The central irony to living in the District of Columbia is that, while its residents are generally politically-minded and live in the epicenter of the federal government, they have very little voice in national politics. For this reason, I found myself a little jealous of people in Maryland and Virginia as they went to the polls this week to help contribute to the change taking place in Washington which - again, glaring irony right here! - is the city where I live.

Of course, DC residents know what their new voting status is going in, and nobody's forcing us to live here, so we can't exactly cry foul. But since the population of the District hovers just above that of Wyoming's and continues to grow, I really can see no reason why it shouldn't be considered the same as a state, with a voting member in the House and two voting members in the Senate. Right now, DC gets one non-voting representative in Congress, a seat currently occupied by Eleanor Holmes Norton. And while DC has a mayor and some semblance of a city government, Congress ultimately has control of the city, and has the right to intervene in that government when it sees fit, as it did recently when it decided to repeal DC's gun laws. Thanks, guys!

Thanks to a constitutional amendment passed in 1961, DC has the right to vote for President and Vice-President, but its electoral votes in that election are limited to that of the least populated state, which is currently Wyoming. So, even if the population of DC increased to that of Nevada's, giving it the theoretical right to five electoral votes, they'd still be limited by the lovely state of Wyoming, which for all its majestic land, seems to be plagued by a real lack of sexual drive among its residents. But even if Wyoming went through a sudden baby-making craze, DC would be electorally confined by the next least populated state. Vermont, maybe. Or Alaska.

A new amendment was offered in the late seventies which would have given DC the same voting rights as other states, but it was not ratified within the seven-year time limit that was set for it. But there is still hope for DC in the form of the current DC Voting Rights Act (HR 5388) (text). The bill is kind of weak, in my opinion, because it only tackles the issue of having a voting member in the House, not the Senate. But it is a realistic and palatable first step in the larger question of statehood. Also, the bill gives another voting House Rep to Utah. It has been argued that Utah was slighted in the last census review and that they deserve another Representative in Congress. But there's no doubt this is also something of a political bone to the Republicans since DC's rep would certainly be a Democrat, and an additional rep in Utah would restore balance.

Some good news on this issue came out this morning, that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is on her way to becoming the next Speaker of the House, will change the 'House rules' to allow Norton to vote on proposed changes to legislation on the House floor. Apparently this was the way the floor operated from 1993 to 1995, before Republicans took over and quickly abolished that little act of goodwill. According to the WaPo, although Pelosi supports full voting rights for DC, she doesn't support HR 5388 because of the Utah concession.

It's kind of crazy when you think about it: that over half a million American citizens don't really get a say in congress. I bet this will change soon, particularly with the new House and Senate. It just seems like one of those oversights that continues to exist because it's always been that way. Personally, I think we should all go down to the Potomac and throw something in as a protest. It probably wouldn't have too big an impact on the issue, but it would be a hell of a lot of fun.

link to this | comments (6) | File:  Politics  DC