Washington – The House of Representatives, in a stunning reversal, will not consider whether to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in Congress.
“The price was way too high,” explained House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., in announcing the decision Tuesday.
The House had been expected to begin a historic vote and debate on whether Washington would get a voting member of Congress. Currently, the city is represented by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can vote in committees but not on the floor.
Hoyer would not specifically say what changed his mind. But liberals were objecting to a deal that would have attached a provision rolling back the city’s tough curbs on gun ownership. Senate legislation last year attached that amendment.
Others, though, were wary of a deal that would have also created another House seat for Utah, one of the country’s most Republican states. Washington has a population of 600,000 that is nearly 55 percent African-American and is heavily Democratic.
Washington residents have long complained of unequal treatment by Congress, which has power over District affairs even though it is governed by a mayor and a 13-member city council.
House leaders said last week that lawmakers would vote on the D.C. bill – delayed for more than a year – as early as Thursday, and Norton said at the time that voting rights supporters decided they could live with the gun control provision because the current bill might be the District last best chance to get voting rights because of the expected election of more Republicans to the House in November’s midterm elections.
“The Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House are already diminishing and are expected to be reduced even further,” Norton said. “Moreover, this is the first time we have had a president in office who will sign the bill along with the majorities in Congress to pass it.”
“I believe residents would not want us to pass up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the vote they have sought for more than two centuries,” she continued.
But moving the bill as-is had opposition both inside and outside Congress. The League of Women Voters, a supporter of D.C. voting rights, said Monday that voting on the bill with the gun provision intact was “not acceptable.”
“The League of Women Voters believes that destruction of D.C.’s gun safety laws is too high a price to pay for passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act, which would provide a single voting representative for D.C. in the House of Representatives,” league president Mary Wilson said in a written statement.
“There are two fundamental responsibilities that all elected officials must fulfill: protecting our democratic rights as Americans and protecting our lives and safety. Asking citizens to sacrifice their safety in order to have representation in Congress is unacceptable.”
In addition, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had threatened to filibuster the bill because he didn’t like the provision in it that would give his state an addition seat that would be elected on an at-large basis rather than having state official redraw congressional boundaries to create a new district.
“Utah deserves an additional seat in the House, but like every other state it should have the freedom to elect its members from regular districts,” Hatch said last week.
Hatch Tuesday applauded the House’s decision not to go forward with the bill.
“If the choice was between this deeply-flawed bill and no bill at all, no bill is hands down the better option,” he said in a statement. “This legislation made a mockery of our system of federalism by dictating to the State of Utah how it chooses its elected representatives. This type of arrogant, Washington-knows-best attitude is exactly why people are so angry, and why I’m glad this legislation will not move forward through the House.”
Hoyer, whose congressional district includes suburban Washington, said he was “profoundly disappointed,” adding the bill “should not be about the state of Utah or any other state. This legislation should be solely a central piece of American democracy.”
The bill, he said, “should be unfettered by other provisions.”
He would not completely write off its chances this year, but all but buried them, saying only, “I am hopeful sometime in the near future we should do so.” But with Democrats holding a nearly 80 seat majority in the House, and an 18 seat majority in the Senate, chances this year are considered the best they’ve been in years.
And Hoyer indicated he would not be open to much more amending. “The Congress of the United States has not dealt with this in a responsible way,” he said.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.