Neighbors United for DC Statehood

Over the last several months the Neighbors for Statehood group has been speaking to civic and citizen associations around Ward 5 and around the city to recruit more people to join the statehood movement. While most people cannot take off work to attend meetings on the Hill having local civic or citizen association adopt pro-statehood resolutions is one way that those of us who attend meeting can say, yes, this is an issue that our neighbors care about. Last year ANC 3F adopted a pro-statehood resolution and below is an updated and amended version of that resolution. To date from our recent Ward 5 outreach efforts the Bates Street Civic Association, the Bloomingdale Civic Association, and most recently the Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association have adopted pro-statehood resolutions.

The resolution is nothing more than a statement of facts with a line at the end demanding statehood which is nothing controversial but having civic groups adopt it helps us make the case on the Hill that this is in fact what the people of the District want and desire. Now, because of these resolutions, when we attend meetings on the Hill we can speak on behalf of not just ourselves, our families, and our group members but we also say that we’re speaking up on behalf of those groups who have adopted pro-statehood resolutions.

We need more civic groups adopting these resolutions so please consider attending your next civic or citizen association meeting and asking them to adopt the following resolution (DCStatehoodResolution) that others have already approved:

D.C. STATEHOOD RESOLUTION

Whereas, the District of Columbia is the only political and geographical entity within the United States of America whose citizens bear the responsibilities of citizenship, including taxation and Selective Service registration, without sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship; and

Whereas, over 192,000 citizens of the District have fought in our armed forces in service to our nation in every war and foreign conflict; and

Whereas, in Fiscal Year 2012, District residents and businesses paid $20.7 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita; and

Whereas, the District balanced its budget every year since Fiscal Year 1997; and

Whereas, the Congress has recklessly fomented repeated fiscal crises, and a federal government shutdown would force the government of the District to close despite having a balanced budget; and

Whereas, the Congress and the President have restricted the District from spending local tax dollars as our Council and Mayor have directed; and

Whereas, the District government receives less federal funds as a percentage of its budget than Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, and North Dakota; and is on par with Alabama, Montana, Vermont, and West Virginia; and eight states receive as much or more aid than the District; and

Whereas, the continuous intrusions of the United States Congress into the local municipal affairs of the District are affronts to a republican and federal form of government that occur nowhere else in the country; and

Whereas, the Congress has final approval on all District laws, unlike any other jurisdiction in the country; and

Whereas, District residents are subject to all of the laws of the United States, as well as treaties made with foreign governments, without ever having consented through Congressional representation to such laws; and

Whereas, the District has a population of more than 632,000 people, which is a larger population than Wyoming and Vermont; and

Whereas, the District has a larger population than most states when they joined the United States, which needed only 60,000 people under the Enabling Act of 1802; and

Whereas, the Congress has bartered our freedoms and constrained our liberty through numerous appropriations bills, riders, and like instruments; and

Whereas, the Congress can repeal the Home Rule Act of 1973 and our limited self-governance, but cannot redefine or repeal Statehood; and

Whereas, in the only public referendum on the issue, the majority of District residents voted overwhelmingly in 1980 in favor of Statehood; and

Whereas, Statehood is the only way to guarantee the citizens of the District our irrevocable and inalienable right to full citizenship;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the XXX Citizens/Civic Association demands Statehood for the residential and commercial portions of the District of Columbia, in order that our second-class citizen status be permanently abolished.

Approved at a regularly scheduled meeting on ___________, 2013.

_______________________________________

Name

President, XXX Citizens/Civic Association

On May 15^th, 2013, Puerto Rico’s Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives Pedro Peurluisi, offered a bill which would bring about a referendum for Puerto Ricans to vote on whether they want to become a state in the union or not. If the will of the people reflected through the ballot, expresses a majority’s desire for statehood Puerto Rico would then petition Congress for admission to the union. District of Columbia is presently one step ahead of Puerto Rico by requesting admission to the union as a state. Both territories face significant challenges but both also have tremendous opportunities to seize the moment and press forward to make a real push for statehood in the coming years. Citizens of both territories have acknowledged that their current status is not the end they seek but the paths ahead for both have some similarities but many stark differences and challenges. Below is an assessment of the key challenges and players in the push for each in the statehood movement.

• The People: The citizens of the District voted for statehood and approved a state Constitution back in the 1980s. The referendum was a long time ago but when polled residents both in the District and around the country support the components of statehood, equal congressional representation and budget autonomy. While the majority of voters in Puerto Rico voted last year that they didn’t like the country’s current political status it was a multi-step vote that did result in the majority of voters saying they wanted statehood as the alternative but aspects of the vote made the results a bit unclear. The Huffington Post had a good piece on why the vote was not as conclusive as it may appear. Thus the people of Puerto Rico have yet to make a clear pro-statehood statement the way the citizens of the District have.
• Taxes: The District is simply treated unfairly. District citizens pay federal taxes and have no meaningful congressional representation. The people of Puerto Rico do NOT pay federal taxes. In a country founded by a rebel against a system of taxation without representation the District has a more compelling case to become a state now and it’s long overdue.
• The Constitution: Yes, we are a constitutional democracy and enshrined in the constitution (Article I Section 8) is language authorizing Congress to create and oversee a federal district. This point is what many mistakenly use to oppose statehood for the District. It is a barrier but it’s also a misunderstood issue, the District can be shrunk in size as it was in 1847 (NewColumbia_StateMap1), and then the current residential and commercial portions can become the state. The constitution is silent on Puerto Rico which makes it easier for Puerto Rico because the constitution was also silent on every other admitted state so their path would be a similar path to the 37 other states added after the constitution was ratified.
• Congress: Congress has the constitutional right to legislate in the District but since Home Rule in 1974 Congress has only intermittently meddled/legislated for the District. Often members of Congress who have serious cases of “Governor envy” want to act as executives and impose their pet projects on the District without the people of the District or our elected leaders having a say in the matter. Many in Congress will simply not want to give up the right to score cheap political points (looking at you Trent Franks) back home by picking on a defenseless unrepresented territory. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, has been free to govern itself and operate in a fairly autonomous manner and thus Congress doesn’t have the same paternalistic instincts toward Puerto Rico that it has towards the District.
• The President: When it comes to the current President the District should be disappointed in his leadership related to our equality. He used the District as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations, has yet uttered a word about statehood (yes, he’s said we deserve representation but that’s not statehood), and after 4 years our leadership praise him for changing his license plates but that is token support at best. As for Puerto Rico, President Obama has said he’d stand with the decision of the people of Puerto Rico if they want statehood and is even willing to fund a referendum ($2.5 million dollars) to get clarity on what the people of Puerto Rico want. While the President plays only a small role constitutionally in admitting states, politically Presidents play a big role and this President has stood up stronger for the will of the people of Puerto Rico than for the will of the people across the street from his house.
• Party Politics: The District is heavily Democratic (ironically not very democratic) which makes Republican members of Congress hesitate to support anything that would potentially add two Democratic Senators. This mindset is a horrible distortion of what representative democracy should be all about but yes, our democracy has been corrupted in other ways too. Puerto Rico, however, has two main parties that both have strong support and the electorate goes back and forth between the two parties. This makes partisan focused members of Congress willing to take a chance on Puerto Rico. The Republicans think they might get allies and so do the Democrats. It shouldn’t be this way because expanding equality should be about the rights of a free people not their party affiliation.
• Local Leadership: When Puerto Rico’s Delegate to Congress offered his bill to push for an up or down referendum on statehood Puerto Rico sent 50 people to Capitol Hill to lobby for support on the bill. When Delegate Norton offered her statehood bill there was hardly a peep among the elected leadership in this town. While citizens have been knocking on doors in both the House and the Senate the elected leaders on the Council have done nothing to push for statehood and yet the Capitol is a 20 minute walk from the Wilson Building. Puerto Rican leadership is better organized and seemingly more committed to the issue even with a divided electorate on the issue. The District’s leadership gives good speeches but does zero ground work to push the bill. The Mayor and Council should learn more about how to organize from Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico, should its citizens want statehood, would be a great partner for the District in the push for statehood. Historically, Congress has admitted pairs or groups of states into the Union at the same time so Puerto Rico could be our statehood buddy. To loosely assess the strengths and weaknesses of the components listed above the District has an advantage in our justification for becoming a state because we’re taxed federally without representation and because our citizens have given a clear signal that statehood is the end we seek. However, in the twisted political world we live in Puerto Rico might have fewer hurdles with Congress and the President in the push for statehood and their leadership seems more intent and methodical in pushing this issue forward. We can and should learn from each other and work together because ultimately for those of us who want statehood our goal is not special treatment, our goal is equal treatment and that’s quite American.

Josh Burch

Brookland, DC

On Saturday, May 18th, at 3pm Neighbors for Statehood will have our May meeting in Ward 5 at San Antonio Bar & Grill (3908 12th St. NE). At this month’s meeting we have a lot to discuss including:

• Recapping our April 16th lobby day;
• Planning for the potential of a Senate hearing on statehood;
• Learning about upcoming statehood events around the city;
• Discussing the Statehood Advocacy bill before the Council;
• Compiling questions we want answered for our June meeting’s discussion on the history of the statehood movement;
• And (hopefully) a discussion on how to link the statehood movement with the local and national arts community.

All are welcome and we hope you’ll share your ideas and insight to help expand and enhance the statehood movement.

For questions about our group or the meeting please email us at unitedforstatehood@gmail.com

Thanks,

Josh Burch

Brookland, DC

In an effort to reach every Senate office in the 113th Congress to educate them both on the New Columbia Admission Act and why we want it as citizens we’ve be reaching out to friend and foe alike. To date we’ve met with 43 Senate offices and have a few more meetings scheduled in the coming weeks but earlier today I got the below email from the legislative director from a Senate Democratic office. I’m keeping the staffer and the Senator’s names private but I think the email albeit brief is a bit troubling because of the denial to even meet with us.

First, here’s the email from the staffer:

Joshua,

We will not be meeting with you. We prioritize meetings with constituents. You are welcome to send any materials you wish for us to review. As you should know, the Senator has been supportive of DC voting rights and other DC issues.

Thank you for your passion for this issue and your advocacy. As a DC resident myself, I appreciate your efforts, but also appreciate your respecting that we will not be scheduling a meeting.

And here’s my response to the staffer with names removed for privacy:

Dear YYY,

Attached are documents for your review. As you know, Senator Carper is the lead sponsor on the statehood bill and intends to hold a hearing on the bill this year, according to his staff, thus it is an issue that Senator XXX will have to weigh in on. While I understand the need and desire to prioritize meetings with her/his constituents not meeting with District residents on this issue is disappointing. I wish there weren’t a Committee in the Senate that had oversight over us but there is and Senator XXX sits on it. In many ways, s/he has more authority over our local laws than the mayor and Council but thankfully doesn’t not use her/his position to micromanage the District, yet therein lies a responsibility based on her/his committee assignment. District citizens are the ones, as you know, directly affected by this issue and I think we deserve the right and the opportunity to be heard on the Hill. We’ve waited for too long for the people of the 50 states to speak up for us and it’s time we both speak up for ourselves and be given the opportunity to be heard.

Thankfully, this year we’ve had meetings with 43 Senate offices from across the political
spectrum from Senator Sanders to Senator Paul’s. I appreciate their willing to engage us in the conversation about statehood so that they have an understanding of what District citizens want whether they agree with us or not.

I hope that if Senator Carper does push this bill forward to a hearing that at that time Senator XXX and/or the appropriate staff member would be willing to at listen to why we believe in the statehood bill.

Thank you for getting back to me and I hope that the Senator continues to stand with the
citizens of the District.

Keep well,

Josh Burch
Brookland, DC

While it’s great to have Senators and staff who have supported is in the past we will be facing a large uphill climb if they are unwilling to meet with us on the statehood bill. The only way to change this is to have more District citizens contact Senate offices and increase pressure on them so that they all, friend and foe alike, feel compelled to meet with us. If they won’t hear us out how can we expect them to stand with us and up for us when it counts. The reality is for 212 years Senators and their staff have been allowed by District citizens to ignore us and its time for an organized and active citizenry to put an end to it.

To join our effort to increase pressure on Congress contact us at unitedforstatehood@gmail.com

Josh Burch

Ward 5

The Honorable Mike Lee,

I saw earlier today that you once again offered a bill to ban certain forms of abortion in the District of Columbia. While I understand this is an issue of deep moral importance to you I wanted to use the introduction of this piece of legislation to engage you and your staff in a conversation about an issue of deep moral importance to me, my family, and my neighbors. To me, it’s of great moral importance that my wife and I have representation in our national legislature, that we have an autonomous local government, and that our daughter is treated fairly and equal with everyone else in the country. Today, across the street where you work are 632,000 tax paying citizens living lives within a system counter to the principles of the American Revolution.

I don’t dispute that the Constitution gives Congress control over legislation within the boundaries of the District of Columbia but the real question is, should it? Should Congress impose laws on Americans who had no role in electing them to office? Over two hundred years ago our founders never imagined a thriving city of 632,000 people would live here. Their image was of a capital city where legislators came for a few months a year and then went back to their states for most of the year. As our democracy has grown and evolved we expanded the right to vote to non-land owning white men, African-American men, women, those over 18, and to all of the people who lived in the territories that became states, yet still my family and I who live in the shadows of the Capitol are denied representation in it. I believe that it’s time for Congress to once again take up the moral cause of statehood by adding the 51^st state to the union.

Earlier this Congress, Senator Tom Carper introduced the New Columbia Admission Act (S. 132) which would admit the residential and commercial portions of the District as the 51^st state in the Union. The bill, in order to pass a constitutional muster, would keep a small federal district that includes the White House, U.S. Capitol, the Mall, federal buildings around the Mall, and a few military bases. The Constitution calls for a federal district but only sets an upper limit to its size thus the bill, similar to when Arlington and Alexandria were ceded back to Virginia, once again would shrink the size of the federal district.

Given your belief in fiscal responsibility (we’ve balanced 15 budgets in a row), a limited federal government, and local control over local affairs I think the statehood bill is something in line with your core beliefs and thus something that you should support. I know that you have a deep moral opposition to abortion and probably oppose other laws created by the District government but at the same time democracy at its core is letting citizens elect people to make policy for them. We can elect our Council, we can elect our Mayor, but we cannot elect voting members in Congress and there is something completely un-American about how America treats the citizens of its capital.

I hope that you or the appropriate member of your staff will be able to make time to meet with me to discuss S. 132, the New Columbia Admission Act. We might not believe in many of the same national policies but we both believe in fairness and in democracy and at its core the statehood bill is about fairness and democracy.

I work close to the Hill and can adjust my schedule as needed should you or the appropriate staff member have time to meet with me about the statehood bill.

Many thanks,

Josh Burch

Brookland, DC

While several months old, I believe it’s worth posting Senator Carper’s statement from the Congressional Record when he introduced the New Columbia Admission Act. This statement and words and assurances by Senator Carper’s staff demonstrate that we have a true ally for full democracy and statehood in the Senate.

“Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the New Columbia Admissions Act, a bill that seeks to end a longstanding injustice and give full voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia. More than 600,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. and bear all the responsibilities of citizenship, yet currently have no vote in either chamber of Congress. This legislation paves the way for the creation of a 51st state from the populated portions of Washington, D.C., giving the citizens who live here in our nation’s capital the voice they deserve in our national government.

   Washington is not just a collection of government offices, monuments and museums; it is home to more than half a million people who work, study, raise families, and start businesses. These citizens serve in the military and die for our country just like the residents of the 50 States. They pay Federal taxes just like other Americans in fact they pay more per capita than residents of most states. But when it comes to having a voice in our Congress, suddenly these citizens do not count.

   We must ask ourselves how we would feel in their place; I think most of us would quickly decide that this is not how we would want to be treated. In fact, the United States is the only democracy in the world that treats the citizens of its capital city this way. We are the only democracy, it is sad to say, that denies voting representation to the people who live in its capital city.

   People have been trying to fix this injustice for almost as long as it has existed. In 1801, just one year after residents of the new Federal capital city were denied the vote, a prominent city resident began arguing for a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to residents of the District. Two years later, a House member introduced a bill to “retrocede,” or give back to Maryland and Virginia, the land that was ceded to create the District. Support for the proposal was based in large part on the political injustice of denying representation to the residents of the capital city. Even some opponents reportedly argued that the District might be granted Congressional representation once its population became more substantial, a threshold that clearly seems to have been met by a city of more than half a million people, a number comparable to several states. In 1978, the House and Senate approved a constitutional amendment to give the District full voting representation in Congress that was ratified by 16 states, but the measure died when it failed to win support from the required 3/4 of the States within 7 years. More recently, in 2009, the Senate approved a bill to give the District a voting representative in the House.

   The bill I am introducing today creates a path for the District of Columbia to become the State of “New Columbia” with full voting rights in Congress. Under this bill, a federal district called Washington, D.C. would still remain under the control of Congress, as the Constitution mandates. But it would be a smaller area encompassing the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the National Mall, an area where few people actually live. The rest of the current District of Columbia, diverse neighborhoods that are home to more than half a million U.S. citizens no different from the ones you and I and our colleagues come here to represent would become a new State provided that its residents vote to set that in motion.

   The bill is similar to proposals offered by Senator Edward Kennedy in the early 1990s, and by my former colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman in December 2012. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s sole, non-voting representative in the House who has worked tirelessly for voting rights for the residents of the city, has introduced a companion House bill.

   I believe we keep proposing and debating different solutions to the injustice imposed on District residents because we know in our hearts that the situation we have now and have tolerated for so long is not right. It is familiar, but it is not fair and not consistent with the values we all share as Americans. It is incumbent upon those of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights to take up the cause of our fellow citizens here in the District of Columbia and find a solution.

   Earlier this week, we celebrated the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy of working to bring equality and justice to all Americans. It is in that spirit that I introduce this bill, with my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin and Patty Murray. I hope we can work together to find a way to bring the same rights to the residents of the District of Columbia that all of us living in the 50 states cherish so much.”

The bill was introduced with Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Murray as original cosponsors and since then Senators Gillibrand, Cardin, Mikulski, and Harkin have been added. Senator Sanders has expressed his intent to cosponsor the bill as well. Including the offices listed above Neighbors United for DC Statehood has met with 43 Senate offices consisting of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to push for more cosponsors on the statehood bill. Senator Carper’s long history of being a consensus builder makes him the perfect fit to lead the fight for statehood in the Senate.

We need more people helping us to advocate for this bill in the District, around the country, and on the Hill. To join us please email us at unitedforstatehood@gmail.com

Josh Burch

Ward 5, DC

Since 1993, when the last statehood bill for residential and commercial portions of the Districts people like me who are statehood advocates have been met with eye rolls and been dismissed by voting rights groups as dreamers, idealists, absolutists, irrational because of our commitment to the only bill that will make us equal citizens. At a community event one time a staffer from a prominent DC Voting Rights group even said to me in a very condescending way “you just don’t understand how things work” when explaining to me that her organization’s incremental approach was better. And while some call us dreamers, idealists, and absolutists in a derogatory manner those terms should be looked at and treated as compliments. It is time however to add another term to the litany of words used to describe statehood activists and that is “pragmatists.” For twenty years we’ve been marginalized by folks who talk big about statehood in front of cameras, funders, and voters but who never step foot in the Halls of Congress to push statehood, yet in spite of them statehood is still the issue that comes back to the forefront because it is our ultimate goal and has the most support in Congress.

In 2013, statehood activists thanks to decades of hard work all of a sudden are not only the absolutists and dreamers but we’re also now the pragmatists in the “DC Voting Rights” community. In 2012, at the end of the 112^th Congress for the first time since 1993 there was both a statehood bill in the House and the Senate. In 2013, in the 113^th Congress, there is now once again both a statehood bill in the House (HR 292) and the Senate (S 132). These bills slowly but surely continue to add cosponsors thanks to the hard and not so glamorous work of citizen activists who have been meeting with House and Senate offices to advocate for the statehood bills. The New Columbia Admission Act is the ONLY piece of legislation of the list of DC Voting Rights bills that is before both Houses of Congress thus making it the most practical bill to pass, if any.

There will be no Senate hearings about one vote in the House because that bill doesn’t exist in the Senate (and is constitutionally questionable). There will be no Senate hearing about a bill to give us two Senators and one vote in the House because that bill doesn’t exist in the Senate (and is constitutionally questionable). There will be no nearing on a constitutional amendment because no one has offered that either. The New Columbia Admission Act is what we have before the Senate and the House and it is sponsored by a widely respected Senator by both parties, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), who also happens to be the chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The statehood bill while still highly unlikely to get passed in this Congress is probably the only bill that we’ll at least get a hearing on this Congress and is thus the bill for District citizens to concentrate their efforts and energy on.

The statehood bill has a sound constitutional backing given that the bill would still maintain a small federal District (NewColumbia_StateMap1) and replicates history when Congress shrunk the size of the District in 1846/7 when it ceded land back to Virginia. And while we are grateful to our kindred spirits and neighbors in Hawaii who have passed legislation to call for a constitutional amendment to get us full voting rights the process for a constitutional amendment is much harder than for statehood. For statehood both Houses of Congress pass the bill by a simple majority (yes, I know about filibusters) then the President signs the bill into law. For a constitutional amendment to pass it would need 2/3 of each House of Congress to vote for it and then need to be ratified by ¾ of the states which is a much higher bar than the statehood bill. The one other key component about statehood that no other piece of legislation or constitutional amendment has is that there is no way to revoke statehood. Laws can be rescinded and constitutional amendments can be repealed but statehood is permanent. Doesn’t that sound pragmatic?

As leaders and citizens around the District look at our future it’s time to leave the past twenty years of incrementalism in the past and focus on the present. The statehood bill, while still a long shot, is the only bill before both Houses of Congress. The statehood bill is the only bill that would make us full and equal citizens. The statehood bill is the only bill that might be able to rally support from both the far left and the far right due to its constitutionality and call to fairness. And the statehood bill is the only permanent piece of legislation among the suite of DC Voting Rights bills. So as we move forward to continue our lobby efforts in Congress and to educate the nation about what we want isn’t it time that we all rally around the only bill that makes us full and equal citizens? It’s long past time that we coalesce around something that unites us as dreamers, idealists, absolutists, and yes, as pragmatists and that something is called statehood.

Josh Burch

Brookland

We’re meeting with staff on the Hill on a regular basis and are happy to come speak to civic groups about our work to push and promote the statehood cause. For more information email us at unitedforstatehood@gmail.com

Representative John Mica (R-Fl.) on Thursday, April 25, 2013, when asked about District budget autonomy compared the District to his children who when they “were young, teenagers, they always wanted budget autonomy, too.” He went on to say that when needed Congress should step in to keep us in check when necessary. Clearly, ignorance and paternalism is alive and well and while the paternalism is offensive it’s his ignorance which is dangerous. Such a short statement had a few inaccuracies that should be addressed:

1. The District isn’t young.  Established in 1801, the District is now 212 years old and we’ve had Home Rule since 1974. We’re not children and we’re not perfect, we’ve made mistakes and had some bad times, but overall our financial management record especially over the last 14 years makes Congress look like a joke.
2. Children his, mine, yours should be encouraged to be economically self-sufficient and dare I say autonomous. It’s actually how you build a sense of value and responsibility for sound financial management. Congress could not only learn from the financial management of the District but that of many smart and intelligent children who know the basics about only spending the money you have or spending that which you can reasonably borrow and payback. Congress does neither.
3. The hypocrisy of a member of Congress lecturing the District on financial management is galling. Right now the Federal Debt is at $16 Trillion and the annual Budget Deficit is at $1 Trillion. On the flip side the District continues to have budget surpluses with a $400 million surplus for Fiscal Year 2012. How about them apples, Mr. Big Shot Congressman?
4. This ‘conservative’ believes in local control over local affairs only when it suits his needs. In short, his principles are selective and malleable which isn’t much of an admirable trait.

Mr. Mica does have a technical point which is true that Congress ultimately (presently) has constitutional authority to control the District. But just because Congress has that authority doesn’t mean they should use it especially when the District has repeatedly made the financial management of Congress look like a joke. It might be good for the Congressman to rethink his statement toward the District, it was patronizing, inaccurate, and hypocritical. It’s time that he and other realize that ‘kids’ in the District are people too who just want to be treated equally not because we’re special but because we’re the same.

Congressman Mica should reconsider his words, apologize to the District, and then repent by cosponsoring H.R. 292 the New Columbia Admission Act (worth a shot J). HR 292 is the only bill where he and other conservatives can be ideologically pure with respect to their principles of and that of the Constitution, so instead of belittling us, support us, and join with us. The ‘kids’ of the District are alright!

It’s simple, this is what democracy is all about, the freedom and ability to vote for who you so choose to serve out a term on the District Council. On April 23, 2013, District citizens have the opportunity and I dare say the obligation to vote for a new Council member and on the budget autonomy referendum. This is not an endorsement of a candidate rather of the process because at the core of the push for Statehood is the basic yearning to have something meaningful to vote for, to have the full rights as our neighbors to take a few minutes out of our day to select those that we think could best lead our government.

If you want to know why voting for Council is important just look to recent history as one reason. 1974 was the first time in the 20^th century that District citizens could vote for Council and Mayor. Yes, just 39 years ago was the first time we could for local officials since before 1874. Yep, for 100 years we were denied any ability to elect any local officials so we shouldn’t take the opportunity for granted. Strangely, we could vote for President (1964) before we could vote for Council or Mayor, but such is life in the last colony. While our local laws still undergo congressional review most laws are not overturned by Congress thus it’s important to turn out and vote for who you think is best suited to write and amend those laws.

Another important reason to vote is leverage, we need to demonstrate that we care about democracy and the best way to demonstrate that is to be active in it by voting. District voters turnout out in high numbers relative to the rest of the country in presidential election years but should replicate that in other elections as well since they all matter. Certainly, people have the right to not vote but with a field of 6 active candidates for one office voters should either be able to find the best candidate or the least worst candidate to vote for.

Turnout should be high (says the eternal optimist within me), although based on low early voting numbers and recent turnout figures for other special elections it’s more than likely that turnout will be low, quite low, depressingly low. A best guess estimate would have turnout being somewhere between 10-15% and that’s just pathetic. So, if only 10-15% of voters turnout out and there’s a field of 7 candidates on the ballot (Michael Brown is still on the ballot although he’s suspended his campaign) then someone could win with approximately 18% or so of the vote. That means out of a city of 632,000 people with 505,000 registered voters, someone could win a city wide office with roughly 9,090 votes. That means our next Council member At-Large could be elected with a “mandate” from 2% of registered voters.

Yes, this could happen and it would be pathetic (and would show how we need electoral reform preferably with open primaries with a run-off between the top two vote getters). However, this is the system we have and thus this is the system that we all must participate in to make it better. For those upset with the trajectory of our local government or those slap-happy with its transparency, openness, effectiveness (kidding of course) it’s hard to believe that only 10-15% of folks will turn out to exercise their democratic rights. We have a lot of choices so choose one but making a choice is something that 85% of eligible voters might not do and that just sucks. I firmly believe that we’re better than this so let’s show it on Tuesday.

Elections, like the push for Statehood, ultimately are decided by involvement of the people. If the vast majority of us choose to do nothing then nothing will happen. If some of us (10-15%) do something then maybe some changes will occur but if the vast majority of us take a stand, speak up, and take action then we can create the change we are seeking. Go vote on Tuesday and make your voice is heard for the direction you believe the District needs to move.

On April 23, 2013, make sure you thank those election workers as they are they unsung heroes of 200+ years of our limited democracy that keep the process open and functional for all of us.

VOTE!!!

To find out more where to vote and all other things related to DC elections go to www.dcboee.org

Josh Burch

Brookland, DC

On April 18, 2013, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin signed on to the New Columbia Admission Act (DC Statehood bill) effectively driving the final nail into the coffin to the idea of retrocession. Over the last two years at dozens of meetings on the Hill, in conversations with friends and at community meetings the idea of retrocession back to Maryland is often brought up as an alternative to statehood. Today, however, with the two Senators from the state of Maryland having signed on as cosponsors to the statehood bill the rhetoric about retrocession should begin to quietly fade away. Retrocession is not practical, neither entity wants it, and it’s logistically more complicated than statehood. It is worth rehashing why people seem to keep bringing up the idea of retrocession and why it is a bad idea.

First, people look to the fact that Arlington and Alexandria were ceded back to Virginia in 1847 as the logic behind why portions of the current District should be ceded back to Maryland. It’s just not that simple. First, Arlington and Alexandria wanted to go back to Virginia because they feared the end of slavery was coming in the District. Second, many residents of Alexandria and Arlington had been Virginia residents prior to 1801 so they were still Virginians in body, mind, and spirit. These days while there are many things that bond the District with Maryland we are still distinctly different entities in our political ethos. Retroceding back to Maryland just doesn’t make sense from a social, political, economic, or cultural point of view. We’re just two distinctly different entities and that’s okay.

Second, retroceding back to Maryland usually sounds best to “national” Republicans because essentially what they’d like to prevent is two new Senators from New Columbia who at least initially would probably be Democrats. Aside from being a shameful tactic to pin citizenship rights to party registration the big flaw with retrocession is not just that the District doesn’t want to join Maryland it’s that Maryland doesn’t want the District. We’d completely destroy Maryland’s traditional political power bases and structures, and not surprisingly politicians are selfish and adding 632,000 voters to Maryland could really take away the power structure now centered around Baltimore and Annapolis. Maryland having to accept us also makes statehood more complicated because it’s one more step than with statehood. With statehood Congress and the President have to okay it and we move forward with retrocession Maryland would also have to accept us, and they don’t want us.

So the fact that in 2012 the Prince Georges County Council unanimously passed a resolution in support of DC Statehood, plus the fact that Governor O’Malley in his state of the state address referred to his friends from “New Columbia” were evidence enough that Maryland didn’t want us but today is the nail in the coffin. We owe Senators Mikulski and Cardin a big ‘thank you’ for standing up for what’s right (and yes, they both have supported statehood in the past too), for standing up for their neighbors, and for saying that statehood is really the only viable constitutional option remaining for citizens of the District to become full and equal citizens. This issue is simple as we don’t want them and they don’t want us, we love them and they love us, and with that, let’s end the silly talk about retrocession.

Josh Burch