..:.:: 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.

The Post’s Express edition has a good summary of the kind of treatment our bill is receiving in the Senate. It seems the right people are getting on board, and an exhaustive outline of the bill’s constitutionality has been laid before this chamber. In addition, the great photo of Congresswoman Norton and Mayor Fenty makes us feel happy about our prospects.

Read:Utah Seat Reworked in Amended D.C. Vote Bill
(readexpress.com via DCist)

On Tuesday Senators Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, and Joe Lieberman introduced a DC voting rights bill on their half of the Hill. Notably, the sponsoring team consists of two Republicans and an Independent candidate, representative of a non-partisan issue. Given, the two Republicans are both Utah Senators who stand to help their home state through the bill, and the other is an ex-Dem. But we digress. The polls show broad public support for DC voting rights, and this bill reflects that.

One of the improvements on the House’s bill is to allow Utah to redistrict itself for an additional representative, an important development which eliminates one criticism of HR 1905: that giving the entire state a vote for an at-large seat is unconstitutional because it gives each citizen of Utah two representatives. The opportunity to fine-tune this bill is huge for the proposal, and the Senate leadership on this issue seems to be taking it on seriously. That bodes well for the final look of the bill, it’s passage and the repercussions of a presidential veto — which was threatened by White House advisors, not by the president.

Cheers to Shadow Rep Mike Panetta for putting together an elegant, simple tool to contact lawmakers regarding DC voting rights. The site freeandequaldc.com allows anyone to send their support for DC direct to their own lawmakers using their postal code. Getting the word back to DC has never been easier — now we need to get the word out to the states to let people know about it. We need something to do that… like an internet, or coast-to-coast tour of indie rock bands, or something!