MISSION STATEMENT PROFILE AREAS OF EXPERTISE CURRENT CAMPAIGNS CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS US HUMAN RIGHTS EARTH RIGHTS PUBLIC SPEAKING DONATE CONTACT US

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY COOPER, DEMOCRACY FIRST
Before the DC City Council on the Matter of a Vote
in the U.S. House of Representatives Only
May 19, 2004

Distinguished members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the question of the so-called Davis bill, which will—if constitutionally sound-- grant DC residents a voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives only.

Endorsement of the Davis bill by the City Council would mark the end of an era. It would defeat the principled position taken by the elected leadership of this city for decades that anything less than equal Congressional voting rights is unacceptable. And it would begin to enshrine the dubious proposition that a bill granting DC residents “one man-one third vote” is a marked improvement over our present political status of “one man—no vote.”

It is not.

In a bi-cameral legislature-- consisting of two co-equal branches-- a single vote in one branch does not constitute a legitimate vote in the entire Congress. Nor does it advance the solemn principle for which the people of this city have fought for so long: political equality. A true vote in the national legislature of the United States of America is only accomplished when elected representatives cast their votes in both Houses of Congress. Anything less constitutes an illusionary vote. Indeed, a vote in the House only would not only perpetuate our non-voting status on national legislation, it would also continue to deny us the right to enjoy a vote on all international treaties and even impeachment proceedings.

Worse, a single vote in the House will very likely undermine—if not delay for generations-- the prospects of winning fundamental rights to which we are entitled. While it may be true that perfection is the enemy of the good—let it be said in this case that compromise is the enemy of fundamental rights.
Honorable men and women can certainly disagree about the various remedies available for achieving equal Congressional voting rights. But the Council’s pending embrace of the Davis bill cannot be seen in this same light. For at the heart of the Davis bill lives an illusion of principle, which may ultimately prove to be the undoing of our centuries’ struggle for equality.

This principle declares—for all the world to see—that the expediency of political compromise has bested our people’s noblest intentions— that the political leadership of this day has reached down into the lower depths and seized the lowest—not the highest-- common denominator in the name of the people of this city.

This compromise should be viewed with both distain and profound sadness.

It is an admission by the Council that it has failed to devise and implement a strategy to win political equality for its own citizens. And now having failed, it will likely consign its citizenry to the twilight oblivion of inequality for new generations to come.

While it has been argued that the Davis bill is simply a way-station on the path to DC’s full enfranchisement, I would respectfully disagree with this assertion. Passage of the Davis bill would benefit the District only marginally, if at all, since it will have no effect on our ability to influence national or international legislation on a par with other US citizens. Indeed, it would amount to nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory for the people of this city. While winning the battle for a vote in the House of Representatives, it would almost certainly defeat our ability to win the war for equal rights.

There is a high degree of likelihood that the passage of the Davis bill will produce a negative result of unintended consequences. It is likely to dilute and therefore neutralize the city’s historic movement for equal rights—perhaps in perpetuity. Why? Because it will fog its clarity, sap its activist strength, erode its moral and political basis. It will give aid and comfort and victory to those who oppose the District’s claim to equality.

In other words, the dream of DC statehood—the long held hope for full congressional voting rights—would be consigned to history, having stumbled, like the dinosaurs, into the tarpits.

To believe otherwise—to hope otherwise—is, in my opinion, pure naivete.

To those who advocate for this bill, I have twelve questions. Indeed, this hearing should be about the Council members who support this bill answering these and other questions:

1) What is your strategy for winning two US Senators once this bill has passed and why won’t the passage of the Davis bill adversely affect this ultimate goal?

2) How will you counter the argument likely to be put forward by opponents of equal rights that DC is a city—not a state—and that as a city it does not deserve two United States Senators?

3) What is the impact of having a vote in one half of a bi-cameral legislature when legislation requires a vote in both Houses of Congress?

4) Where is the permanency of a vote in the House of Representatives only when it may be overturned by another act of Congress? Isn’t it akin to temporarily enjoying a vote in the Committee of the Whole? Isn’t such a vote inexorably tied to the political seasons of Congress?

5) What is the value of a vote in the House of Representatives? What specific power does it convey in our bid for a voice in national affairs—on issues of war and peace, for example?

6) Is a temporary vote in the House of Representatives only really worth the price of deflating and perhaps defeating the equal rights movement? Would the Council vote for this bill if it knew that it would lead to the de facto defeat of our movement—at least for a generation, if not more?

7) Why is the Council undermining Delegate Norton’s bill for full Congressional representation?

8) Why is it a good idea to put Congress on record supporting an inadequate remedy and one not officially sanctioned by the people of this city?

9) Why should one’s fundamental rights be the basis of a political compromise? In the Council’s mind, are birthrights negotiable?

10) Why should the proposition of “one-man, one-third vote” be a worthy subject of debate in any representative democracy?

11) Why isn’t the idea of the Davis bill being put up for a vote in a city-wide referendum? And why shouldn’t other remedies be included in such a referendum?

(12) Is the Council aware that the Davis bill itself would create a political situation in violation of international human rights law? And that the Organization of American States rendered a legal decision in December 2003 that the only remedy for the current violations of the human rights of District residents is for Congress to grant them equal representation, consisting of two Senators and one representative in the House of Representatives?

These questions— questions of how we achieve our fundamental rights-- are a matter of vital importance. They go to the heart and soul of who we are as a community, as a people. They go to the question of what we stand for. We should stand for equality, and nothing less.

Thank you.