Talk:District of Columbia voting rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] This is a Position Paper

This article is a biased position paper and of course ignores essential facts. The Constitution created a federal district "not exceeding ten miles square" that would be part of no state, and the Constitution makes clear that only states can elect members of Congress. The paragraphs of "Taxation Without Representation" and "Comparisons" are biased talking points that fail to note that DC is not a state and is treated comparably to other territories such as Puerto Rico. A lame attempt to address that obvious point, "However, the current examples are different from the territories of the past in that they are not being prepared for admission as U.S.. states." is utter nonsense. Prepared for admission doesn't mean anything as it's not being prepared for admission, and even if it was being prepared, the entitlements don't happen until you finish getting prepared and are admitted.

The full bias of the article is reflected in the statement, "Because the Democrats do not wish to see Jim Matheson, the only Democrat in Congress from Utah, gerrymandered out of his seat, the new Utah seat is to be at-large (i.e. elected statewide)." The blatant partisan talking point fails to note that such political chicanery would certainly fail Constitutional muster.

As part of a full rewrite, the article should explain why a ten mile square district that's that was created purely to manage and run the federal taxpayer funded federal government should in fact be given full powers consummate with individual States.

While retrocession is discussed, it fails to note the obvious solution of "partial" retrocession as was done in 1846 when D.C. residents living on the Virginia side of the Potomac asked Congress to return their portion of the District to Virginia. This would alleviate the red herring issue of taxation without representation and provide a stable State Government but would also prevent the creation of an artificial 'political' State within the Federal District. Of course, retrocession is not satisfactory for those who want Statehood because it would add only one Congressional Rep for the State of Maryland (a likely Democrat) while the artificial federal taxpayer funded State within the District would get multiple Congressional Reps plus two Senators (most all Democrats)24.27.202.53 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this needs polishing and work. It's submitted as a start. This issue is a major one to those of us who have a problem with some citizens being more equal than others, but who also love our country enough to want to see its capital functional and well-governed. Ideally the District government would be an example in some ways of what American municipal government should be, with the acknowledgment that the District will always be a special case in that its major employer always has been and always will be a huge tax-exempt operation, the federal government, and will always require a level of subsidization far above that of other cities in order for it to function properly, and that its failure to function properly becomes a tremendous issue of national security and well-being far above and beyond that of any other city. Rlquall 03:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand you might love your country and have an axe to grind on this issue, but if you read the WP help pages, "WP is not a soapbox, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow the no original research policy and strive for accuracy." 24.27.202.53 05:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In reality, partisanship (on both sides) is clearly involved in the issue of DC representation, and, as such, is arguably eligible for discussion in the article. The discussion should of course be balanced, and inclusive of both side's opinions. One could argue also that partisanship (from a purely theoretical standpoint) has no place in the discussion. Principles that apply to citizens in a representative democracy should be applied equally and evenhandedly ("just power derives from the consent of the governed", for example). If DC government is to be judged on short-term competence or corruption, and DC voting rights acknowledged only if the DC government is found to be competent (by whom?) and not corrupt, then in fairness we should remove (at least temporarily) the voting rights from all states where politicians are convicted of corruption or incompetence, right? No reference source worth reading can avoid controversy, whether it be scientific controversy or political controversy, or any other form of controversy. Knowledge is advanced when all sides to the issue are available for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.62.20 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Sentence

As the article is now, I don't think this clause in the last sentence refers to anything: "...for the partisan reasons cited above." -- AnonMoos 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commuter tax

Nice article. I'd love to see some mention of the commuter tax issue; the reason DC has to have a 10% sales tax is that so many of the people who work in the city live in MD and VA and pay income tax to those states. There is no mechanism in place to make up for this lost revenue and attempts to fix the problem get shot down by Congress. Thus in regards to providing services, the deck is stacked against the District.

Also, Federal government sites (which make up a large part of the central district) don't have to pay taxes... AnonMoos 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The US Federal Government does however give DC some money intended to make up for the loss of income from having so high a percent of the property values owned by the Feds. The effectiveness and desirability of commuter taxes in the cities that have them is itself highly controversial. 168.166.196.40 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

DC Sales tax is 5.75%. There is a 10% tax on restaurant food and beverages. (DC Resident)

[edit] Home rule?

This article seems to be misnamed. My understanding of the term "home rule" is that it means District residents controlling their own local government to varying degrees. Before the Home Rule Act of 1973, most city functions were handled directly or indirectly by Congress and related committees. No locally elected officials had any say in how the city was run. Home rule is a separate, though related, issue to D.C. representation (what this article seems to be about). I might be wrong, but if I'm not shouldn't this article be moved to something like District of Columbia Congressional representation or something similar? --Polynova 11:22, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title to District of Columbia voting rights, which I think better describes what the article's about. --Polynova 09:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My removal

I've removed the following:

[edit] Arguments in favor of District of Columbia voting rights

American democracy was founded on certain basic principles, such as that all men are created equal, and that just power derives from the consent of the governed; and American democracy has gradually developed other basic concepts along the way, including the concept of universal suffrage. Aside from felons and dependent children under the age of 18, DC residents are the last group of American citizens to lack full suffrage rights. District residents stress that in asking for representation they are in no way demanding special rights, but only suffrage rights equal to those taken for granted by residents of the 50 united states. The current situation has led some to call the District "The Last Colony" and home to "Taxation Without Representation", as District residents are subject to the federal income tax just like other U.S. residents.

In organizational terms, DC is one of the few aspects of the Federal government which do not rely on the system of checks and balances. Congress is given absolute power under the Constitution "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17), and the courts have declined to interfere, even though this means the long-term, continuing disenfranchisement of District residents for no apparent legitimate reason.

[edit] Arguments against District of Columbia voting rights

Opponents argue that the District has a very poor history with regard to what little self-government has ever been allowed (though quality of self-government has not been a requirement prior to the franchise being granted to other jurisdictions), and that Congress has a constitutionally-mandated responsibility to make sure that the national capital and seat of the federal government is itself well-governed and functions smoothly. This last argument resonates with overtones of paternalism, and fails to take into account a basic principle of democracy, that legitimate power derives from the consent of the governed.

I feel it to be fairly slanted towards the D.C. statehood POV, and doesn't really add much beyond what's already in the article. As such, I've taken it out. Meelar (talk) 00:30, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Meelar:

The whole issue of Voting rights is a debate that has various points of view. What good is an article about an issue that omits the various points of view. As long as both sides are equally presented, the balance is neutral. If one side or the other feels their point of view is not adequately represented, they are free to augment the points they feel are not well expressed. Deleting both pros and cons completely smacks more of censorship than of neutrality. Who elected you as censor?

This sounds like something you should discuss at his Talk page. According to his above comment, he felt that the material was biased. Do you feel that the removed material was not biased? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article on District of Columbia Voting Rights at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

there was a section (actually two) setting out the Pros and Cons on the subject. User Meelar deleted both sections. I feel this is counterproductive. Certainly both sides' views should be represented equally, but there is nothing preventing either side from adding or augmenting their points of view. Deleting BOTH sides exposition of their points of view, however (particularly prior to any discussion) smacks of censorship, vandalism, or maybe both.

Before getting into a post and delete contest, it would be preferable to DISCUSS the issues.

Do you feel that the removed material was fine as it was, or do you want to add new Pro and Con sections? --SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Washington or DC

Is this about civic voting rights and the need for independence from Congress, or state-type representation in Congress? If the former this should be Voting rights in the District of Columbia, if the later, this is the correct title. The content of the article does not match the first option. 132.205.3.20 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so. D.C. and Washington, D.C. refer to the same things. District of Columbia is merely the official legal name. Most people refer to it as Washington, D.C., hence the title of the article. I removed you factual dispute notice until you can explain what you think is wrong with the article. --Polynova 16:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not DC retrocedes to Maryland, or becomes a state, there will be some form of city government regardless. If it retrocedes to Maryland, many of the state-level features of DC will disappear, but the city-level features will remain. If it becomes a state, then the city government and a new state government will be formed, separate (unless this becomes one weird state... hell even counties that occupy the same space as cities have separate "governments") So, this article is about DC not the city known as Washington. 132.205.64.80 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about potential statehood, then "District of Columbia" doesn't necessarily make sense because the name of the state would be different. ("New Columbia" has been proposed for a potential state). Nevertheless, "Washington, D.C." and "District of Columbia" are simply two names for the same thing. This has been the case since the end of local government in Georgetown in 1871. "Washington, D.C." is more common and more widely understood, hence the title (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). --Polynova 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So

Is the US a democracy or not? – Kpalion (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No. It's a republic. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I see this argument often, but it seems to be a logical fallacy (false choice); isn't the U.S. a democratic republic? Or is the argument that the U.S. is a non-democratic republic? RealMontrealer 05:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In the US, the term "democracy" with no modifiers is usually taken as a synonym for "direct democracy". Thus, the US isn't a democracy (in that sense), it's a republic with democratically elected representatives. It's just an oddity of American English. - Flooey 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears it up. - RealMontrealer 19:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article suffers from some serious NPOV problems. As evidenced by the comments above, the majority of this article was written by proponents of DC voting rights. The article therefore advocates more than it educates.

For instance:

"This approach would largely preserve for D.C. governance the fundamental democratic principle that "just power derives from the consent of the governed", while still allowing the national legislature to exercise the last word in cases where the overriding national interest requires, as defined by a supermajority "national consensus" vote in both Houses."

There is not even an attempt to judge this proposal objectively. The Congressional Oversight is also particularly slanted. It cites one example, in the course of over 200 years, as evidence for the lack of effective oversight. The discussion on increased Congressional oversight gives nearly all the credit to the improvements during the 1990's to Norton.

There is not even an explanation why there are no voting rights (a product of the founding fathers, the very ones who coined the Taxation without Representation phrase) nor is there an explanation on why the District was not given those rights. There's no discussion on how much proportional representation DC residents would have with full representation (they would be second only to Wyoming in voting power per citizen).

In short, this article is a great pamphlet for DCVote, but a poor Wikipedia article.

[edit] ==

If there were/are strong arguments for disenfranchising the denizens of DC, it would be appropriate for those aware of them to ADD them to the article, instead of DELETING legitimate arguments and points with which they may disagree. A fair exchange of views is legitimate. Does NPOV mean "NEUTRAL point of view" or "NO point of view"? Articles which omit any point of view whatsoever will be pretty useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.235.62 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means "Neutral Point of View." Do you feel that there's relevant information missing from the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article on District of Columbia Voting Rights at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

Before getting into a post and delete contest, it would be preferable to DISCUSS the issues.

[edit] == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.235.62 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Statehood page

The page on D.C. Statehood is short, and represents a subset of the subect matter of Voting rights in Washington, D.C. I am proposing a merger of the two, retaining the name of the latter. Any objections? --BlueMoonlet 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed Joncnunn 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] excess wordage in paragraph in the oversight section

"A compromise may even be reached which would allow the District's delegate to Congress to be raised to the status of a full voting member of the U.S. House but still leave the District unrepresented in the Senate, where the Senators are supposed to represent states, which the District is not; most legal experts believe that even this compromise would require a constitutional amendment." Too duplicative of the proposals section. 168.166.196.40 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response 1. Your proposed merger would be highly misleading. Some advocate statehood (and thereby 2 senators, 1 representation); others favor congressional legislation (or amendment) to treat the District as a state for purposes of representation in the House and see the District Clause (primarily the purpose behind it) as incongruous with the historical evidence of the framers' intent. Still others seek middle ground between the two by revisiting some of the issues anew (anticipating legislation or amendment if an acceptable agreement is reached). Finally your observation that "most legal experts believe that even this compromise would require a constitutional amendment" is by no means established (though I think it likely). In fact, there are relatively few in the legal profession who have conducted sufficient researched and written on these issues to merit being called an "expert."

[edit] Proposals to retrocede D.C. to Maryland

I'm pretty sure Congress has the power to retrocede DC without Maryland's consent. (Probably wouldn't be politically plausible to do so without backing of Maryland though.) The other proposals [counting DC residents as residents of Maryland for purpose of drawing congressional lines / voting in the house with or without the senate] would require a constitutional amendment. Joncnunn 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Congressional Law scholars would probably argue about this point on both sides, but in general, Congress cannot unilaterally abolish something that is set out in the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that Congress shall have exclusive control over whatever territory is agreed upon to constitute the "Seat of the Government of the United States." In order to abolish that seat of government and retrocede it all to Maryland, you'd probably have to amend the Constitution. Of course, if they retroceded all but a small portion where the White House, Capitol, etc. is and just called that the official Seat of Government, that would probably be more feasible. It also brings up an interesting legal question of how this issue would be handled if D.C. did ever become an actual state. --Jhortman 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Present-Day DC Land

"All the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland"- National Airport is in Washington, DC (zip code 20001) as is Dulles (20041). I'm changing this to "most all". --Patrickneil 15:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither Reagan National Airport [1] nor Dulles Airport [2] is in the District of Columbia. Both are in Virginia. The Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority explains at both airports' websites: "When the federal government operated Reagan National and Dulles prior to 1987, both Airports had Washington, D.C. postal addresses. To continue identifying the service area more easily for travelers, the Authority did not change the addresses." Virginia gave the portions of the original DC south of the Potomac, and she took all of them back [3], indeed meaning "All the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland." 72.75.107.129 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind merging Statehood, split off Home Rule

I've finally carried out the minor overhaul of this page that I've been planning. I found the previous text to be very confused, going back and forth between the issues of representation in Congress and control over local affairs. I see these as two separate issues, though they are related and both would be addressed by statehood for D.C. Thus, I have split off District of Columbia home rule, formerly redirected to this page, and put there the former sections of this article that pertain to that subject. I have also changed my mind on merging D.C. Statehood, since it can lead the reader either to voting rights or to home rule; instead, I spruced up that page as well. Comments? Objections? --BlueMoonlet 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrailia

Why is Austrailia mentioned in this article? Even if somewhat related to DC voting rights it should not be a part of this article. What do you think? --Noetic Sage 21:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good question. Considering the title is District of Columbia voting rights, I find the inclusion of Australia completely random. I think it should go. Natalie 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as it's completely irrelevant to the article. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see Australia has returned to the article. The obvious reason is that the constitution of Australia is closely based on the US constitution and the Australian government has an relationship to the Australian Capital Territory identical to the relationship the US government has to the District of Columbia.Alan 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxation Without Representation

In 2001, then incumbent President Bush raised eyebrows when he ordered that the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on the presidential limousines were to be replaced with blank Washington, D.C. plates. This coming after President Clinton had requested the new special plates be placed on the limousines, just one month prior.

The presidential limousines are federal vehicles, no? Shouldn't they have had federal license plates all along, not DC license plates? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Quacks Like a Duck 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic link

http://sudc.blogspot.com/ is there for a link to a PDF file, but you can't download the PDF file without turning Javascript on and hoping that the javascript code happens to work in your browser, and the site where the PDF file is hosted uses pop-up ads. I consider this manner of referring to a PDF file to be somewhat problematic, and will eventually remove the external link if this problem isn't fixed... AnonMoos 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waited?

I removed the claim that Clinton waited until the last weeks of he was in office to order the plates which is not support by the reference. The reference says the plates were ordered last month (i.e. December 2000). The plates were only introduced in November 2000 according to the same article. Therefore the idea that he waited is pretty silly nor does the article say anything about Clinton waiting to his last weeks (instead it just says when he ordered them nothing about him waiting). The change I made is here [4] Nil Einne 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image debate

I readded the "no taxation without representation" image. I think images make reading a wikipedia article more interesting and that we should strive to have as many images as possible. I do understand that having two images with "no taxation without representation" does over represent one side of the issue, but I think we should error on the side of having more images than less. If someone was to find another image they liked more, than I could support taking the image down. The license plate image is actually seen on other pages anyways.User:calbear22 06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "no taxation without representation" image is nothing but propaganda. D.C. is not a "plantation" and saying so is an insult to those who were slaves on plantations. The image of the license plate is fine. --Repeal 16-17 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion Request

Hello. A user who did not sign their post (which was appropriate) asked for a 3rd opinion regarding the over use of photos in District of Columbia voting rights. Beyond what is explicitly stated, can any other information be provided in a short, succint, and neutral manner here? Thanks. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm joining in response to the third opinion request. I see no reason to limit the number of pictures in an article; however, this poster in the lead section is confusing and I'd agree it could be offensive. It might be better to make the lead photo more neutral, or a collage of pro and con. But the plantation reference is obscure to outsiders, though it may have some local meaning. I'm happy to help with a collage or any other photo editing. Good luck. --Kevin Murray 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House representation section citation needed

The "Proposals to grant voting representation only in the House" section had a request for citation that was written as part of the sentence. It was:

President George W. Bush has threatened to veto this bill on Constitutional grounds (see Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution constitution doesn't support this position -- need cite indicating reason for cite to constitution as not at all apparent.).

I replaced the inline citation request with a citation needed tag, and am moving the previous text here so people understand the reasoning the citation was requested. — Matthew0028 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to an article referring to the threatened Presidential veto based on Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia removed

I've removed the Taxation without representation section. It said:

While the District's official motto is Justitia omnibus (Justice to All), the words "Taxation Without Representation", echoing the Revolutionary slogan, "No taxation without representation!", were added to D.C. license plates in 2000 (although alternative plates featuring the D.C. website URL are available on request), and there was briefly a movement to add the words "No Taxation Without Representation" to the D.C. flag. Advocates who have supported these changes have said that they are intended as a protest and to raise awareness in the rest of the country. These measures in particular were chosen because the D.C. flag is one of the few things under direct local control without requiring approval from the Congress.

In January 2001, President Bush ordered the removal of the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates on the presidential limousines, replacing them with blank Washington, D.C., plates. This came shortly after President Bill Clinton had placed the new license plates on the limousines.^[1]

This section was clearly trivia. It is not relevant to D.C.'s voting rights status what is, or isn't, on the President's license plate. That's why I removed it from the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

^ New York Times Article on January 19, 2001.