THE UNITED States, a nation that defines itself as a beacon of democracy, has had a long history of denying its citizens the right to vote.
During the colonial era, religious restrictions were common. In five colonies Catholics could not vote, and in four colonies Jews could not vote. Until 1850, Americans had to own a certain amount of property to vote. Blacks in the South could not vote until 1870, women were not granted the vote until 1920 and Native Americans could not vote until 1924. Poll taxes and literacy tests unofficially disenfranchised blacks and poor whites in the South until those measures were declared unconstitutional in the late 1960s. Until 1971, American youth could die for their country but were considered too immature to vote.
The nation's history is not a history of universal suffrage, but a history of vote denying. American politicians have embraced all possible methods, using all available arguments to deny the vote to the American people. The traditionally vulnerable - blacks, women, religious minorities, Native Americans and the poor - have been conventional targets. It is preferable to believe that this legacy remains in the past, but believing the United States is a beacon of democracy is no less hypocritical today than it was sixty years ago. 600,000 Americans are still denied the vote.
Political leaders, ideally, are harbingers of law and order. They are supposed to follow a mandate voters grant them - a mandate to uphold and revere the democratic institutions of American society. The leaders of Washington, D.C. fit this mold better than the leaders of any community in the nation. By the leaders of the District, I mean the real leaders of the District: the City Council and mayor, not Congress and the president.
District Mayor Vincent Gray and six Council members were among the 41 arrested April 11 for blocking Constitution Ave. in an act of civil disobedience. In an inspiring and commendable act of what it truly means to be American leaders, individuals with a sturdy backbone and an eye for authentic democracy, District politicians joined their residents in protests over the continued, unjust disenfranchisement of the District.
District residents are denied proper representation in the federal government. It was not until 1963 that District residents could vote for president and vice president. It was not until 1973 that they had the right to elect a mayor and Council. Now, residents only have one non-voting representative in the House of Representatives and no representation in the Senate. It also remains the case that Congress can overturn all laws the District government enacts. Additionally, the president, not the District government, appoints the District's judges.
Frankly, the political situation in the District is an embarrassment to the legitimacy of American democracy. If the very capital of the United States is denied the civil liberties this nation stands for, how can Americans and citizens of other countries have any respect for American democracy? Is statehood for a territory with a greater population than Wyoming and one whose residents paid $20 billion in federal taxes in 2007 - more than the total paid in 19 individual states - really such an outlandish request? Common sense and an appeal to basic human dignity say no.
Politics says yes. Because not all political leaders have the spine to value American democracy like the District's leaders, it remains a political pawn used by both sides of the aisle.
Conservative lawmakers do anything and everything they can to meddle in the liberal policies of the District. For example, lawmakers have worked to ban District funding of needle-exchange programs put in place to battle the District's AIDS epidemic. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah also tried unsuccessfully several months ago to overturn the District's marriage equality law that granted same-sex couples the right to marry.
In addition, the District's strict gun regulations always have been preyed upon by Congress. And most recently, President Obama, who received 93 percent of the District's vote in 2008, traded away the District's policy of funding abortions in order to win Republican votes for a federal budget compromise.
It does not matter whether District policies are liberal, conservative or neither - its residents elected a representative body that would institute these policies. How is it fair for a politician in Utah to lobby Congress to remove these policies? How is it fair for President Obama to play politics and trade away a District policy to come to a federal budget agreement? It is not fair, it is not democracy. It is nothing less than tyranny, and it is wrong.
The United States has a legacy of vote denying, and the District's disenfranchised status is part of this history. Past American politicians hardly could have cared less about other disenfranchised groups such as blacks, women and youth. American politicians today hardly could care less about the District's 600,000 residents.
Other oppressed groups did not obtain the vote by playing nice or waiting around - they made themselves heard. The District also must make itself heard and force politicians to listen. Peaceful civil disobedience and protest has a legacy of success in the United States because it is a definitive declaration that a community refuses to remain ignored. With a leader like Mayor Gray, a forward-looking Council and residents who are ever more tired of being federal pawns, the District has the perfect opportunity to force Congress and the president to make it the nation's 51st state.
Jamie Dailey's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.dailey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
