District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007

From OpenCongress Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

The District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007 would give Washington, D.C. a voting seat in the House of Representatives and grant an extra to Utah.

Main article: Voting rights in the District of Columbia

After Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 congressional elections, both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) expressed interest in pursuing congressional voting rights for the District of Columbia and expressed support for the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007, a bill sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). It passed in the House in April 2007 but was stopped by a 57-43 filibuster vote on September 18, 2007.

The bill is identical to one sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) in 2006 that never received a floor vote.

Contents

Current status

The Act passed the House on April 19, 2007 by a vote of 241-177. President Bush has indicated he does not support the bill (reversing a comment in 2006), but Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) has stated that he could sign the bill. On September 18, 2007, the Act was filibustered and fell three votes short of the sixty votes it needed to proceed to a final vote. Holmes Norton said that Republican Senators Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) originally had been supporters of the bill, but withdrew their support before the vote. Norton attributed their backing out to pressure within the party.

See the "History" section below for full details.

The 2007 Act was identical to one introduced during the 109th Congress by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) on May 3, 2005. That bill was known as the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act (H.R.5388). The bill, which was the only District voting rights measure to be voted out of a committee during the 109th Congress, passed the House Committee on Government Reform on May 18, 2006 in a 29-4 vote.

See the "History: Previous version" section below for full details.

Bill summary

If approved, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007 would:

  • Grant the District a full-voting member in the House.
  • Increase the number of congressional seats in the state of Utah from 3 to 4 (Utah missed a fourth seat following the 2000 census by a mere 857 residents). The additional seat would be an at-large one, meaning that it would be comprised of the entire state. The Utah state legislature therefore would not need to redraw the state's congressional districts to accommodate it.
  • Following the 2010 census, the House would remain at 437 districts. At this point, the number of seats given to a state would be solely based on the population figures from the new census (Utah would not be guaranteed the seat it gained as a result of this bill). Because each state, as well as the District, is guaranteed at least one seat in the House, the District would be guaranteed to keep its new seat.
  • Grant Utah an additional vote in the Electoral College in the 2008 presidential election (as a result of its additional seat in the House). The District, however, would not receive an additional electoral vote, as it already had 3 (the number of votes typically granted to a state with one congressional district) by virtue of the Twenty-Third Amendment (discussed below).

Questions of constitutionality

In mid-February 2007, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report was released indicating that the bill may violate the Constitution. The dispute centered on the Constitution’s declaration that the District is not a state for the purposes of representation. Some believed that for Congress to provide representation, an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary, rather than a bill.[1]

Del. Norton, the bill’s sponsor, stated “No similar case has ever been considered by any court...An unprecedented bill always raises constitutional issues, and we have always indicated that, not surprisingly, constitutional views on a novel bill like H.R. 328 are divided...We believe that the weight of constitutional opinion is with the District.”[2]

Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, a District voting rights advocacy group, said “We don’t think the CRS, or the Congress for that matter, is the arbiter of constitutionality...It’s unusual for someone at CRS to take this approach in an area that is completely undecided...This is not an area where there is case law. There isn’t clarity on this.”[3]

Support and opposition

Note: Some support and opposition may be for the 2006 version of this bill, the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act, sponsored by Rep Tom Davis (R-Va.).

Support from Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 2006

Early in 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the Davis’ version of the bill after it was clear that it would not call for the Utah state legislature to redraw its congressional districts.[4]

In November 2006, following the 2006 midterm elections, Pelosi (now Speaker-elect) said that she would seek to change House rules on the first day of the 110th Congress to temporarily allow the District's delegate (in this case Eleanor Holmes Norton) to vote on proposed changes, but not final approval of legislation on the floor. She also reaffirmed her support for the bill put forth by Davis and Norton in the 109th Congress.[5]

No commitment from President Bush

During his press conference the day following the 2006 midterm elections (November 8, 2006), President Bush was caught off-guard by a reporter who asked for his position on the Davis' bill. Bush, who had never been considered a supporter of increased voting rights for the District, replied, "First I've heard of it...I'll look at it."[6]

Bush again was noncommittal on the legislation in an interview on December 19, 2006, saying that he "will look carefully at what Congress proposes."[7]

Opposition from DC voting rights activist group

On January 17, 2007, the Stand Up for Democracy in D.C. Coalition opposed the bill, calling it "unequal." Rather, the coalition wished to pursue legislation granting the District voting rights in both houses of Congress. Coalition President Alise Jenkins stated, "A single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives falls far too short of fulfilling the goal of full citizenship for the people of the District of Columbia. Now that Congress has finally focused its attention on the District's lack of voting representation, we need to seize this opportunity to move forward immediately to full representation in the House and Senate."[8]

Grassroots activism

In February 2007, a music group called "Indie Roots DC" announced plans for a national tour to inform the American public about the issue of voting rights in the District of Columbia. The group supported the Norton-Davis measure in Congress, and hoped that increased awareness would press members to take action. One member of the group, Rob Getzschman, stated "The only reason this hasn’t been changed is because the nation doesn’t know about it".[9]

History

Del. Norton introduces bill in early 2007

On January 9, 2007, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's non-voting delegate, introduced the bill (H.R. 328), where it was then referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was latest of numerous attempts over several decades to provide voting rights for the District in the U.S. Congress.[10]


Main article: Voting rights in the District of Columbia
Co-sponsors of H.R. 328 (as of March 20, 2007)

Political ramifications

The bill was largely interpreted as a partisan compromise. Many Republicans had long been unenthusiastic about granting the District a voting member in Congress, for it would almost certainly be held by a Democrat (given the District’s overwhelmingly Democratic affiliation). By incorporating an additional seat for Utah, a reliably Republican state, as well as an additional electoral vote for the state in the 2008 presidential election, the bill was considered to have a much greater chance of attaining bipartisan support.[11]

The provision noting that Utah's new seat would be an at-large one was also seen as a compromise. If it had been added as a typical seat, the Utah state legislature would have immediately redrawn the state's district boundaries to accommodate it. Democrats, however, were likely to oppose this because the state could gerrymander the state in a way which made it difficult for Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), the state’s lone Democratic representative, to keep his seat. With an at-large seat, the state would have no need to redraw its districts.[12]

House

House Judiciary Committee approves bill

On March 15, 2007, The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill by a 21-13 vote. Two Republicans, Reps. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), supported the measure along with all committee Democrats. During the debate, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) threatened to introduce up to 43 amendments to the bill to protest granting a House vote to a non-state. Members voted on only one of the Gohmert amendments, a measure which would have made certain military installations congressional districts (it failed). Cannon also introduced an amendment that would allow Utah to decide whether to have its new House seat be at-large or undertake a redistricting effort to make a fourth seat, while Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced an amendment to Cannon’s amendment, which would have required the state to use a four-district map that was designed by the Utah legislature in December. Both amendments also failed. [13] [14]

Bush administration announces opposition to bill

Following the vote in the House Judiciary Committee, the Bush administration announced the president's opposition to measure. White House spokesman Alex Conant stated "The Constitution specifies that only 'the people of the several states' elect representatives to the House...And D.C. is not a state." Conant declined to say whether Bush would veto the bill if it was presented to him. [15]

In May 2007, after the bill had passed in the House and was being considered in the Senate, the Justice Department confirmed its opposition to the measure. John Elwood, the deputy assistant attorney general, stated “The administration strongly opposes this legislation not on grounds of policy, but on grounds of constitutionality.”[16]

Vote stalls in House

On March 23, 2007, a floor vote on the bill was derailed by Republican political maneuvers. After an hour and 20 minutes of floor debate, Republican opponents introduced a motion to recommit that would lift gun restrictions in Washington D.C. This made the bill very difficult for Democrats to support, because most are in favor of D.C.'s gun restrictions. Uncertain of how to respond, the Democratic leadership sent the bill back to committee. Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), sponsor of the bill, criticized Republicans for the tactic. [17]

Hoyer promises to consider bill again in mid-April 2007

After the bill failed in late March 2007, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) announced that the chamber would again take up the bill in mid-April. He stated, "I intend to have the D.C. bill back on the floor the first week that we return (from a two-week spring recess)...And I expect it to be in a position where we will not have the procedural problems that we confronted." [18]

In April 2007, the original bill was divided into two separate bills. The first would grant the District a House vote while also giving an at-large seat to Utah. The second would address the costs associated with the new seats. By combining the two items last time, Democrats opened the bill to amendments, which led to the introduction of an amendment repealing the District’s handgun ban. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) stated, “Essentially, what this rule allows is for those two things to happen while denying Republicans an opportunity to kill the bill with unrelated issues.”[19]

To cover the costs of the new seats, the second bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to adjust the tax payment safe harbor for those whose adjusted gross income is greater than $5 million.[20]

Each measure could only go into effect if both measures passed.[21]

Motions to recommit were to be allowed on the bills. Hoyer urged Democrats to vote against all Republican motions to recommit that contained technical amendments created to stall legislation, even if they agreed with the content of the respective motions. [22]

House passage

On April 19, 2007, the bill (H.R.1905) passed the House with a vote of 241-177. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) filed a motion to recommit to require an expedited judicial review for the legislation, which many Republican members said is unconstitutional. The motion, however, failed. [23]


Same for all scorecards:

Scored vote

Scorecard: American Conservative Union 2007 House Scorecard

Org. position: Nay

Description:

"The House passed legislation increasing the size of the House of Representatives to 437, giving a seat to the District of Columbia and an additional seat to Utah. ACU opposed this bill."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.acuratings.org/)

Scored vote

Scorecard: Americans for Democratic Action 2007 House Scorecard

Org. position: Aye

Description:

"Passage of a bill to increase permanently the membership of the House of Representatives to 437 by granting a seat to the District of Columbia and an additional seat to Utah. The new members would be chosen in special elections. The bill also would add one seat to the Electoral College for Utah, for a total of 539 votes. A “non-severability clause” provides that, if any provision of the bill is invalidated by a court, the entire bill would be invalid."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php)

Cannon claims Bush administration support possible

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), a supporter of the House legislation, discussed the bill with Vice-President Dick Cheney in late April when the two traveled together to Brigham Young University, where Cheney was giving the commencement address. According to Cannon, Cheney described Bush administration opposition as being largely confined to the staff level, with some key senior-level staff supporting the bill. Cannon stated, "I can't imagine that the president would veto a bill like this...I think when push comes to shove, the president will sign it." He went to say that while he had previously believed the bill had just a fifty percent chance of becoming law, he now felt it had a seventy percent chance.[24]

Senate

Lieberman and Hatch introduce counterpart bill in Senate

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a counterpart bill in the Senate on May 1, 2007.[25]


The Senate version of the bill differed on a few points from the House version. The Senate version did not contain pay-as-you-go language, repealed the D.C. delegate position once there is a representative and required Utah to redistrict (eliminating the at-large representative) before the 2008 election, rather than after the 2010 census, as the House bill stipulated. [26]

As of May 16, 2007, the bill had collected the following cosponsors:

On May 15, 2007, the Senate began hearing testimony on the bill. The executive director of advocacy group DC Vote said that the hearing "be followed by a markup." [27]

Senate committee approves bill

On June 13, 2007, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved the legislation by a vote of 9 to 1. The lone dissenting vote was cast by Sen. John Warner (R- Va.). Three other Republicans, Susan Collins (R-Maine), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), voted for the bill as well as all the Democrats in the committee.[28] Senators Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) voted for the bill by proxy, while Senators Ted Stevens (R-Ark.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) voted against the bill by proxy. These proxy votes were not counted towards the final vote.[29]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated that he would most likely attempt to bring the bill to the Senate floor in July 2007, or when at least a filibuster-proof 60 members offered support.[30]

Opposition

According to a Roll Call report on May 15, 2007, citing insiders, the bill did not have the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. Also according to the report White House advisers had said they would recommend President Bush veto the bill if it is passed. [31]

DC Republican Committee lobbies for support

In late June 2007, the District of Columbia Republican Committee (DCRC) began meeting with key Senators in order to gain support for the DC voting rights bill. The DCRC stated that it was focusing on Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), but also targeting Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Ensign (R-Nev.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). The committee argued that the measure presented a fairness issue: "D.C. residents are taxpaying American citizens and should have a vote in the House." They also said that they "see it as a great opportunity for the Republican Party to reach out to urban voters." In a letter to Members of Congress, the DCRC cited the historical tradition of the Republican party regarding D.C., pointing out that Republican president Abraham Lincoln used the the District clause of the Constitution to free the slaves of the District of Columbia. The District clause is being used by advocates of the bill to justify Congress's right to give DC a House vote.[32]

Vote delayed until September

The Senate did not vote on the bill before its August 2007 recess, meaning it would have to wait until at least September 2007. Senate Majority Leader Reid continued to stress that he preferred to wait on the bill until at least sixty senators supported it and a filibuster was not possible.[33]

Filibuster

On September 18, 2007, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act was filibustered, falling just three votes short of the sixty votes required for cloture. The final vote was 57-42. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) stated that Republican Senators Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) originally had been supporters of the bill, but withdrew their support before the vote. Norton attributed their backing out to pressure within the party. "You’ve got to appreciate what happened in their caucus," Norton said. "Extraordinary pressure."[34]

Same for all scorecards:

Scored vote

Scorecard: National Journal 2007 Senate Scorecard

Org. position: Nay

Description:

"Limit debate on a proposal giving the District of Columbia a voting member of the House. September 18. (57-42; 60 votes required to invoke cloture)"

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/senate_votes.htm)

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who was the bill's sponsor, said that he was "deeply disappointed and deeply outraged" that the Senate would not allow the bill to be voted on. He argued that the bill was "bipartisan, and nonpartisan in its effect."[35]

Senate Republicans had a different view of the bill, however. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stated that bill was "clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional," as it would give Congressional representation to a non-state. He continued, "We in this body have a duty to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land."[36]

History: Previous version

The District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007 was identical to one introduced during the 109th Congress by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) on May 3, 2005. That bill was known as the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act (H.R.5388). The bill, which was the only District voting rights measure to be voted out of a committee during the 109th Congress, passed the House Committee on Government Reform on May 18, 2006 in a 29-4 vote. The following chart details support and opposition within the committee:[37][38][39]

May 18, 2006 vote on the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act in the House Committee on Government Reform
Support (29) Oppose (4)

Cosponsors of 2006 bill

As of November 2006, the bill had the following cosponsors:[40]

Cosponsors of H.R.5388 as of May 18, 2006

*Denotes a member no longer serving in Congress.

Support and opposition

  • Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.): “I'd like to say we should support this as a civil rights step.”[41]
  • Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.): “Congress ultimately will grant voting rights to the District of Columbia because -- and it's really no more complex than this -- it's the right thing to do.”[42]
  • Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.): “I think this is counter to the Constitution.”[43]
  • Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.): “This is a political compromise…I expect most if not all Democrats will go along with this.”[44]

Judiciary Committee

Both Davis and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) believed that support in the Judiciary Committee would provide the bill with an increased chance of passage. Following its passage in the Government Reform Committee, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) promised to bring the bill up for a vote.[45]

On September 14, 2006, however, Sensenbrenner objected to the provision in the bill that would make Utah's extra seat an “at large” one until after the 2010 census. Rather, he claimed that it should be treated as a regular congressional district, allowing the state legislature to redraw the district lines (and possibly gerrymander Rep. Matheson out of his seat).[46]

DC mayor-elect seeks lame-duck passage

In late November 2006, Washington D.C. Mayor-Elect Adrian Fenty visited Capitol Hill in an attempt to persuade congressional leaders to bring Davis' bill up for a vote during the lame-duck session of the 109th Congress. Fenty, along with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), feared that waiting until the 110th Congress would delay passage, for Democratic leaders had cited a number of other objectives as their top priorities. After his meeting with Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, Fenty noted that the Democratic leader said that initial action could be taken early in 2007 if passage in the lame-duck did not occur.[47]

The bill never advanced to the floor during the 109th Congress.

Articles and resources

See also

References

  1. Elizabeth Brotherton, "CRS Doubts Constitutionality of D.C. Bill," Roll Call, February 13, 2007.
  2. Elizabeth Brotherton, "CRS Doubts Constitutionality of D.C. Bill," Roll Call, February 13, 2007.
  3. Elizabeth Brotherton, "CRS Doubts Constitutionality of D.C. Bill," Roll Call, February 13, 2007.
  4. Yolanda Woodlee, "Pelosi Affirms Support of Full D.C. Voting Rights," Washington Post, November 11, 2006.
  5. Yolanda Woodlee, "Pelosi Affirms Support of Full D.C. Voting Rights," Washington Post, November 11, 2006.
  6. Martin Austermuhle, "Bush Caught Off Guard With Voting Rights Question," DCist, November 8, 2006.
  7. Michael A. Fletcher, "Bush Sees 'Opportunities' on Social Security, Immigration," Washington Post, December 20, 2006.
  8. Press Release: Norton and Davis Reintroduce D.C. Vote Bill, DC Vote, January 9, 2007.
  9. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Voting Rights Issue Is Hitting the Road," Roll Call, February 5, 2007.
  10. Alicia Borgess, "D.C. Voting Rights Bill Reintroduced in Congress," Washington Times (via DC Vote), January 10, 2007.
  11. Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman, "D.C. Vote's Stars Are Aligning, Davis Says," Washington Post, May 12, 2006.
  12. Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman, "D.C. Vote's Stars Are Aligning, Davis Says," Washington Post, May 12, 2006.
  13. Elizabeth Brotherton, "D.C. Voting Rights Act Passes Judiciary Despite Challenge," Roll Call (delivered by DC Vote), March 16, 2007.
  14. Kelly McCormack, "House panel passes bill that would give D.C. a vote," The Hill, March 15, 2007.
  15. Mary Beth Sheridan, "White House Opposes D.C. Vote," Washington Post, March 16, 2007.
  16. Elizabeth Brotherton, "DOJ Repeats Opposition to D.C. Bill," Roll Call, May 24, 2007.
  17. Kelly McCormack, "GOP’s gunplay holds up D.C. vote in House," The Hill, March 23, 2007.
  18. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Hoyer Plans Action on Bill in April," Washington Post, March 27, 2007.
  19. Elizabeth Brotherton, "D.C. Bill Split to Ensure Passage" Roll Call, April 19, 2007.
  20. Elizabeth Brotherton, "D.C. Bill Split to Ensure Passage" Roll Call, April 19, 2007.
  21. Elizabeth Brotherton, "D.C. Bill Split to Ensure Passage" Roll Call, April 19, 2007.
  22. Elizabeth Brotherton, "D.C. Bill Split to Ensure Passage" Roll Call, April 19, 2007.
  23. Kelly McCormack, "House Dems secure win on D.C. voting rights bill," The Hill, April 20, 2007.
  24. "Cannon: Talk with VP Gives Him Hope for Fourth Seat bill," Salt Lake Tribune, May 8, 2007.
  25. Elizabeth Brotherton and John McArdle, "Turning to the Senate," Roll Call, May 1, 2007.
  26. Kelly McCormack, "Senators introduce legislation to give D.C. voting member of House," The Hill, May 2, 2007.
  27. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Senate Begins Action on D.C. Bill Today," Roll Call, May 15, 2007.
  28. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Senate Committee Approves D.C. Voting Rights Bill," The Washington Post, June 13, 2007.
  29. Senate Mark-Up of the DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 1257).DCVote.org. June 13, 2007.
  30. Kelly McCormack, "GOP senators urged to support D.C. voting member in House," The Hill, June 29, 2007.
  31. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Senate Begins Action on D.C. Bill Today," Roll Call, May 15, 2007.
  32. Kelly McCormack, "GOP senators urged to support D.C. voting member in House," The Hill, June 29, 2007.
  33. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Senate Won't Get D.C. Vote Bill Before Fall," Washington Post, July 31, 2007.
  34. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Senate Rejects D.C. Bill," Roll Call, September 19, 2007.
  35. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Senate Rejects D.C. Bill," Roll Call, September 19, 2007.
  36. Elizabeth Brotherton, "Senate Rejects D.C. Bill," Roll Call, September 19, 2007.
  37. Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman, "D.C. Vote's Stars Are Aligning, Davis Says," Washington Post, May 12, 2006.
  38. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Republican Balks At Bill Provision," Washington Post, September 15, 2006.
  39. Mary Beth Sheridan, "House Panel Endorses D.C. Vote," Washington Post, May 19, 2006.
  40. THOMAS: H.R.5388 Library of Congress.
  41. Mary Beth Sheridan, "House Panel Endorses D.C. Vote," Washington Post, May 19, 2006.
  42. Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman, "D.C. Vote's Stars Are Aligning, Davis Says," Washington Post, May 12, 2006.
  43. Mary Beth Sheridan, "House Panel Endorses D.C. Vote," Washington Post, May 19, 2006.
  44. Mary Beth Sheridan, "House Panel Endorses D.C. Vote," Washington Post, May 19, 2006.
  45. Mary Beth Sheridan, "House Panel Endorses D.C. Vote," Washington Post, May 19, 2006.
  46. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Republican Balks At Bill Provision," Washington Post, September 15, 2006.
  47. Mary Beth Sheridan and Yolanda Woodlee, "D.C. Fights Clock, But Approval of Voting Bill Stalls," Washington Post, December 1, 2006.

External resources

Organizations working on DC voting rights

External articles

Toolbox