Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

D.C. Holds 'Historic' Statehood Strategy Session

More than 40 people turned out for the D.C. Council's first statehood strategy session late yesterday afternoon at the John A. Wilson Building, including representatives from DC Vote, DC Statehood Green Party, the League of Women Voters, Stand Up for Democracy and several other groups.

"I think we're fighting for several things," Michael A. Brown, the councilmember who chairs the new committee, said before the meeting. "Any time there's an injustice, that's what this is about. There are under 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia and they deserve something, whether it's voting rights, statehood. That's what this meeting is about."

D.C. Wire was not allowed into the meeting, so we hung out in the hall outside room 502. Afterward, some of those filing out told the Wire they thought the meeting went smoothly.

D.C.'s two shadow senators had varying degrees of focus, providing one example of just how knotty an issue this can be, whether it's the fight for a D.C. vote in the U.S. House (tangled up in a battle for gun rights) or the all-out and even harder push for statehood.

"This voting rights bill, this gun amendment is just preposterous," said Michael D. Brown on the vote bill now on the Hill. "We can not stand by and let Congress take back our right to home rule. It gives them the right to make laws in the District of Columbia and it takes the right for us to make laws away. Statehood gets rid of all the problems. It gives us reps in both houses and it gives us control of our budget."

Shadow senator Paul Strauss, however, said divisiveness on voting issues and statehood should not be the focus.

"I think most people in the District of Columbia support statehood as the ultimate goal," he said. "There are some who see the house voting rights bill as a step in that direction, there are some who think it might derail the effort. I don't like the idea that people can be for voting rights and somehow that means they're against statehood."

Councilmember Brown released a statement late last night calling the meeting "historic."

"This meeting was a ground breaking success," he said in the statement. "It gave us the opportunity to finally sit down with a cross-section of leaders with varying viewpoints to build a common framework from which to work on one of the most pressing issues facing the District."

This also from the release: "Notwithstanding the diversity of perspectives offered during the meeting, the group reached consensus that full self-determination is the ultimate goal. The exact path to reaching this common goal varied amongst participants. The various approaches discussed included building a national movement in achieving statehood through an amendment to the US Constitution, using the current Voting Rights bill as an incremental step to full representation, and retroceding the District to Maryland or :StateVirginia . A common thread in all of the discussion was the agreement amongst the participants that working together is essential to developing a winning strategy."

Reading between those lines: there's still a lot of ground to cover on a collective strategy.

Still, Brown said participants offered feedback on a 60-day plan that will jump start the Special Committee's operations. That proposed effort included what's been a part of D.C. strategy for a while: from meetings with national and congressional leaders to the use of relatively new technology and social networking tools such as Twitter and Facebook.

Council Chair, Vincent C. Gray, Councilmember Yvette Alexander (Ward 7) and Councilmember Kwame Brown (At-Large) also attended the session.

David Betancourt

By Marcia Davis  |  March 25, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Categories:  Voting Rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hoyer 'Hopes' to Bring Back D.C. Vote Bill Before April Break
Next: Summer Jobs Program Kicks Off Today


It is impossible to retrocede the District to Virginia because Virginia already got all its land back in 1846 (that's where Arlington and part of Alexandria came from). "Retrocession" is giving back, so the only place we can retrocede to is the place the remaining land came from: Maryland. Why is it so hard for people to understand that Virginia isn't involved in this? Look at a map, and it's obvious where DC came from.

Posted by: KCinDC1 | March 25, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The city of Washington would fit in fine with the state of Maryland.

Not only would they get to vote on a U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators, they would also get to vote on all statewide offices in Maryland and on representation in the Legislature.

There is no reason for the special District of Columbia to exist. It can very easily be part of Maryland.

Posted by: ArtKelly | March 25, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Not having the privileges afforded to citizens from states, DC residents are effectively given a partial status as US citizens. That is simply unAmerican. I just left the city for warmer waters but my family has been in DC for nearly one hundred years. Serious talks should be initiated with MD to come up with a plan. Hammer it out and lets put it to a referendum in both jurisdictions.

Posted by: FLADC | March 25, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Brown hides in the skirtails of D.C.'s single-sex feminist secessionists groups who evade any referendum by the D.C. voter who in-fact support Mr. Heller and the Supreme Court conferring 2nd Amendment Rights to every D.C. resident.

Posted by: eglobegus | March 26, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse


You are off topic. The topic here is BALLOTS. We will discuss BULLETS elsewhere in an appropriate forum. This is not it.

Posted by: citizenw | April 1, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Any solution needs to address the root of the problem, which is the so-called "District Clause". No participatory form of government (lower-case democratic or republican) is reconcilable with the assertion that Congress has the power to exercise "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever", because that assertion is incompatible with the fundamental, bedrock "first principle" of participatory government, "Consent of the Governed." It was incompatible with the similar assertion in the Declaratory Act of 1766, too. That situation was resolved in favor of the "Consent" principle, and this situation will be too. Eventually.

Posted by: citizenw | April 1, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company