The D.C. City Council launched the issue of D.C. home rule into the national debate this week. On Tuesday, the council voted unanimously to move the District’s presidential primary to Jan. 13, 2004, positioning it as the first primary of the election season. The move, council members hope, will highlight the city’s fight for home rule and congressional voting rights.
As it stands now, the only representation for the District is one voteless delegate to Congress. And since Congress has control over the city’s budget, many folks find this to be quite absurd—undemocratic, even.
But the council is already fighting opposition to the primary’s new date. The Democratic National Committee opposes the move and threatens to take away 30 of the District’s 38 delegates to the 2004 National Convention if the council does not change its mind.
Regardless of what the DNC thinks, the council’s move makes sense for the District; it needs to direct the nation’s attention to D.C. and milk it for all it’s worth. The council members know that the only way the city will gain the right to rule and properly represent itself is if Congress says it can. They also know that it’s doubtful that a heavily Republican congress will grant new congressional votes to a heavily Democratic area. The city’s only hope is constituents from across the country pressuring Congress to make the change. But, as it stands now, most Americans are unaware of, unconcerned with or apathetic towards D.C. home rule and voting rights.
Case in point: I recently told a friend from Michigan that I am a little reluctant to establish residency in the District since I will have to give up my vote for congressional representatives. “What?” he exclaimed. “What do you mean, give up your vote?”
Surprise, surprise—a kid in Michigan doesn’t know about the state of the District’s powerlessness. I wouldn’t be surprised if most kids at Georgetown don’t know about the District’s powerlessness.
After briefly explaining that D.C. license plates don’t say “No Taxation Without Representation” for nothing, my friend exclaimed, “But … but that’s un-American!” He’s not the first person to realize this and, if the city council gets its way, he won’t be the last.
Epiphanies like this will occur across the country come Jan. 2004 if, during the primary debates, between questions about national security and the faltering economy, questions about the District’s representation arise.
I can imagine it now: “Gov. Dean, seeing that we just fought a war in Iraq to secure democracy for the Iraqi people, how do you feel about the fact that citizens of the District of Columbia-citizens of the United States, no less-have no vote in Congress?”
“What? That’s … un-American!”
