Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

I was living in CA back in 2000, when Californians voted:

“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”

You can bet that I wasn’t one of the votes for that change to the Constitution (Proposition 22). In fact, I was hanging out with some friends watching the results roll in. 4,579,386 voted for the new language, and 2,897,689 voted against the language. It was disappointing to say the least.

Today, we made some progress, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds (from today’s decision, In Re Marriage Cases, S147999):

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, May 2008, p 120.
There is still some distance to go.

Of course, although the Domestic Partner Act generally affords registered domestic partners the same substantive benefits and privileges and imposes upon them the same responsibilities and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married spouses, the act does not purport to (and lawfully could not) modify the applicable provisions of federal law, which currently do not provide for domestic partnerships and which define marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the union of a man and a woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) In light of the current provisions of federal law, the many federal benefits (and the amount of those benefits) granted to a married person or to a married couple on the basis of their married status are not available to registered domestic partners. Included within this category are significant benefits such as those relating to Social Security, Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, federal military and veterans’ programs, federal employment programs, and filing status for federal income tax purposes. All of these important federal benefits, however, also would be denied to same-sex couples even if California designated the official union of such couples a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, because, as noted, federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” (1 U.S.C. § 7.)

In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, May 2008, pp 44-45.

The following is a guest post from Denise Juneau, Democratic candidate for Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. This post is part of a series designed to allow our readers to get to know Montana candidates and should not be construed as an endorsement.

U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.

I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.

I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:

Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.

Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.

I have to admit, when local educators Don Pogreba and Jason Neiffer announced their candidacies for the highest positions in the state, I wondered what sort of a gimmick it was. I mean, while they are really well respected bloggers, they hardly fit the criteria of the traditional gubernatorial candidates. Though I spoke up in favor, my initial fear was that their intentions were to take pot shots at the governor, providing fodder that would ultimately weaken him in the general.

Pograba has claimed his candidacy as an effort to open a state wide dialog on education. and while they are extreme long shots for winning the primary on June 3rd, their campaign feels like a complete success so far. As I noted Don’s piece in the Billings Gazette over the weekend, I see that there is a piece by Chuck Johnson in the Helena IR. You see, without these guys getting off their butts and running on what they believe in, readers would not be seeing a headline that reads Pogreba: State hasn’t met school funding decision and they wouldn’t be reminded of things like this:

“I think more money for education will prevent the need for more money for corrections,” he said. “I’ve never understood why we want to send more money for jail cells and not for textbooks.”
[snip]
“Our philosophy is we shouldn’t be looking to 1950 for our economic solutions,” he said. “We should be looking to 2050. By that, we should not assume that resource extraction is a long-term solution for our economy.”

These are good words for folks to be thinking about over their morning coffee. Without this candidacy, they would not likely be reading anything of the sort tomorrow morning. As my hero George Ochenski points out:

Instead of talking about school funding issues, which are once again back in court, or mentioning teacher salaries, school district consolidation, or cleaning out top-heavy administration, (Roy) Brown’s big education proposal is this: “Roy will urge the Montana High School Association (MHSA) to establish tournaments of champions, so athletes in virtually all sports, and in all communities have a chance to perform and succeed on a higher level.”

It’s this kind of frustration with the current candidates for governor that motivated the two teachers to consider raising the bar by entering the race. And while they say Schweitzer has done “a great job” as governor compared to the Republicans before him, they also think the entire education debate would be well served by bringing it to the forefront of the campaign. If it’s just Schweitzer versus Brown, they say, “we’re not overwhelmingly optimistic there is going to be a great discussion of education in a general election campaign.” Because Roy Brown is so far to the right, Pogreba says he thinks it would be “good to engage Governor Schweitzer right now.”

This is an important discussion to be having, and I give major kudos to Don and Jason for making sure that we are having it. In the past I have viewed non traditional candidates with a wary eye as ‘attention seekers’. I suppose that is exactly what Don and Jason are doing, only this time it isn’t out of vanity.

Note: This piece is a discussion of the Pogreba/Neiffer campaign and should not be considered as and endorsement any more than this note should be considered as a lack of one.

Gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba wrote an interesting opinion piece on education funding in the Billing Gazette. While Don and I don’t agree on everything, I think he generally nails the issues surrounding education dead on. This piece being no exception, Don manages to distill the debate that is going on in this state in a few sentences:

Rather than acknowledge funding shortfalls, conservative critics of education would like you believe that Montana is already spending too much on its education programs. Despite laudable increases in the last few years, statistics demonstrate that Montana has failed to keep pace with the spending necessary for quality education. The conservative American Legislative Council just issued some troubling statistics about education spending in Montana. According to their research, we rank dead last in the nation in compensation for education professionals, and 42nd in the rate of growth in education expenditures, from 1986-2005.
[snip]
The people of Montana have a choice to make. We can either look backwards to 1950, focusing on resource extraction that will primarily benefit multinational corporations, or we can look ahead to 2050, focusing on the best-educated, most creative people in the world, giving them the tools to create their own destinies because we had the sense to invest in them.

During last years legislative session, I was dismayed to see that there was a debate over this at all. To fund or not to fund while we have teachers buying classroom supplies from their own meager salaries. It just doesn’t make sense to me that legislators don’t seem to get the point that Don makes above: educating our children is far and away the best investment we can make.

With the recent defeat of mill levies to fund schools in Great Falls and Billings, we should see that there are some very serious issues with the regard for education in this state. In order to help deal with budget shortfalls Senators Ryan and Kitzenberg (also a candidate for OPI) will propose a special session to consider a bill that would add $30 million to fund Montana schools.

“We think such economic factors as rising gasoline and food costs were a big reason why people opposed levies,” Ryan said. “And we believe the state has enough surplus revenue to help prevent school districts from cutting too many teachers and programs.”

One important point that this statement should bring out to people is that the same budget issues caused by inflation facing individuals are also afflicting schools. While I applaud their effort to deal with the issues, I would also make the claim that there is something fundamentally problematic about the state’s attitude to school funding. Emergency funding is good but positive policies with long term growth plans would be so much better.

For instance, consider my own neighborhood here is Helena. New houses go in everyday, but the school has stayed the same size. Kids are just shipped further and further away. Builders should be putting money into building new schools in the area as they are the ones making the profit off of building the houses there. The increased value of the property will support the school, but it has to be built first.

As Don points out, we need a shift in the way that we think about school funding. It is not a sink hole, it is an investment.

Dear Readers: Every once in a while, I need to vent. 

Today is just such a day.

To anyone that thinks political blogging is easy, try it out for yourself, you will be quickly dissuaded.  I personally put my own opinions, thoughts and analysis out there on a several-times-a-month basis for public consumption.  We political bloggers are just persistant. 

The only way I know some of our elected leaders, is because I made the first contact.  That’s right, I reached out to them.  And frankly, anytime I have any questions, I have to seek them out and remind their assistants who I am.  It is not like I have their home or cell phone numbers or email addresses.

Everyone has heard me yelling at Max lately about the DC vote.  And even though I am a former favorite employee of his law school study buddy and friend, whose son did an internship with Max a couple of summers ago, I still have never talked to the guy.  I have tried, but I get the same standard response that everyone else does when I contact him over an issue. 

Schweitzer?  Well I think he knows who I am, I have run into him a couple of times, but never spoken with him personally.  Bollinger though, I went up to him at the Dem party returns in 2006 and tell him about the voter suppression tactics going on on Montana’s reservations.  He said he would check into it for me.   (Which begs the point, if I think native vote is important, of course I consider DC votes important; but that is a seperate issue.) 

Dennis, again, never met the guy.  Been to one debate he bothered to show up to and talk about issues, probably remotely somewhat at my prompting. 

Jon Tester?  Well I have met him once, and his mother and wife once.  All at debates, but at least they took the time to shake my hand.  My mother ran into him the other day at a local store, and he joked with her about his granddaughter taking her own sweet time.  I really appreciate him, and his follow through on promises made to Montanans.  For example, the independent ethics audit of his office.  Its not about votes, because it is a non-election year for him, it is about being honest and having it confirmed for Montanans.  Thanks Jon. 

The locals?  Well I can’t help that I know the Mayor, I just do.  And I know a lot of Helena’s local representatives in local and state government, from being involved at the local level.  Attend a few local debate meets, and you will know them too.  Some know who I am, and some don’t.  It is all good. 

The point is, to anyone who thinks that “demo” bloggers are somehow special, or singled out for particular attention and favors. . .you are so off base.  We are just average people, out there, in a public way, talking about what matters to us. No, I am not the most well known blogger in Montana.  And arguably, I have been surpassed in the female political blogger department by a couple of friends of mine.  It is all good.  (Frankly, I thank them for taking some of the pressure off).

The bottom line is this.  I don’t get paid one red cent for blogging.  I do this because it is important for me for people to know what I know.  And the truth is, I only know it because I take the time to research it out.  I like going more in depth on an issue than traditional media does.  I like that I have the time and the forum to do so.  It took work to have such a forum.

Just, every once in a while, while you might not agree, take the time to thank a political blogger for all that they do to keep you in the play-by-play with the ground game that is going on, and bringing up great discussion points that get us all involved in our government.

That’s all really; thanks for the venting time.

Very truly yours;  Cece.

This one has me a little confused. If anyone can offer some clarity, I would appreciate it:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday the state has agreed to buy Helena’s 1960s-era shopping mall as the site for a $40 million history museum, but only if supporters can raise $13 million in private funds by mid-November.

If, and only if, museum supporters can raise 13 million by November, the state will buy the little mall for 6.5 million from a bond approved by the 2005 legislature. The entire project is estimated to cost 40 million dollars, but will be built in phases as money is raised.

If the deal is signed, the state would own the mall for several years, collect rent from its tenants and be responsible for its operation, while a new mall is built for the current businesses. Then, if enough private money is donated, the mall would be razed to build the new museum.

Lets be clear here: I almost always support the idea of museums and liberal arts, but something about this deal just seems off. Am I missing something here? If the museum folks can raise 13 million dollars, why don’t they just buy the mall site themselves? Or, better yet, rather than paying for a huge building that will ultimately be torn down, why don’t they just buy a piece of empty on the outskirts of town?

I have been to the current museum several times, I really like it. It is a very nice building and well laid out. The main complaint by the Historical Society is that they don’t have enough room to display all the artifacts and exhibits. When I have visited I ran out of time/interest before I ran out of stuff to look at. That’s just my opinion and I am positive that others will have different thoughts. If so, please do fill me in on what I am missing. I am open to changing my opinion here but I need some clarity.

Will someone please tell Senator Clinton? The race is run, you did well but it is time that we all move towards winning the Whitehouse in November. It over. Its done.

[Update]: Pete points out in the comments that we can tell her until we are blue in the face and she isn’t going to listen. At Rebels Are We!, Colby points out that the superdelegates are the only ones who can really send the message. Demonstrate some leadership and pick a side.

Colby recently posited that super delegates who had been waiting for a reason to come out for Hillary might use the recent AP-Ipsos poll as a reason to come out in support of Clinton:

Super-delegates have been waiting for a chance to fall behind her, and it is looking more and more like they will get their chance; more polls like this one will only fuel Hillary’s argument that she is the stronger candidate.

The notorious Mark T. pointed out in comments here that if that were the case, Pennsylvania was the perfect opportunity. While Colby’s gut feeling hasn’t panned out, with endorsements going to Obama at a rate of 2 to 1 this week, all of this discussion is a little troublesome.

[UPDATE TO THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE: Obama picks up three super delegates in Illinois and a Texas super delegate announced support today]

The point of super delegates is not that they are party insiders per say but rather that they are party leaders. We shouldn’t have to be discussing this in terms of poll watching and public opinion. I have said it before: If we are to maintain the super delegate system, then they must do their jobs as leaders of the party to insure that we exit the convention with a strong Democratic candidate. If they were not in the equation, this race would have been over weeks ago. Since they are in the equation, it is time to make a decision.

Now, I will point you to a letter written by the most recent super delegate to announce his support. Joe Andrew is the former DNC Chair, and his announcement doesn’t just count for a win for Obama, but also as a loss for Hillary. In my opinion, this man showed an amazing blaze of leadership that would be refreshing to see from some of our own leaders:

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
[snip]
The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

The letter, both eloquent and inspiring, explains in detail why he has chosen Obama over Clinton, but that is not my point here. My point is that it is time for our leaders to start acting like leaders and let their vote be known. Every day that this continues is another day that our potential candidate get weaker. Don’t tread the line any longer, don’t fear raising the ire of some of us over doing the right thing. This isn’t the time for vote counting and poll watching. I think that Wulfgar said it best:

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans. Most of us don’t have time for your little power games. If you want Hillary, go with Hillary. If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so. Put an end to this thing … now … before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan’t. And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you. Montana expects little else. But would you please just make a choice so that we don’t suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?

Did Osama Bin Ladin crash planes into the World Trade Center himself? No. The word is that he called for it to be done and his followers did it. How is this different than Rush Limbaugh’s call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention? Serioulsy? How is it different?

We’re the only ones in charge of our affairs,” he said. “We don’t farm out our defense, unless we elect Democrats. We don’t farm out our protection against attack and national security, unless we elect Democrats. We don’t farm out our economy and tear it up in the name of a hoax called global warming, unless we elect Democrats. Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don’t elect Democrats!

Now, we will pass on the fact that he said that people on the left like to burn their own houses and cars and kill our own children. I would not expect any better from the hate filled man that spawned this joker. The real issue is that America has become so used to Rush’s mental vomit that a call to riot in Denver goes virtually unnoticed? Will it go unheeded? We don’t know. What the hell is wrong with these people, Hammond and Rush, that would feel them so full of anger and hate?

I think that the notorious Mark T hit the nail square on the head about these guys:

But it serves as a reminder - this is not, nor will it be, a rational debate about policy. We are dealing with extremists and revolutionaries who are convinced they are right about everything and that we know nothing. They will do anything to win. It’s not boxing. It’s street fighting. Don’t play nice with them.

A rational debate about policy, they can not win and don’t even pretend to engage in. Instead of rational debate on the issues, we get calls to riot, anger, hatred, fear and ‘Operation Chaos’ from a bunch of wild eyed fundamentalist.

I understand the claim that arguing over Obama and Hillary online is getting us no where. I also agree that it just might be time that the super delegates step in and do their jobs. While I am no fan of that institution, we have no need for them if they only to bind themselves to the popular vote. Their purpose, as I understand it, is to make sure that we have a strong candidate by coming out of the primary. If that is the case, do your jobs and do it last week.

We have a leader in popular vote, pledged delegates and total delegates. What? You mean that we are supposed to count Michigan and Florida? Even though Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan? Even though all the candidates agreed to skip that primary? So says Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman:

I’m saying they’ve already voted, let’s count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

While these types of remarks have been issued repeatedly by the Clinton campaign and statements misstatements of popular vote majority have been left unchallenged in the MSM, there is another side to this story. I was not aware that there is a history behind Michigan and breaking the rules.

Way back in 2000, when the same Terry McAuliffe quoted above was the head of the DNC, Michigan tried to move its primary ahead. Back then, Carl Levin informed McAuliffe that Michigan would move their primary outside the window. McAuliffe answered that he would not allow him to do that, because it would cause ‘the whole system to collapse’

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” he said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules.

If McAuliffe felt so strongly about it when he was head of the DNC, why has he reversed his position when he is the head of the Clinton campaign? Now, it is fun to talk about Sinbad and snipers and so forth, but we are talking about some pretty major reversals in positions from the people around her.

Let’s just put the damn Florida and Michigan questions behind us and move on. Those states did not live within the rules, and as such their voters lost out. It is not the fault of the DNC, it is the fault of the state parties and legislators of those states and they should be held accountable by the voters. The central issue is that the man that Hillary Clinton chose to chair her campaign threw his integrity out the window in her name.

Consider this my second call for the super delegates to step up and do their jobs.

The Helana IR has a piece covering the four Democrats in the OPI primary. For the most part, it is exactly what you would expect, clippings from their websites. The interesting part comes from the manner in which both Raser and Kitzenberg assert that while all the candidates are experienced educators, legislative experience is uber-important too.

“I believe that the superintendent needs to be somebody closely connected to schools,” Raser added. “In the days of school funding and school policy, they also need to be closely connected to the Legislature to be able to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.”

That makes a certain amount of sense. As Kitzenberg himself points out:

“I just think it’s imperative that you have legislative experience and that you build up relationships with legislators from both parties,” he said. “You have to have had some success in the Legislature. You should have gotten some things done, which I have.”

Again, it makes sense. However, I wouldn’t be writing this story if it was that cut and dry. Would I? If one actually thinks about it and puts it into context, as Lee Newspapers seldom does, there is another side to that story. You might remember something Kitzenberg did that cause me to write a post titled “Democrats take the Montana Legislature!” I remember, so will most of the Republican’s in the legislature. You see where I am going with this?

I don’t really know anything about Raser in the legislature, but if she did anything worthwhile then she made a few enemies across the aisle. That’s just how the Montana legislature works. While I am sure that either of these two would make excellent superintendents, I am only presenting the other side of the equatuation as a reminder that Fear And Loathing In Helena is a very real thing. Isn’t it possible that long term political histories can actually be a liability to the OPI?

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

I am sorry, but I long ago decided that Andy Hammond is not one to be taken seriously, but after this post, I will always picture him as Butter’s alter ego Professor Chaos!

Let’s look at the idea. Essentially, Andy Butters Professor Chaos is taking a queue from pundit comedian Rush Limbaugh wherein they encourage other Republicans to go to the voting booth and pull the level labeled ‘Hillary’ because they see her as the most beatable in November.

My goal is to continue Operation Chaos in the Montana Democrat Primary. It’s an open primary on June 3 so it will be very easy to just go and vote. It is the last state primary, along with South Dakota, before the National Convention and I am pretty sure Hillary will still be battling so I plan on voting for her. I have also recruited, to date, eight other conservatives to vote for her and plan on recruiting many more.

Like Colby points out, he “sounds like some 14 year old kid starting up a World of Warcraft clan”. While it is funny, in the same sad way that Butter’s is funny when desperation and a search for respect causes him to create the alter ego ‘Professor Chaos’, it is a bit more sinister. Consider this:

In order to do this we need to do whatever we can to ensure we can win. For example, 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched to the Democrat party in order to vote in the Democrat primary. Hillary won by double digits. This was all through the encouragement of Rush and Operation Chaos. The goal is to keep Hillary in the race so her and Obama can keep tearing each other up and exposing each other for the unqualified candidates they are.

There are a few thigs to take from this:

1. Andy Professor Chaos is so vacuous that he can not comprehend why those voters switched from Republican to Democratic. As always, he has a problem with basic facts. Maths are hard Andy Butters, you should leave it to the experts.

Barack Obama won among Democrats who had newly flocked to the party for the day’s showdown

2. Andy Professor Chaos may or may not hate democracy, but it is obvious that he is willing to resort to treachery to make sure that the system is compromised.

I am not sure if Andy Professor Chaos is really as dishonorable as the plan he is putting forward here, he may just be a scared little Butter’s and this is the only way he knows how to cope with the fact that the nation is moving on without him.

Look at the headlines:

Senate Republicans block unequal pay bill
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate
Republicans block pay discrimination bill

What is happening here? What is it about women and the working class in general that Republicans hate? Even in a session saturated by GOP obstructionism, this one really stands out.

The blocked Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost her case in the Supreme Court last year, is backed by women’s and civil rights groups that argue it would give workers a fair chance for justice.
-
It is opposed by the White House and business groups, which warn it would trigger an explosion of lawsuits and allow suits to be filed years and even decades after alleged offenses.
-
On average in the United States, women are paid about 23 percent less than men, while minorities receive even less — despite laws that mandate equal pay for equal work

Opposed by the White House and business groups? Well, by all means, vote it down. Can someone explain why Republican’s are so interested in doing the bidding of business groups instead of looking out for their constituents? What is the idea with that?

Let’s just get this bit out of the way. I am not a lawyer; I am just a person who has the privilege of being a United States citizen, with all the rights and obligations that come with that honor. It is my duty as a citizen to defend the Constitution. Someone whose opinion I value disagrees with me. I am rising to the challenge.

There is an argument afoot, as to the legality of a legislative vs. amendment solution to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I believe that both a legislative and an amendment path could lead to righting a 200-year-old wrong; my friend believes that there is only an amendment path. That is what this post is about, evidencing the legal legislative path to representation in Congress for DC residents.

First some history. Back when the founding fathers were writing the Constitution in June of 1783, there was a riot outside of the statehouse in Philadelphia, (which was the capitol of the US, at the time). There were some unpaid revolutionary troops, who were demanding pay from the forming federal government, the forming fathers asked Pennsylvania to provide some protection, and Pennsylvania refused. The Congress decided to move to Princeton then to Trenton, New Jersey; to Annapolis, Maryland; and finally, New York City, to settle the Constitution in a more peaceful environment(s).

From this situation, the idea of a “District”, outside of the influence and dependence on a singular state was born. The Framers constructed an idea of a District no more than 10 miles on each side, to hold the nation’s capitol. Alexander Hamilton raised an amendment to the Constitution, in his state, providing that when the federal district reached significant population (reached in 1850), “provision shall be made by Congress for having a District representation in that body”. The Constitution was passed without such amendment in 1789, when everyone lived in a state.

So the idea of the District was created. Virginia and Maryland succeeded lands to create the District, and in 1791, the site was chosen by George Washington. While the District was under construction, the residents were allowed to vote in their former state’s elections (north of the Potomac in Maryland, and south of the Potomac in Virginia). December 1, 1800, the federal government moved to Washington D.C. from Philadelphia. It wasn’t until 1801, when Congress assumed control over the District, that the former residents of Virginia and Maryland were denied the right to vote in elections.

July 9, 1846, Congress passed a law returning Alexandria County and Alexandria to the State of Virginia. After decades of DC resident’s complaints (petitioning as early as 1803), the lands of the District, south of the Potomac, were returned by recession to Virginia, and the residents living in that area had representation on the hill again. You will note that the right to representation in Congress was a primary reason that the District is not 10 miles square today. While I might I don’t agree with their reasoning for wanting the vote (slavery), the fact remains that the citizens demanded representation, and Congress gave the land back, so that they could have representation. The yellow bit is Virginia, and the gray/white part is formerly Maryland and present day Washington, D.C.

Image from Mental Floss.

My friend claims that there is nothing in the Consititution granting the power to Congress to pass a law granting a voting member to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives. The relevant portion of the Constitution is, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, (hereinafter “The District Clause”):

To exercise exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States . . .” (Emphasis mine.)

And he would probably cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States . . . “

And Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 (as amended by the 17th Amendment):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof. . . “

Ahh, there’s the rub. Fortunately, I have several instances where Congress has treated Washington, D.C. as a state, by using the District Clause.

Congress has let Citizens Vote for Congress Even When They Aren’t State Residents: While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected “by the People of the Several states,” Congress has not always applied this language so literally:

* After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later became the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 - even though, legally, they were no longer residents [of a state].

* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. Citizens living abroad to vote in Congressional elections in their last state of residence - even if the no longer are citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return.

. . .

* Article III provides that courts may hear cases “between citizens of different states” (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, D.C. residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating D.C. as a state for this purpose - a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949).

* The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce “among the several states,” which, literally, would exclude D.C. But Congress’ authority to threat D.C. as a “state” for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889).

* Similarly, a U.S. Court of Appeals recently treated D.C. as a “state” for purposed of the Second Amendment, in Parker v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2007).

from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Letter with H.R. 1905 Fact Sheet Including Constitutionality Issues, April 18, 2007 (PDF 93 kb)

* “For instance, the Supreme Court consistently has upheld Congress’ right to treat the District as a state in decisions on federal taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, the right to trial by jury, prohibition and the right to sue citizens of the states in federal courts . . .”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

“Moreover, the United States is the only country in the world that denies the citizens of its capital representation in its national legislature, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).” id.

Ilir Zherka, executive director of the voting-rights advocacy group DC Vote, points out that for decades the U.S. departments of State and Justice have helped other countries write their constitutions “In not one of them has the U.S. proposed to disenfranchise the people of the capital.”, id.

Let’s refer back to the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue. I think it is extremely important here. The Sixteenth Amendment (passed in 1909, ratified in 1913):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The D.C. is not a State, yet the citizens pay Federal Income Taxes. If my friend’s contention is true, that Congress cannot pass a law giving representation to its citizen’s, because it is unconstitutional based on the frequent use of “the several states” throughout the Constitution; then the fact that D.C. citizens pay taxes on their incomes would be unconstitutional as well.

If my friend’s contention held true, that D.C. cannot be treated as a state under the Constitution, and the powers granted to Congress to provide legislation “exercise[ing] exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district“; then the Congress would have done a lot of illegal things over the years.

I posit the Constitution conflicts with itself. It is not a perfect document. All contingencies could not have been foretold. Therefore, the founding fathers put in ways to amend it (thank you Ben Franklin), and ways for Congress to provide for the citizen’s rights, who happened to live in a District, instead of a State.