Un-American Democracy

Dear Mr. President: Time to Update Your Plates

2009-06-07T23:52:00.003-04:00

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?

2009-06-04T22:30:00.008-04:00

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

2009-06-02T09:39:00.004-04:00

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?

2009-05-29T14:11:00.006-04:00

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

2009-05-29T14:05:00.001-04:00

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

2009-05-06T19:16:00.004-04:00

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

2009-05-03T22:14:00.010-04:00

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.

Defenders of Democracy Disenfranchised: D.C.

2009-04-28T07:30:00.000-04:00

Americans living in our Nation's Capital have a proud tradition of service in the U.S. Armed forces. Tens of thousands of Americans from D.C. have put on the uniform to defend a Democracy in which they are denied full participation. 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 D.C. 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. DC Vote has put together a nice overview of the sacrifice of DC Veterans as well.

Will the Gun Amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act Create a Pennsylvania Mutiny Redux?

2009-04-22T13:49:00.014-04:00

In 1783, an armed militia of anti-government protesters surrounded Independence Hall, the seat of Congress, demanding that Congress spend money and pay them for military service rendered during the Revolutionary War. As a direct response to the "Pennsylvania Mutiny," the Founding Fathers decided it was important to create a National Capital that would be free from the control of any state and under the direct control and supervision of Congress itself. Enter the creation of the District of Columbia and the Constitutional grant of power to Congress to serve as both the National and State Legislature to Americans living in D.C.

Today, 226 years later, Congressmen who think placing gun rights ahead of voting rights in D.C. might get them a few votes back home have included an amendment in the DC Voting Rights Act that would leave Americans in D.C. powerless to regulate the purchase or sale of guns in their community.

So what does this mean for D.C.? Maybe it means that Congress is unwittingly creating a scenario where in the future we'll see a repeat of the 1783 Pennsylvania Mutiny. Anti-Government protesters have already looked to the (misplaced) historical analog of the Boston Tea Party for inspiration. Maybe next they'll look to the (again misplaced) historical analog of the Pennsylvania Mutiny, and this time protesters will surround the Capital demanding that the government not spend money, using the force of arms rather than the power of persuasion to compel Congress to give them their way.

Of course, as D.C.'s "shadow" Senator Paul Strauss pointed out during a rally against the gun amendment on Tuesday that Members of Congress who want to strip D.C.'s gun laws don't really want everyone to have the right to bear arms:

“What really pisses me off is before I go into the building I get searched for guns,” D.C. Shadow Sen. Paul Strauss said at the rally, referring to the Capitol. “How dare these guys block guns from their workplace but put it back in the workplace of others.”

So if NRA co-opted Congressmen get their way and D.C. becomes a place where armed protesters (and terrorists and criminals) abound, maybe Congress will have to move again to someplace safe. I hear Guantanamo Bay is nice this time of year and that they are expecting some vacancies there soon.

Mr. Sablan Goes to Washington: NMI's Non-voting Delegate Newest Addition to Congress

2009-04-21T12:50:00.013-04:00

In January, Americans who call the Northern Mariana Islands home saw their first non-voting Delegate, Gregorio "Kilili" Sablan, sworn into office. The Saipan Tribune recently ran an interesting look into the new Delegate's day to day life in Congress thus far, which revealed:

Even though he wears a coat and tie most of the week, Sablan said he will always consider himself an islander. “I will not be a Washingtonian. Washington is just a place where I work,” said the father of six, the youngest of whom is 16 years old.

The Northern Mariana Islands, which are the U.S. Territory of Guam's immediate neighbors to the north, became associated with the United States following Japan's defeat during World War II. The U.S. administered the islands, along with the rest of Micronesia except for Guam, as part of the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific from 1944 until 1978, when the Northern Mariana Islands entered into political union with the United States. Unlike other U.S. territories, the political union was based upon an agreement between the people of the NMI and the federal government, rather than simply being the result of unilateral action by the United States and a foreign power.

The NMI's unique status raises many interesting legal and political questions. But that's for a later post. For now, while Americans in D.C. work to get themselves a vote in the House, Americans in the NMI are happy to finally have a voice in the form of Delegate Kilili Sablan.

Defenders of Democracy Disenfranchised: Puerto Rico

2009-04-20T21:30:00.008-04:00

The U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico has a proud tradition of service in the U.S. Armed forces. Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rico's sons and daughters have put on the uniform to defend a 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 Puerto Rican 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.

Stay tuned next week when I'll be featuring the disenfranchised Defenders of Democracy from the Nation's Capital, Washington, D.C.

In Memoriam: Specialist Israel Candelaria Mejias

2009-04-19T13:37:00.005-04:00

On April 5, 2009, Specialist Israel Candelaria Mejias paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country, one of at least 41 servicemen and women from the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico who have been killed in service during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was 28 years old, and his home of record was San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico. The above picture was taken with his family's permission during a transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Spec. Candelaria Mejias is one of at least 1,124 Puerto Ricans serving in uniform who have lost their lives defending our Democracy while at the same time being unable to vote for their Commander-in-Chief or have any voting representation in the Congress that authorizes and funds America's war effort. To leave a tribute to Spec. Candelaria Mejias, click here.

Defenders of Democracy: DISENFRANCHISED!

2009-04-19T11:28:00.014-04:00

One of the goals of this blog is to call attention to the sacrifice of servicemen and women from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories who have put their lives on the line defending Democracy while at home and abroad while at the same time being denied full participation and representation in American Democracy.

In the last election, servicemen ad women from the U.S. territories serving alongside other Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan could only sit back and watch as their brother and sisters in arms voted for who would be their next Commander-in-Chief. When Congress discussed increased funding for battle armor for the troops or debated whether there should be a timeline for ending the war in Iraq, the families of servicemen and women who lived in D.C. and the territories had no Senator who they could call to express their views, and only a non-voting Delegate in the House to represent their interests. As Guam's former Delegate (and former Brigadier General) Ben Blaz has said, these disenfranchised Americans who proudly serve their country in uniform are "Equal in War, but Not in Peace." This is wrong, and its un-American. And now is the time for President Obama and Congress to address this historical injustice.

Throughout American history, the expansion of voting rights and representation has been associated with the sacrifice of war. The Civil War brought the Right to Vote to African Americans. Women's contributions to the war effort in World War I helped secure their right to vote. World War II and the sacrifices of African Americans in that war helped spark the Civil Right movement. The voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War in part to allow those who had been drafted to fight overseas to vote. The rationale today for extending voting rights and representation to American servicemen and women and other Americas who call a non-state area within the United States home is similarly compelling.

To date, over 81 servicemen and women from D.C. and the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Vietnam War, 676 servicemen and women from these areas were killed. In the Korean War, the number topped 959. In World War II, 431 died defending their country. Overall, 2147 servicemen and women from D.C. and U.S. territories have died in uniform. And hundreds of thousands of more have proudly put on the uniform to defend Democracy.

This is also something that is personal to me. Two of those from Guam who have died were high school classmates of mine. Anthony Carbullido (pictured left), who was killed in Afghanistan, was a friend of mine who I ran cross country and track and field with i high school. Christopher Wesley (pictured right), who was killed in Iraq, lived up the road from me. They fought and died to defend Democracy overseas even as they and 5 million other Americans are denied the basics of Democracy at home.

As I develop this blog more, I hope to have more features providing information about servicemen and women from D.C and the territories who have proudly served their country in uniform while being denied the basics of representation in the National Government. I'll also have some guest bloggers who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces while being disenfranchised come on to provide their unique perspective. I will also be posting tribute pages to servicemen and women from D.C. and U.S. territories who have given their life fighting for their country, starting this week with Specialist Israel Candelaria Mejias, who died two weeks ago in Iraq.

Tax Day Protests Irk Those Actually Taxed Without Representation

2009-04-15T22:33:00.007-04:00

As thousands of anti-tax "tea baggers" organized across the Country in opposition to, well I'm not quite sure (I don't think most of them are either), many have raised the hypocrisy of these protests raising the banner of "Taxation without Representation." As the DCist points out:

The whole idea of using the Boston Tea Party as a rallying cry for people who aren't happy with how the government is spending their money is a little strange, especially for those of us who qualify as both taxed and unrepresented

In reaction to a Nebraska Tea Party protest where protesters chanted "No Taxation without Representation,"Matt Yglesias of ThinkProgress had this to say:

Here in Washington DC, your humble blogger and about 600,000 other people are living and paying taxes to a United States government that does not allow us to elect representatives to congress.

The issue of Taxation without Representation in D.C. is much more complicated than it appears on first glance, which will be a subject of a future post, but needless to say, its rude to say the least for those who can vote and are represented by Congresspersons and Senators to rub it in the face of those who aren't. The Teabaggers are essentially protesting because they lost an election, while Americans living in D.C. are protesting because they actually don't get to participate in the election at all.

Resolving Guam's Political Status: Like Waiting for Godot

2009-04-14T22:48:00.008-04:00

I've mostly been focusing on D.C. centered issues lately, so figured it was time to post about a U.S. territory. Of course, I'm going to start with Guam, where I grew up and "Where America's Day Begins."

Guam's legislative leaders recently visited Washington, D.C., where they presented a legislative resolution to President Obama and Congress outlining Guam's priorities relating to the federal government.

The top two issues were:

a) Recognition of the Chamorro right to self-determination;
b) The need for a just political status within the American system;

The first issue, Chamorro self-determination, refers to the UN recognized right of colonized peoples to self-determination. Guam was "colonized" by the United States following the 1898 Spanish-American War, and the colonized people--the indigenous Chamorros--have never been given a formal opportunity to express their preference as to their own political status.

The second issue raised by the Guam legislature seems at first to be in contradiction with the first, or at minimum presuposes the first. Is what Chamorros want a "just political status within the American system"? Arguably yes, since poll after poll suggests an overwhelming preference of Chamorros and other "Guamanians" for a continuing and permanent political relationship with the United States. But what constitutes a "just political status" remains entirely ambiguous under the formulation of the Guam Legislature.

So while both these issues were directed to President Obama and Congress, they could just as easily addressed back to the Guam Legislature and the people of Guam. While the federal goverment is an easy target for why more progress hasn't been made on these issues, the source of delay can just as easily be traced back to Guam. For the past decade multiple political status plebiscites have been scheduled only to be delayed, now indefinitely so. And Guam's political leaders wade in the safe waters of seeking a "just political status" rather than proposing or seeking a real solution to Guam's political status dilemma.

Guam faces very real issues when it comes to federal relations, like the upcoming transfer of marines from Okinawa to Guam which will result in a dramatic military buildup over the next decade. If Guam wants to be in the drivers seat in deciding its future rather than just being along for the ride, it is going to have to decide on the issues of Chamorro Self-Determination and Guam's political status. If Guam decides, President Obama and Congress are likely to follow. But if Guam's leaders want to wait for Presidet Obama and Congress to decide first, its likely to be waiting a long time.

Got (Senate?) Representation for those Congress Governs Directly?

2009-04-10T21:21:00.018-04:00

The controversy over Congress inserting itself into the local issue of D.C.'s gun laws through an amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act and a brewing controversy over D.C. government recognition of gay marriage from other states highlights why congressional representation for D.C. residents is so necessary. It also highlights why representation in the House is probably not enough to make much of a difference in terms of keeping Congress's hands out of issues that are primarily of local rather than national concern.

Any high school government student can tell you that one of America's foundational democratic principles--set forth in the Declaration of Independence--is that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. This principle is violated every day in the District and U.S. territories since Americans who live in these parts of the United States are fully subject to all federal laws but do not have voting representation in Congress. Compounding the situation, Americans who live in the District and the territories are not protected by the shield of federalism, which sets forth separate spheres for national and state legislation. Instead, Congress acts as essentially both the national and state legislature for Americans in the District and the Territories (although it has delegated much of these powers to the D.C. City Council and territorial legislatures).

So when Congress doesn't like D.C.'s local gun laws, it can abolish them. When it doesn't like D.C. laws recognizing gay marriage, it can eliminate them. Indeed, the very existence of local governance in the District or the territories is a creation of congressional legislation--what Congress giveth Congress can taketh away. That's why Americans who live in the District and U.S. territories need representation in their state legislature--the U.S. Congress.

It's also why representation in the House is simply not enough to temper Congress's temptation to meddle in the local affairs of the District. In the House, 1 vote out of 435 (or 437) is not enough to really turn any heads. But if the District had even just one Senator, that would make a big difference. The procedural rules in the Senate serve as a backstop against the tyranny of the majority, with filibusters, holds, and "poison pills" serving as part of a Senator's arsenal to protect his or her constituents from unfavorable legislation, like the amendment to abolish D.C.'s gun laws.

Many who find it easy to support a voting Representative for D.C. balk when it comes to Senatorial representation. For instance, Senator Orrin Hatch has written:

The District's current status as a non-state, therefore, does not bar representation in the House, which is designed to represent population, but does bar representation in the Senate, which is designed to representstates. 

While Senator Hatch's distinction has some intuitive appeal, I don't think his distinction has much historical or constitutional significance. To me, the distinction between representation in the House and Senate, and the point of the Great Compromise, was to have one chamber with proportionate representation--which would protect large states and majority interests--and one chamber with disproportionate representation--which would protect smaller states and minority interests. Americans living in D.C. and the territories--like Americans living in small states--are vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. Of course, since Congress acts as the equivalent of a state legislature in non-state areas, the tyranny of the majority has many more opportunities to express itself in these areas.

So, Americans living in the District and the territories, like Americans living in any other part of the United States, deserve representation in the House. But our American democratic values also demand representation for them in the Senate. In the absence of the protection of federalism, the five million Americans who live in non-state areas within the United States need both if "consent of the governed" is to mean anything for these Americans.

Attorney General Latest to Weigh in on DC Vote Constitutional Controversy

2009-04-03T08:25:00.007-04:00

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Department of Justice provides the latest example that there are two fair-minded perspectives on whether or not the latest DC Voting Rights proposal is constitutional. According to the Post:

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

What seems to me to often get lost in these discussions and debates over the constitutionality of the DC Voting Rights bill is the recognition that there is generally broad consensus that America's democratic values dictate that citizens in DC, like citizens anywhere, should have full representation in the National Government.

Motivated by this consensus, supporters of the DC Voting Rights bill--Democrats and Republicans alike--have found a creative political solution to getting the issue of DC Voting Rights before the American people. Ultimately of course, it is the Supreme Court who will determine the constitutionality of the DC Voting Rights bill, not Eric Holder, Congress or President Obama.

But I say good for the Attorney General for taking a stand in support of DC Voting Rights and against un-American Democracy!

Un-American Democracy Revealed

2009-03-29T11:14:00.003-04:00

Who knew that when my family moved from Oregon to the U.S Territory of Guam when I was 9 years old that my parents would no longer be able to vote for President and they would no longer have voting representation in Congress? Moving to the District of Columbia after college to work on Capitol Hill meant I could vote for President, just not a voting member of Congress. It wasn’t until I moved to New Haven, Connecticut for law school that I could vote for a U.S. Senator and a Congressperson who could actually vote. If, instead of moving within the United States, my family or I had moved to France or some other country, we would have never lost our voting rights. The problem was (and is!) that American citizenship and representation in the National Government means one thing if you happen to live in a state and something else if you happen to live in Guam, the District of Columbia, or another U.S. territory. While servicemen and women from the District and U.S. territories proudly serve to promote American democratic values abroad, they endure an un-American democracy as second-class citizens at home. This is wrong.

I think most Americans would agree with me that this is wrong. But then most Americans simply don’t know that 5 million of their fellow citizens--tens of thousands of whom serve in our Armed Forces--lack meaningful representation in the national government. Most Americans don’t even realize that Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa are part of the United States. Ok, I didn’t know either until I moved to Guam, but then I was nine years old.

One of the reasons I've started this blog is because it seems that a national conversation of sorts is emerging over the question of voting rights in our Nation’s Capital. Congress, or at least the Senate, has finally recognized that it is time to right this historic wrong. The problem is that this isn’t just a question of DC voting rights. It’s a more fundamental question of the constitutional status of Americans who live in non-state areas like the District and U.S. territories. Hence the controversy over why some fair-minded people think the DC voting rights bill is constitutional, and others do not.

The constitutional design of American democracy never considered that D.C. would become a major metropolitan city of half a million people. After all, DC was just a swamp when the Constitution was written. Just as sure, the Founding Fathers never contemplated that 4.5 million Americans would reside in territories whose political relationship to the national government could most closely be analogized to the political relationship between the original thirteen colonies and the crown. Quasi-colonies in the 21^st century. So while I believe the DC voting rights bill is a good first step (and an incredibly clever political move), whether or not it is upheld by the courts, it is only a first step. Until every American has representation in our national government no matter where they live within our great nation, there will still be second-class citizens who live in an un-American democracy.

As someone who has lived in both the District and a U.S. territory, I hope my blog is able to add another perspective to the discussion of what can and should be done to address the voting rights of Americans who live inside the United States but outside of states. I know there are a lot of differences between the situation in the District and the situation in each of the territories, just as there are differences politically between states and non-state areas. Bottom line to me though is that no U.S. citizen should have to choose between representation and where they live within the United States.