SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
DC Voting Rights Debacle
Mar 12, 2009
Last week, twenty-two Democrats failed to muster the courage of Republican Senator Richard Lugar and vote against a draconian gun amendment that had no business being attached to a voting rights bill.
The bill in question was the DC Voting Rights Act, which would give 600,000 tax-paying DC residents a voting Representative in Congress for the first time. Prospects looked good, until Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was permitted to introduce his amendment, which would strip the city of its right to regulate guns--we're talking registration requirements, age limitations, vision tests, anything.
Most blame the Republican Party, which--with the exception of Lugar--supported the amendment. But we already knew the GOP has little interest in civil rights legislation and that nothing gets them really passionate as guns, God and gays.
The Democrats, on the other hand, want us to see them as the party of civil rights, the party of change, the people's party. In this case it is more reminiscent of the party whose Southern members repeatedly torpedoed civil rights legislation with filibusters and unacceptable amendments.
Blame begins with Majority Leader Harry Reid, who seemed to forget the "leader" part of his title. He should have fought like hell to keep this off the floor--everyone involved in this issue knew that gun amendments were an obvious poison pill for the legislation. If he couldn't keep it off the floor, he should have pushed to hold the caucus together and maintain its commitment to expanding the franchise.
Instead, it seems Reid signaled that this was a "free vote" for Senators to appease the NRA, which would be scoring it. Perhaps Reid figured there would be a clean bill delivered from the House, and then they could get rid of the amendment in conference. So with a nod and a wink the amendment went through--including Reid's vote of approval--62-36.
Now the House finds itself in a tough position. The Rules Committee postponed its decision on whether to permit a vote on the gun amendment when the NRA let them know they would score that decision. Also, House members in pro-gun states now fear the consequences of not voting on the Ensign amendment after the Senate passed it so resoundingly. Voting rights advocates are confident that they can come up with a strategy to pass it out of the House. But there are no guarantees.
Did Senator Reid really think Nevadans--which ranked first in foreclosure percentage in 2007--give a damn about gun regulations in the district? Did Democratic senators truly believe they would lose re-election bids against a busted GOP based on their votes on the Ensign amendment? Are they so afraid of the big, bad NRA? If in fact they were intent on gutting DC's right to regulate guns, maybe they should have had the courage to introduce that as a stand-alone bill rather than attach it to one addressing the fundamental issue of taxation without representation.
One Republican Senator who supports DC voting rights and felt no choice but to go along with his caucus was heard to mutter after the amendment vote, "Just what this city needs--more guns."
Thank you, Harry Reid. Thank you, Party of Change.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
Greg Kaufmann
Greg Kaufmann is a Contributing Writer at The Nation and a Journalist in Residence at the Roosevelt Institute. He also is the founder of TalkPoverty.org.
Last week, twenty-two Democrats failed to muster the courage of Republican Senator Richard Lugar and vote against a draconian gun amendment that had no business being attached to a voting rights bill.
The bill in question was the DC Voting Rights Act, which would give 600,000 tax-paying DC residents a voting Representative in Congress for the first time. Prospects looked good, until Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was permitted to introduce his amendment, which would strip the city of its right to regulate guns--we're talking registration requirements, age limitations, vision tests, anything.
Most blame the Republican Party, which--with the exception of Lugar--supported the amendment. But we already knew the GOP has little interest in civil rights legislation and that nothing gets them really passionate as guns, God and gays.
The Democrats, on the other hand, want us to see them as the party of civil rights, the party of change, the people's party. In this case it is more reminiscent of the party whose Southern members repeatedly torpedoed civil rights legislation with filibusters and unacceptable amendments.
Blame begins with Majority Leader Harry Reid, who seemed to forget the "leader" part of his title. He should have fought like hell to keep this off the floor--everyone involved in this issue knew that gun amendments were an obvious poison pill for the legislation. If he couldn't keep it off the floor, he should have pushed to hold the caucus together and maintain its commitment to expanding the franchise.
Instead, it seems Reid signaled that this was a "free vote" for Senators to appease the NRA, which would be scoring it. Perhaps Reid figured there would be a clean bill delivered from the House, and then they could get rid of the amendment in conference. So with a nod and a wink the amendment went through--including Reid's vote of approval--62-36.
Now the House finds itself in a tough position. The Rules Committee postponed its decision on whether to permit a vote on the gun amendment when the NRA let them know they would score that decision. Also, House members in pro-gun states now fear the consequences of not voting on the Ensign amendment after the Senate passed it so resoundingly. Voting rights advocates are confident that they can come up with a strategy to pass it out of the House. But there are no guarantees.
Did Senator Reid really think Nevadans--which ranked first in foreclosure percentage in 2007--give a damn about gun regulations in the district? Did Democratic senators truly believe they would lose re-election bids against a busted GOP based on their votes on the Ensign amendment? Are they so afraid of the big, bad NRA? If in fact they were intent on gutting DC's right to regulate guns, maybe they should have had the courage to introduce that as a stand-alone bill rather than attach it to one addressing the fundamental issue of taxation without representation.
One Republican Senator who supports DC voting rights and felt no choice but to go along with his caucus was heard to mutter after the amendment vote, "Just what this city needs--more guns."
Thank you, Harry Reid. Thank you, Party of Change.
Greg Kaufmann
Greg Kaufmann is a Contributing Writer at The Nation and a Journalist in Residence at the Roosevelt Institute. He also is the founder of TalkPoverty.org.
Last week, twenty-two Democrats failed to muster the courage of Republican Senator Richard Lugar and vote against a draconian gun amendment that had no business being attached to a voting rights bill.
The bill in question was the DC Voting Rights Act, which would give 600,000 tax-paying DC residents a voting Representative in Congress for the first time. Prospects looked good, until Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was permitted to introduce his amendment, which would strip the city of its right to regulate guns--we're talking registration requirements, age limitations, vision tests, anything.
Most blame the Republican Party, which--with the exception of Lugar--supported the amendment. But we already knew the GOP has little interest in civil rights legislation and that nothing gets them really passionate as guns, God and gays.
The Democrats, on the other hand, want us to see them as the party of civil rights, the party of change, the people's party. In this case it is more reminiscent of the party whose Southern members repeatedly torpedoed civil rights legislation with filibusters and unacceptable amendments.
Blame begins with Majority Leader Harry Reid, who seemed to forget the "leader" part of his title. He should have fought like hell to keep this off the floor--everyone involved in this issue knew that gun amendments were an obvious poison pill for the legislation. If he couldn't keep it off the floor, he should have pushed to hold the caucus together and maintain its commitment to expanding the franchise.
Instead, it seems Reid signaled that this was a "free vote" for Senators to appease the NRA, which would be scoring it. Perhaps Reid figured there would be a clean bill delivered from the House, and then they could get rid of the amendment in conference. So with a nod and a wink the amendment went through--including Reid's vote of approval--62-36.
Now the House finds itself in a tough position. The Rules Committee postponed its decision on whether to permit a vote on the gun amendment when the NRA let them know they would score that decision. Also, House members in pro-gun states now fear the consequences of not voting on the Ensign amendment after the Senate passed it so resoundingly. Voting rights advocates are confident that they can come up with a strategy to pass it out of the House. But there are no guarantees.
Did Senator Reid really think Nevadans--which ranked first in foreclosure percentage in 2007--give a damn about gun regulations in the district? Did Democratic senators truly believe they would lose re-election bids against a busted GOP based on their votes on the Ensign amendment? Are they so afraid of the big, bad NRA? If in fact they were intent on gutting DC's right to regulate guns, maybe they should have had the courage to introduce that as a stand-alone bill rather than attach it to one addressing the fundamental issue of taxation without representation.
One Republican Senator who supports DC voting rights and felt no choice but to go along with his caucus was heard to mutter after the amendment vote, "Just what this city needs--more guns."
Thank you, Harry Reid. Thank you, Party of Change.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.