Davis Bill Not Good Enough

Roll Call; 3/1/2004

Roll Call

03-01-2004

Davis Bill Not Good Enough
Section: LETTERS

I must take exception to DC Vote's inference in the Feb. 24 column "U.S. Human Rights Violation Should Spur Action" that Congressional passage of Rep. Tom Davis' (R-Va.) proposed bill to grant D.C. residents a single vote in the House of Representatives would remedy the human rights violations found by the Organization of American State's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It would not. By narrowly focusing on the commission's findings alone and by failing to acknowledge the commission's key recommendations, DC Vote does a disservice to the 23 petitioners who filed the case in 1993, as well as to the 570,000 residents of the District of Columbia who have been denied equal Congressional rights for 200 years. As the lead petitioner in this case, I'd like to set the record straight.

Having determined that the nonvoting status of D.C. residents constituted human rights violations under international law, notwithstanding the plain language of the U.S. Constitution, which proscribes D.C. residents from enjoying equal political rights, the commission made the following recommendations: That the United States "[p]rovide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature."
The Davis bill, as currently envisioned, is not an effective remedy. Only a bill or constitutional amendment that provides D.C. residents with equal Congressional representation - two Senators and one Representative in the House - will remedy the violations found under international law. How ever well-intentioned the Davis bill may be, it subscribes to the alien principle, unknown in the lexicon of American politics: "One Man, One-Third Vote."

Conservatives in Congress have long argued that the disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is justified based on the Founding Fathers' argument - perhaps valid 200 years ago - that the residents of the capital city could wield undue influence over Congress should they enjoy equal Congressional rights by virtue of their proximity to Congress.

However, after exhaustive study, review and argument, the Inter- American Commission - composed of highly respected international human rights legal experts - concluded otherwise.

Rightly recognizing that a legitimate distinction made during the horse and buggy era had long since turned into a wrongful discrimination, the commission could find no justification for the continuing denial of equal political rights to D.C. residents, and found human rights violations under international law. To argue today that D.C. residents should be denied full representation in Congress by invoking the Founding Fathers is akin to justifying the disenfranchisement of women and African-Americans with the original language of the U.S. Constitution.

There have long been both conservative and liberal supporters of internationally recognized human rights in Congress. It is time they brought their consciences to bear on ending human rights violations in Washington, D.C. In unity, they should reaffirm the country's long-held belief in the principle of "One Man, One Vote" by amending the constitution with a grant of equal rights - and nothing less - to D.C. residents.

Timothy Cooper

Executive Director

Worldrights