Not Your Silver Bullet

Working as a legislative assistant, I’m most excited when issues overlap and I get to work closely with and learn from my colleagues. During the health care debate, I teamed up with Rebecca on the divisive issue concerning access to insurance for undocumented immigrants. In the fall, Liz partnered with Sam to address employment discrimination against women in Israel. Today, we face a compelling yet contentious crossover between the issue of gun control and DC voting rights.

April 16th was Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, commemorating President Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation of approximately 3,100 slaves. In his statement acknowledging this important holiday, President Obama highlighted the plight of DC residents who are denied the right to a vote in Congress and concluded, “I urge Congress to finally pass legislation that provides DC residents with voting representation and to take steps to improve the Home Rule Charter.” These are encouraging words for the Reform Movement, which has played a vital role in the struggle for voting rights for more than a half century — within the very confines of our DC office, Civil Rights leaders drafted the seminal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965!

The 2005 URJ resolution supporting DC voting rights quotes Rabbi Yitzhak in the Babylonian Talmud, who taught, “A ruler is not to be appointed until the community is first consulted” (B’rachot 55a). In the case of DC residents, that whole “consulting” piece is impaired. Though DC residents may vote for the President (this right was not granted to them until 1961 with the passage of the 23rd amendment!) and elect some local leadership, they do not have representation in the Senate and their delegate in the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, does not have a vote. Ironically, the very body in which DC residents do not have a voice, the US Congress, is granted exclusive jurisdiction over their local affairs by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Proponents of DC voting rights argue correctly that the close to 600,000 residents of the District, who fulfill all the responsibilities of citizenship by observing the rule of law, paying taxes, and serving in the armed forces, are denied their most basic right to Congressional representation. Despite more than two centuries with little progress in their fight for a legislative voice (the House and Senate approved a constitutional amendment in 1978 giving DC a House vote, but it died after failing to get ratification by three-fourths of the states), hope springs eternal.

Tension has been building up over the last few days in response to a press release published by Del. Norton on April 14th announcing that she expected the DC Voting Rights Act (H.R. 157) to reach the floor of the House of Representatives by this Thursday. On February 26, 2009, the Senate passed the DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 160) in a vote of 61-37 so a House vote is the next step toward finally passing this bill. Unfortunately for DC vote advocates, Minority Leader Steny Hoyer announced yesterday morning that lawmakers will not take up the legislation this week.

The DC Voting Rights Act, while enfranchising district residents, will come at a crippling cost if it passes in its current form. The gun lobby has unfairly hijacked the bill by refusing crucial support unless the district repeals restrictions on semiautomatic weapons, rolls back requirements for registering most guns and drops existing criminal penalties for owners of unregistered firearms. In others words, a congressional voice for DC residents means eliminating strict gun control laws.

Despite her objections to what she called the, “National Rifle Association-drafted gun bill to accompany the voting act,” Norton had decided to move forward due to a confluence of factors that make this the most opportune time to pass the bill, possibly for years to come. Strong reactions from gun control advocates, however, have now scuttled the prospects for a vote. Six of the thirteen members of the DC City Council, including the chairman, announced their opposition to any bill that would weaken gun control laws and the League of Women Voters and DC for Democracy also announced their opposition. Even more powerful, however, the families of four teenage victims of a tragic March 30th shooting in DC testified in front of the City Council and Del. Norton about their opposition to any weakening of gun control laws.

So for now it appears that the safety of DC residents from the threat of gun violence has won out over their enfranchisement in Congress. What do you think? To what extent should we be willing to compromise to secure long overdue voting rights? What price is too high? Of all the crossover issues we’ve faced this year, this is by far the most nuanced. Share your opinions by sending me an email.