The United States Senate has provided a crucial step in opening up debate to allow the District of Columbia full voting rights in the United States House of Representatives. With a delegate already in place (Eleanor Holmes Norton) that has the right to vote in committees but not on the final passage of final legislation, the overwhelmingly Democratic district would bring another notch into the Democratic Party's control in the House. As a matter of compromise, an additional representative would be added to Republican-leaning Utah. The new total would reach 437 representatives in the House.
Without any real representation in the House since the district's inception in 1801, the people have demanded the same rights given to the rest of the country. It was not until 1973 that they were permitted to vote for their own mayor, and even currently have no power over the city budget (which is handled by Congress). The district proudly displays "Taxation Without Representation" on their license plates (even seen on the presidential limousines of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama).
After (possibly) having been granted this full-voting representative:
- Will the same privilege be extended to the United States Senate (even though the Constitutional language is more strict than for that of the House)?
- Could this be the first real step in the DC Statehood movement?
- Could Puerto Rico be next in the call for full representation (and/or possibly the 52nd state, after DC)?
2 comments:
I think that Dc should be allowed representatives in the senate if they charter and become a state. Puerto Rico the same thing.
Sylvia
I think the bigger question is: why is the US still an imperialist force in Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and Guam? Isn't it about time we atoned for our sins? As for DC - I don't see why it should be denied statehood. The reason most editorials I read give is that it hasn't ever been a state... well so what?
Post a Comment