..:.:: the indie roots weblog ::.:..

Deputy assistant attourney general John P. Elwood offered testimony on the constitutionality of the DC voting rights bill on Wednesday, reiterating the naysaying position struck by Bush’s advisors:

In his testimony, Elwood repeated the Bush administration’s contention that the bill violates the constitutional requirement that House representatives come from states. In addition, he said, “the framers and their contemporaries clearly understood that the Constitution barred congressional representation for District residents.”

For decades, Elwood said, Congress and the executive branch had said that the District could get voting representation in Congress only through a constitutional amendment or by becoming part of Maryland.

Senator Feingold (D-Wisconsin) pointed out that the Justice Department should be “vigorously committing” to defend the bill if it is passed, though it didn’t seem to be their intent in this case. And fair enough, as the framers definitely knew they were doing a great injustice by leaving District representation out of the Constitution, it could be interpreted that an amendment or retrocession would be required. Testimony was offered on behalf both persuasions, for those of the “several states” bent and those of the “all cases whatsoever” stylee. And while Elwood declined to forecast what the department would do, he did offer the best soundbyte of the day.

“We’re law nerds,” he said, explaining that his job is not analysis, but policy.

The real shock of the article is the last sentence, “Supporters are attempting to round up 60 senators’ votes to head off a possible filibuster by Republicans.”

Wow, a filibuster? On the grounds that the minority party should interpret issues of constitutionality? If that’s not a partisan giveaway, I don’t know what is.

Link to Washington Post article by Mary Beth Sheridan.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s non-voting member of Congress, introduced two bills this week. With Rep. Tom Davis, she reintroduced the DC Voting Rights Act, giving another go at a compromise on one rep for DC and another for Utah.

The buzz is that the new Democratic-controlled House will pass this one quickly, as even Republicans urged the passing of it last year. That would tee it up for the Senate by late Spring.

But on an issue with more “currency”, Norton has reintroduced a bill that has passed the House four times, only to be defeated in the Senate: getting the District it’s very own commemorative quarter.

I’m feeling a 25¢ piece with the DC flag on it, yeah? Perhaps an online design submission process is brewing…

Former chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party Paul Goldman has a bold new strategy to attain DC voting rights, and it’s crazy political. After calling hypocrisy on the founding fathers’ use of “taxation without representation”, he proposes eliminating any taxes for the residents of DC.

… which I like …

His strategy then uses elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax as a fulcrum to turn Republicans into the plot. Tit for tat, as they say; this trillion-dollar carrot could be the right bait, for as of late the tax-cut and spend GOP has championed creative ways to drive up the national debt. Would they trade a DC voting Amendment for abolishing the AMT?

It’s definitely a creative solution, and if anything it points to more outside-the-box thinking on the issue. Which is good.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/
2007/01/another_approach_to_dc_voting.html

This dense, but informative gem comes to us from a well known but not so accepted co-author, Ken Starr, as well as Patricia Wald. While Starr earned mixed reviews for his work in the Clinton investigation, his Washington Post article here presents some interesting angles on the constitutionality of DC suffrage. Namely, he breaks it down to the central question of whether Congress has the power to grant DC voting rights, or rather would there need to be a Constitutional Amendment. This is meat and potatoes kind of stuff for those budding attorneys out there. Enjoy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500935.html