Draft Clark Campaign.  This is the biggest one ever, even without factoring in presidential campaigns (and I'm open to listing events from all of the Dem. campaigns if I get plenty of lead time).  It's interesting that despite the stagnation about stopping the war in Congress, there a rising tide of energy for change at the grassroots level -- H. Park.

This week Joe Lieberman introduced S. 1257, the Senate version of the DC voting rights bill (the House version, H.R. 1905, passed last month). So far he's got seven cosponsors, and it's good to see that they include two of the Democratic presidential candidates, along with other Democrats from across the political spectrum, and the two senators from Utah (both Republican):

• Robert Bennett (R-UT)
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
• Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Barack Obama (D-IL)

As legislation to grant the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives moves on to the Senate, Republicans opposed to the measure have brought up a potential smokescreen: Instead of passing this legislation, there should be a move to enact a constitutional amendment granting the District statehood. The Hill's Kelly McCormack has the details.

But the bill's fate remains uncertain, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has hinted that there could be a filibuster on the bill. He said that he would support a constitutional amendment for statehood instead.

"This measure, if it is worth pursuing, ought to be pursued in a legal and appropriate way," McConnell said in a press conference yesterday. "And amending the Constitution is clear[ly] and unambiguously the way to do it."

It is certainly possible that McConnell is sincere in his desire for DC to attain status as a state. I'm skeptical that this is the case given that DC, which might be known as New Columbia as a state, would almost certainly send two Democrats to the Senate, potentially changing the balance of power in the chamber to make it significantly more difficult for Republicans to regain their majority. More likely, it seems to me that McConnell is holding out the potential for an amendment because it would take more votes and a greater effort than simply passing a bill through Congress.

But it is not necessarily my intention to impugn the motives of the Senate Republican Leader in this post. Instead, I'd like to take McConnell at his word. To show that he is true to his word, McConnell should immediately introduce an amendment granting DC statehood. What's more, given that McConnell would be the lead sposor and key supporter of this amendment, it would be incumbent upon him to strenuously whip his caucus to help find the votes necessary to make the change to the constitution. And even more, given that McConnell has more than $4.3 million on hand as of the end of the first quarter and his personal net worth is valued at somewhere between about $1.8 million and $4.1 million, he should commit to invest a significant amount of money -- certainly in excess of one million dollars, either from campaign or personal funds, or some combination therein -- to fund an effort to push a sufficient number of states to ratify such an amendment.

Now will McConnell actually follow through? It remains to be seen -- but I'm not holding my breath. But for more on the effort to enfranchise those who live in the District, check out FreeAndEqualDC.com, as well as the Congresspedia entry on voting rights in the District.

Update [2007-5-3 14:20:48 by Jonathan Singer]: Perhaps -- perhaps -- I'm being unfair about bringing up McConnell's personal finances. But the fact that he has a huge campaign chest still does make it possible for his to fund a robust effort backing ratification.

Calling all DC/MD/VA residents -- and anyone else who wants to come! Celebrate DC Emancipation Day, April 16th, by marching for DC Voting Rights.

The House will be considering HR 1433, the DC Voting Rights Act, as soon as they come back from recess -- the week of April 16th. The bill would give DC, the seat of Democracy, one fully voting representative in the House.

The march:

WHERE: Gather at Freedom Plaza and March to the Capitol Reflecting Pool
 Metro Stops:  For Freedom Plaza -- Metro Center or Federal Triangle
  For the Capitol Reflecting Pool -- Federal Center SW

WHEN: DC Emancipation Day, April 16, 2007
      2:30 PM--Gather at Freedom Plaza, 13th St. & Penn. Ave., NW
      4:00 PM--Rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool, 3rd St. & Independence        

More below...

With the harassing robo-calls, the threats of "show up on election day, get arrested," and so on and so forth, we saw once again in this election cycle that the Republican Party just isn't above standing between the American voter and his or her vote. While Democrats have an opportunity in this next Congress to claim the mantle of being the party that, you know, actually wants you to get in that booth and pick for your next elected official, real election reform is enormously difficult. Still, there's one pro-voting win we can put on the board right away.

First, the problem. If you're a full-time resident of Washington DC, there is no United States Senator representing you in the United States Senate; there is one "delegate" in the House who has many of the same rights as a real congressperson but cannot vote for or against legislation. When the House was considering the Iraq War Resolution, because I lived and paid taxes in DC, there wasn't a single person up on Capitol Hill who I could call to say "hey, don't do that on my behalf." No one was charged with representing my interests and those of my nearly half-million neighbors. (Don't worry about your congressman who lives in DC and only goes back to his district every six months. He still gets to vote in his home state.) If you want to get into the weeds on the issue, DC Vote has a history of how this all came to be.

There are all sorts of reasons why it's so distasteful for an American to have no representation on Capitol Hill, but I'm going to rely on the cheap gut shot. While I and my DC compatriots had no say (via proxy, of course) on whether we went to war in Iraq, three sons of the District have been killed there so far.

Amid the much-touted burgeoning democracy in Iraq, the controversial elections in New Orleans, and the excitement of this year's increasingly promising Congressional elections, a centuries-old issue has managed to be kept on the back burner and under wraps, rendering voiceless more than half a million American citizens living in the capital of the greatest democracy in the world.

Matters of constitutional rights that hinder our democratic process impact every national policy decision, from the war in Iraq to immigration reform, from healthcare to education, and from network neutrality to environmental protection. Because of their universal effect on the decisions made through our democratic process, such matters should certainly leave us trying to bring them to the forefront of national media and congressional debate; but the pointed and racially-motivated reasoning behind this particular matter should leave us nothing less than astounded and disgusted.