Dear Mr. President: Time to Update Your Plates

Apparently D.C. is getting tired of just waiting for President Obama to go back to the pre-Bush era of Presidential license plates. In case you missed it in 2001, one of President Bush's first acts in office was to remove the infamous "taxation without representation" from his Presidential limo. Now supporters of D.C. voting rights are getting impatient that President Obama hasn't stepped up to show his support by outfitting his ride with the DC plates. And D.C. thought that just because they voted 92.9% for Obama that he would show them the love.

So they've asked, they've begged, and now the District of Columbia Democratic State Committee has gone so far as to pass a resolution to formally request that President Barack Obama place the “Taxation Without Representation” license plate on the presidential limousine.

As the Washington Post has pointed out recently, D.C. could use a little help from the Prez. With the D.C. Voting Rights Act stalled in Congress, a little push from the White House could help shake things up. But with other legislative priorities from Sotomayor's nomination to preparations for the fight for universal health care, it seems D.C. voting rights has slipped off the President's agenda. Maybe if D.C. had a voting member, they'd be able to help out with some of Obama's legislation.

DC Statehood Now?

Now that everyone's talking about DC Voting Rights, or at least was a few months ago before everything stalled in the House, you knew it wasn't going to be long before DC Statehood advocates tried to get their two cents in. With the D.C. Voting Rights Act held up in Congress by the prospect of an amendment that would strip D.C. of its gun laws, DC Statehooders have a lot to complain about. First, even if the DC Voting Rights Act becomes law (and isn't struck down by the courts), DC will still lack representation in the Senate. And second, with Congress taking action to strike down DC gun laws and DC's recognition of gay marriage, the question of Home Rule is coming back to the fore.

Councilmember Michael A. Brown (I-At- Large) is the latest champion of the cause of DC Statehood, recently forming the D.C.City Council’s Special Committee on Statehood and Self-Determination, which met on Monday.

But if it feels like we've been down this road before, it's because we have. DC residents passed a couple of draft constitutions in the 1980s in preparation for Statehood, but Congress was never buying what DC was selling. The most recent effort to push DC Stathood through Congress -- which would require only simple majorities in both the House and Senate -- failed to get out of the House by a vote of 277 to 153. And this was when we had a Democratic President and Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Sound familiar?

The political obstacles to DC Statehood are likely as high today as they were in 1993 -- hence the incremental approach suggested by the DC Voting Rights Act and adopted by the majority of DC's elected officials. But even if this approach is politically astute, it still leaves open the question of full representation and home rule. And whether it's DC Statehood or some other alternative, these problems will still need to be addressed before the unamerican democracy label can be removed from our Nation's Capital.

In the meantime, I'm sure Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wishes everyone could just get on the bandwagon and stick together until the DC Voting Rights Act makes it through the House. But then maybe her failure, and the failure of the Democratic leaders in the Hosue, is the reason why DC Statehooders are coming out of the woodwork once again.

Sotomayor Nomination Sparks Discussion on Political Status of the Enchanted Island

Its not often that the national media takes a look at the political status issues facing America's overseas territories, but President Obama's recent nomination of Second Circuit Justice Sonia Sotomayor has sparked a closer examination of America's relationship with Puerto Rico.

Timothy Noah at Slate.com has an interesting piece examining the "imperial" history of Puerto Rico, in which he points out that a Justice Sotomayor may have a role in examining some of the unresolved constitutional questions in Puerto Rico's political status debate, particularly with regard to the "new commonwealth" option.

Under the Presidents Bush and President Clinton, the feds scrutinized with growing urgency the question of what the hell it was that Puerto Ricans wanted. Justice Department reports are now issued every two years. During the past decade, a major snag has been a growing movement within Puerto Rico for what has come to be called "new commonwealth" status. (Failure to include this option in the 1998 plebescite caused the "none of the above" debacle.) In effect, elevating Puerto Rico to a "new commonwealth" would give the island the benefits of sovereignty without sacrificing the benefits of U.S. governance. It would protect the status quo (possibly adding some elements more favorable to Puerto Rico) by stipulating that no further changes could be made without mutual agreement between Puerto Rico and the federal government. As things stand now, Congress is free to alter Puerto Rico's status unilaterally.

Under both Clinton and Bush fils, the Justice Department argued (somewhat persuasively) that any attempt to restrict future legislative alterations to Puerto Rico's status would be unconstitutional. An alternative mentioned in the Justice Department's 2007 report would follow the "compact of free association" created for Micronesia when the United States granted it independence in 1986. Under the compact, Micronesia continues to receive military protection and financial assistance, and its citizens may freely "enter the United States as non-immigrants" to reside and work here. But this option hasn't attracted much of a following in Puerto Rico because, like the island's present arrangement, it would be susceptible to unilateral termination by Congress.

Damien Cave at the New York Times takes a closer look at Judge Sotomayor's Puerto Rican roots, pointing out that she would become the highest ranking Puerto Rican in U.S. history, which one anthropologist quoted in the article described this way:

“Puerto Ricans always feel under-represented,” said Jorge Duany, an anthropologist at the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras. “It’s not just a feeling. It’s a fact.”

Peter Nicholas and James Oliphant at the LA Times examine how Judge Sotomayor's Puerto Rican identity and advocacy for minority rights has not been as evident in her judicial decisions as it has been in her earlier professional and academic life.

Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty in Washington, said last week that he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said.

"This is a judge who does not see it as her job to fix all the social ills in the world," said Kevin Russell, a Washington appellate lawyer who has analyzed Sotomayor's opinions.

Finally, Amy Goldstein and Alec MacGillis at the Washington Post have an in-depth article looking at how Judge Sotomayor's Puerto Rican identity was reflected in her academic and early professional life. Of note, it looks at her role on the Board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a civil rights organization directed at issues facing the latino community.

Law degree in hand, Sotomayor went to work for the Manhattan district attorney but soon found a new outlet for engagement: the Puerto Rican defense fund. Sotomayor had been encouraged to join the board by federal judge José A. Cabranes, a mentor, who "said, 'She's a going-places kind of person,' " recalled Cesar Perales, the organization's co-founder and its executive director at the time. "That she very much believed in civil rights and is . . . wise beyond her years."

Founded in 1972, and backed by the Ford Foundation, among others, the Puerto Rican defense fund already had achieved victories in promoting bilingual education in the New York schools. Around the time Sotomayor joined, it was on the verge of its biggest coup, a challenge of City Council district lines that it argued were racially gerrymandered. The organization won an injunction forcing a last-minute postponement of the 1981 municipal elections, then a redrawing of the lines.

The organization went on to file successful discrimination challenges against the New York police, fire and sanitation departments; public housing and co-op complexes; and school districts that overused special-education designations for Hispanic pupils.

The organization's board had a limited role -- at bimonthly meetings, it set general priorities, oversaw personnel matters and discussed raising money, but it generally left the legal tactics to the dozen or so staff lawyers. "I wouldn't describe [the board] as a bunch of firebrands," Perales said, "but . . . they were people who very much believed in social justice and the use of the law to achieve social justice. We were very inspired by Brown v. Board of Education and how African Americans using the NAACP Legal Defense Fund were able to change America, and thought, could we not use that same tool to advance the Hispanic coalition?"

Sotomayor fit in. Showing a particular interest in the area of promoting younger Puerto Rican lawyers and law students, she stayed on the board for a dozen years, throughout her time in private practice, up until her nomination to the bench. "She could have easily hung up her hat, gone to a firm and said, 'I did that for two years,' but she said no," Cartagena said.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, another co-founder of the organization, noted that many of the issues the fund battled persist today. "They're issues of social justice that haven't gone away," he said.

One Nuyorican Goes to Washinton?

I'm a bit late posting something about the nomination of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, but better late than never. I'm excited about President Obama's nomination for many reasons, not least of which is that she is Puerto Rican and has some understanding of the issues that face America's territories. While Judge Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, she had deep ties to the Puerto Rican community, serving on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and apparently writing both her college thesis and a Note for the Yale Law Journal on issues related to Puerto Rico's political status.

The Wall Street Journal paints Judge Sotomayor as alternatively supporting independence for Puerto Rico (in her college thesis) or Puerto Rican Statehood (in her Yale Law Note). Wherever Judge Sotomayor may fall in this spectrum (or did fall during her younger years), it's clear that the history of Puerto Rico's political status has helped form her identity and perspectives. I agree with President Obama that Judge Sotomayor's identity (as well as her impeccable credentials and engaging personality) are an important contribution to the Supreme Court. Having someone on the Court who not only understands but empathizes with Americans in the territories and the District of Columbia who in many ways are treated as second-class citizens will give an important voice to those who are otherwise largely without a voice in the federal government.

Six Puerto Rican Protesters Go to Washington

Ok, before I get accused that my blog is turning into a revolutionary website, I just want to say that when protesters for D.C. Voting Rights or Puerto Rican Statehood get kicked out of the U.S. House of Representatives for protesting America's democracy deficit I'll put up a posting on them as well. Especially if they have as eye-catching a picture as this group apprently has (see above).

In case you missed it, a few weeks ago six Puerto Rican independentistas were removed from the gallery in the U.S. House of Representatives after peacefully protesting the continuing colonial status of the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico. According to hispanic press -- the event didn't get much English-language press -- the protesters, a group of Puerto Rican artists, held signs that said "111 años de coloniaje es una vergüenza," (111 years of being a colony is an embarassment) and sang "Oubao Moin," a liberation poem by Juan Antonio Corretjer before being escorted out of the Gallery by Capitol Police. While the revolutionary message of these protesters isn't shared by most Puerto Ricans or others who live in U.S. territories, it reflects some of the same sentiment as those who seek representation for Americans who live in Puerto Rico, D.C., or other territories.

I don't think this is quite what my friend Jose Coleman Tio meant when he wrote his comment for the Yale Law Journal, "Six Puerto Ricans go to Washington." But with only one non-voting Delegate to "represent" the nearly four million Americans who live in Puerto Rico, I guess non-traditional forms of representation in Congress should be expected. The peaceful protest of these six Puerto Rican artists was a far cry from the bloody 1954 incident where Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire in the chamber of the House of Representatives (you can still see the holes from the bullets today), but it still reflects the deep discontent many Puerto Ricans have with their relationship with the United States.

President Obama has promised to address the political status of Puerto Rico during his first term in office, but even a consensus in Washington to take action would have trouble uniting Puerto Ricans on this very controversial issue. Political parties in Puerto Rico are defined based on their support of either the current commonwealth status (or some iteration thereof), U.S. statehood, or independence. And while baseball and boxing are popular in Puerto Rico, politics is clearly the national pasttime. I will be excited to follow the Obama Administration as it works to live up to his promise to resolve Puerto Rican political status. But it is not clear how he will be able to get Congress and leaders of Puerto Rico's three political parties to find the common ground needed to resolve the status of what some have called, "the oldest colony in the world."

Defenders of Democracy Disenfranchised: Guam

The U.S. Territory of Guam has a proud tradition of service in the U.S. Armed forces. Tens of thousands of Guam's sons and daughters have put on the uniform to defend our Democracy even as they are unable to vote for their Commander-in-Chief and lack voting representation in Congress. Denying those who defend our Democracy their right to vote and be represented in our Democracy is wrong, and it is un-American.

For more on the sacrifice of Guamanian servicemembers during Operation Iraqi Freedom & Operation Enduring Freedom, click here, for the Vietnam War, click here, for the Korean War, click here, and for World War II, click here.

In Memoriam: Congressman Jack Kemp, DC Voting Rights Advocate

With the passing of Congressman Jack Kemp, D.C. has lost one of its most vocal and compelling advocates for DC voting rights. Jack Kemp, who was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate alongside Bob Dole in 1996 (and of course the quarterback for the Buffalo Bills), was an early supporter of the DC Voting Rights, which he viewed as a civil rights and race-relations issue that both Democrats and Republicans should embrace. A good interview with Jack Kemp can be found here.

While D.C. voting rights has historically been an extremely partisan affair, largely as a result of its overwhelming support for Democratic candidates (D.C. voted for Obama 93-7), Jack Kemp offered a refreshing perspective that was not as much bi-partisan as it was a recognition that the Republican Party cannot simply cede away the votes of African-Americans and other minorities if it expects to win national elections. The D.C. Voting Rights Act has emerged as a bi-partisan effort (largely because of the compromise to add a additional congressional seat for Utah) to address the issue of representation for Americans who call D.C. home. However, opposition to the bill is almost entirely on the Republican side of the aisle, with just six Republican Senators supporting the bill and just two Democratic Senators opposing the bill.

Republicans who oppose the bill generally point to concerns over the Constitutionality of the act, although it seems clear that in many if not most cases these concerns are a cover for other more political concerns. It will be interesting to see what excuse those who oppose D.C. representation will come up with if the bill passes, is struck down by the courts, and then is resurrected in the form of a Constitutional amendment or petition for statehood.

Similar issues may arise if there is ever a call for representation for the nearly 4.5 million Americans who live in U.S. territories. These Americans are over 95% minority and vote largely Democratic, with notable exceptions like the current Republican Governors of Puerto Rico and Guam. If Puerto Rico ever seeks representation through a similar bill, or through a Constitutional amendment or petition for statehood, it will be interesting if the same anti-representation forces will align to oppose representation for the 4 million Americans who call Puerto Rico home.

Jack Kemp did not live to see the day when all Americans, no matter where they live, the color of their skin, or whether they trend Democrat or Republican, have the representation that American democratic principles demands. But his advocacy and vision will be remembered when the day comes that the nearly 5 million Americans who live in non-state areas like D.C. and U.S. territories have voting representation in the national government just like every other American.

Update: On Tuesday the Washington Post did a nice editorial praising Jack Kemp for his efforts in support of D.C. voting rights.