DC-related Politics

[surskitty]

As a few of you probably already know (and the rest of you Americans, at least, should), Washington DC does not have much in the way of voting rights. While DC residents can vote for president (which has been the case since the mid-1960s, if you're wondering) the highest office that DC can actually elect people to is mayor. As a general rule, DC can pass laws iff Congress deems it acceptable to allot money in the budget for said law.

In other words, if Congress approves of the idea.

For example, DC, like New York, recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other areas. From what I've heard, there've been attempts to legalize performing same-sex marriages within DC, but....
DC is also in favour of medicinal marijuana, though apparently there's no room in the budget to conduct a referendum to legalize it. Given that DC's budget must be directly approved by Congress and DC politicians have effectively no control over anything, this is to be expected.


Various senators from elsewhere in the country tend to try to rename major landmarks in DC -- Pennsylvania Ave is a popular one, and the National Airport (now known as Ronald Reagan National Airport...) is a wonderful example of Things Successfully Being Renamed After People That DC Hates (... DC has a tendency to have ~90% of all presidential votes being for the Democratic candidate and the rest for Green Party. Think about that for a sec.) -- after whichever famous politician just died. Once again, everyone who actually lives near said landmark has nothing to do with everyone who wants it renamed.



One common argument against giving DC more direct control over itself -- say, by making it a state -- is that it would require a constitutional amendment. Given that a constitutional amendment would require two-thirds of all states to actually agree that DC deserves representation (which would mean that there would be two more guaranteed Democratic or Green Party senators and one representative...) this is not particularly likely anytime soon.



So! Your thoughts?

 

[surskitty]

No, the US had been a country for a bit less than 200 years before DC got any voting rights at all. The first election my stepdad was able to vote in was also the first election his parents were able to vote in since they moved to this area.

I have no idea what you meant with "I guess it would have been silly to expect them to, you know, vote for some other state or something."


They can't vote at all for representatives or senators. They can vote for a non-voting representative for each, but ... their representative can't vote or propose bills. Which kind of defeats the point.

 

[Tarvos]

united states are stupid

but we already knew this

 

[surskitty]

Bumping for drugs!

The U.S. Senate passed a bill Sunday that clears the way for the District government to allow medical marijuana use and to spend local tax dollars to help low-income women pay for abortions.

More than a decade ago, D.C. voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that would allow for the possession, use, cultivation and distribution of marijuana if recommended by a physician for serious illnesses.

Initiative 59 passed with 69 percent of the vote in 1998, but before it could take effect, Congress passed legislation banning the practice in the District.

The latest bill, which passed the House on Thursday, also continues to allow needle-exchange programs in a bid to limit the spread of HIV and AIDS, a strategy that Congress had blocked in the District until 2007. It also provides $752 million in federal funds for the District as part of a larger spending package.

"This is the biggest win for home rule in decades," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).