The Mayor and 4 other people NOT elected to write a Constitution are now forcing us to make difficult choices when we vote on Nov. 8, 2016. Our Council now has a few days to fix this before they vote for final language on Oct. 18, 2016. Note that the DC4D (10/17/16) analysis includes email addresses and phone numbers for our 13 Council members. Please contact them, urge them to not be persuaded by the Mayor to vote changes after the Nov. 8th vote.
[11/9/16] Enough people were persuaded that the Council had made sufficient corrections to the Mayor's Constitution that on Nov. 8, 2016 the people voted over 78% to approve Statehood (and that Constitution). Results are the last item on the link provided.
[10/28/16] The Council's revised Constitution, dated Oct. 18, 2016, is now available for your review. In addition dcist.com has also posted an article on the Council's actions, with a window showing the Constitution in which changes are printed in red. The provision stating that a real Constitutional Convention MUST be held within 2 year after we receive Statehood appears on Page 39 or (page 31 at dcist), ARTICLE VII, Sec. 4, a. For many people this removes the major barrier to voting YES on Statehood.
However, the Statehood Green Party will meet on Nov. 3 to make the Party's final decision. So far as I know this Constitution no longer contains protection of minority party rights with a guaranteed set-aside in the legislative body. This is likely to mean that no Statehood Green, Republican, Libertarian, or Independent is likely to be elected again to our State's legislative body.
[11/7/16] Here is word from: Darryl! LC Moch, Chair, DCSGP
So far according to local activists who also checked with Councilmember Alissa Silverman's office there is no second vote. Legal council for the Teacher's Union did not see how council could do a second vote legally.
DCSGP has not issued a public statement but given that the council acted on most of our demands and the major demand that there must be a Constitutional Convention called within 2 years of admission satisfies the main points of our objections we stand with other partners in supporting the revised referendum- and still strongly object to not having that wording [listed separately] on the ballot so that the people can transparently vote on the final version of the resolution.
[11/3/16] The DC Statehood Green Party held it's monthly meeting. We were informed of several changes the Council made in the Constitution, which the dcist posting of the 10/18/16 shows in red which makes it clearer just exactly what the Council actually changed. The Council adopted this 8 to 5 as a Resolution which only requires 1 vote, rather than the 2 votes required by a Bill. I could NOT find Mayor Bowser's reaction to this vote at Google. However, at the meeting is was said that she may try to get the Council to make a second vote (after the voters have already weighed in on the Council's 10/18/16 document). Thus some expressed fear that the Mayor and her big money backers my still try to change things to what they prefer after Nov. 8th. Of course if they did this the voters would probably have grounds for a legal case.
I asked for those who are trying to clarify this picture to send me information as soon as they get it so I can post it here. No final vote was taken by the DCSGP on a YES or NO vote. Several said they had already voted NO, others said they were still weighing the issues and the possibilities of funny business by the Mayor and big money interests, and were waiting until Nov. 8th to make their decision. All agreed that having a Constitutional Convention no later than 2 years after achieving Statehood was better than not having a CC until we had been a state for at least 5 years.
All agreed we should start forming plans with allies to start our own work on a CC in early 2017. The Coalition for Statehood and Democracy presented a statement that called for "a CC before congress approved the bid for statehood", and said "Ward 8 Dems, ANC7F and ANC8D have called for a no vote" because they also objected to waiting even 2 years for a CC.
[10/13/16] Anise Jenkins has just added this urgent plea. "If you want to vote for DC Statehood Referendum, but want to be able to make changes in the future to the DC Statehood Constitution - call your Councilmember and Council Chair Phil Mendelson at 202-724-8000 and tell them you want them to add an amendment allowing for a Constitutional Convention made up of elected delegates from the people so that your changes can be made." [Good news, Council listened.]
[10/20/16] Kesh at DC for Democracy has sent this updated information.
Wow, what an unexpected victory yesterday, when the Council voted 8 to 5 to adopt an amendment offered by Councilmembers Charles Allen, David Grosso, Kenyan McDuffie, Brianne Nadeau, Elissa Silverman, and Robert White to the Council Resolution “Constitution and Boundaries for the State of New Columbia Approval Resolution of 2016″ (PR 21-913). These Councilmembers were joined by Yvette Alexander and LaRuby May to pass the amendment. Please read the Washington Post article about the vote. We are also heartened to learn that Mayor Bowser supports the changes to the constitution. [11/3/16 - This may no longer be true.]
DC for Democracy members have argued that the constitution deserves serious deliberation by a bona fide constitutional convention of elected delegates. That is why, despite numerous concerns with the constitution, we focused on changing the method by which the constitution could be amended. With this amendment, we won three of the four key provisions we pushed for, in collaboration with a broad grassroots coalition.
The three provisions we won are:
- Ensuring the delegates to the constitutional convention would be elected (not "selected"). The constitution passed by the New Columbia Statehood Commission did not specify that the delegates would be elected, and the so-called "constitutional convention" last summer was reason to demand that this be made explicit.
- Ensuring that the constitutional convention could change any aspect of the constitution. The original committee print had given the Legislative Assembly power to constrain the scope of what the constitutional convention could consider.
- Ensuring that the constitutional convention had full authority to change the constitution, subject only to ratification by voters. The original version had empowered the constitutional convention to merely make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.
We failed only to change the timing of the constitutional convention. While we had pushed to have the constitutional convention held one year after admission, the Council kept the timing to two years after admission -- not a big deal. [Actually the language is that the CC be held within 2 years, so we could do it in the first year if we are ready and organized.]
We have more work to do on this front (i.e. initiate a constitutional convention in 2017 or 2018, so we don't have to wait until we become a state to fix our constitution), but please take a few minutes today to feel good about what you, DC4D and our progressive allies accomplished for democracy and civic engagement!
So many DC4D members helped by contacting Councilmembers that I cannot possibly thank everyone by name, but I would like to highlight a few members: Steering Committee members Keith Ivey, Jesse Lovell, and Andrea Rosen for the key role they played in defining our strategy; Anise Jenkins, for mobilizing the members of Stand Up for Democracy/Free DC; Ann Loikow for mobilizing support of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee; Markus Batchelor, who might well be credited with in winning LaRuby May's vote; Claudia Barragan and Walter Deleon for their work through the DC Latino Caucus; and David Schwartzman for mobilizing the Statehood Green Party.
And if you can, please also take a minute to thank the Councilmembers who voted for democracy yesterday (feel free to tweet, as well):
At-Large Councilmember David Grosso dgrosso@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8105
At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman esilverman@dccouncil.us (202)-724-7772
At-Large Councilmember Robert White rwhite@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8174
Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau bnadeau@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8181
Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie kmcduffie@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8028
Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen callen@dccouncil.us (202)-724-8072
Ward 7 Councilmember Yvette Alexander yalexander@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8068
Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May LMay@DCCOUNCIL.US (202)724-8045
- - - - - - - - - -
[10/19/16] This information about changes made on Tuesday by the Council was distributed by one of the people who recently testified about the Constitution.
"THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS OFFICIALLY APPROVED AN EXEMPLARY CONSTITUTION FOR A 51st STATE NAMED WASHINGTON, DC -- THE “DC” STANDING FOR “DOUGLASS COMMONWEALTH.”
THE CONSTITUTION CREATES A 21-MEMBER UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE FOR THE NEW STATE, AND MANDATES THAT A FULL-FLEDGED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BE HELD WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER STATEHOOD IS ACHIEVED.
COPIES OF THIS CONSTITUTION WILL SOON BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.
THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION THAT WILL BE REFERRED TO IN THE STATEHOOD REFERENDUM THAT WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE BALLOT IN OUR CITY’S FORTHCOMING ELECTION.
VOTING BEGINS ON OCTOBER 22nd AND CONTINUES THROUGH NOVEMBER 8th.
* http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20161018/AP/310189767/
* http://wtop.com/dc/2016/10/washington-dc-statehood-name-change/
[10/17/16] After a detailed analysis of Council recommendations the folks at DC for Democracy have issued the following analysis and recommendations:
"The Committee of the Whole of the DC Council has released the latest version of the Constitution.
The good news is that they have heard our demand for a constitutional convention.
The bad news is:
1) the constitutional convention only gets to recommend changes to the Legislative Assembly (our new legislature), it does not have authority to make changes itself.
2) the constitution doesn’t make it absolutely clear that the delegates are elected by the people.
3) the Legislative Assembly gets to decide the scope of what the constitutional convention can do.
4) the constitutional convention is called TWO years after admission into the Union.
We think the Council should change the constitution as follows:
1) the constitutional convention should have the ability to amend constitution.
2) make it absolutely clear that the delegates are elected by the people.
3) remove the provision that allows the Legislative Assembly to constrain the scope of the constitutional convention.
4) call the constitutional convention ONE year after admission.
If you agree, you need to ACT.
First, sign our petition.
Second, call and email your Councilmembers NOW to demand the above changes to the “Constitution and Boundaries for the State of New Columbia Approval Resolution of 2016″, PR21-913.
We need to act before Tuesday, October 18, so we strongly recommend emailing Councilmembers, and following up with a phone call. If you need more information, please read our earlier blog posts.
Feel free to use the points above as talking points.
The bad news is:
1) the constitutional convention only gets to recommend changes to the Legislative Assembly (our new legislature), it does not have authority to make changes itself.
2) the constitution doesn’t make it absolutely clear that the delegates are elected by the people.
3) the Legislative Assembly gets to decide the scope of what the constitutional convention can do.
4) the constitutional convention is called TWO years after admission into the Union.
We think the Council should change the constitution as follows:
1) the constitutional convention should have the ability to amend constitution.
2) make it absolutely clear that the delegates are elected by the people.
3) remove the provision that allows the Legislative Assembly to constrain the scope of the constitutional convention.
4) call the constitutional convention ONE year after admission.
If you agree, you need to ACT.
First, sign our petition.
Second, call and email your Councilmembers NOW to demand the above changes to the “Constitution and Boundaries for the State of New Columbia Approval Resolution of 2016″, PR21-913.
We need to act before Tuesday, October 18, so we strongly recommend emailing Councilmembers, and following up with a phone call. If you need more information, please read our earlier blog posts.
Feel free to use the points above as talking points.
Chairman Phil Mendelson is the most important target. Email and call the Chairman, and copy Evan Cash, Director of the Committee of the Whole.
Chairman Mendelson pmendelson@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8032, and Evan Cash cow@dccouncil.us.
Also email and call the At-Large Councilmembers and your ward Councilmember, as well as any other Councilmembers you know.
At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds abonds@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8064
At-Large Councilmember David Grosso dgrosso@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8105
At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman esilverman@dccouncil.us (202)-724-7772
At-Large Councilmember Robert White rwhite@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8174
Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau bnadeau@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8181
Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans jevans@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8058
Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh mcheh@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8062
Ward 4 Councilmember Brandon Todd btodd@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8052
Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie kmcduffie@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8028
Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen callen@dccouncil.us (202)-724-8072
Ward 7 Councilmember Yvette Alexander yalexander@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8068
Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May LMay@DCCOUNCIL.US (202)724-8045
Please spread the word!Chairman Mendelson pmendelson@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8032, and Evan Cash cow@dccouncil.us.
Also email and call the At-Large Councilmembers and your ward Councilmember, as well as any other Councilmembers you know.
At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds abonds@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8064
At-Large Councilmember David Grosso dgrosso@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8105
At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman esilverman@dccouncil.us (202)-724-7772
At-Large Councilmember Robert White rwhite@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8174
Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau bnadeau@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8181
Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans jevans@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8058
Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh mcheh@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8062
Ward 4 Councilmember Brandon Todd btodd@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8052
Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie kmcduffie@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8028
Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen callen@dccouncil.us (202)-724-8072
Ward 7 Councilmember Yvette Alexander yalexander@dccouncil.us (202) 724-8068
Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May LMay@DCCOUNCIL.US (202)724-8045
--- Kesh Ladduwahetty, Chair, DC for Democracy
- - - - - - - - - -
[10/17/16] Here is another plea by a long time community activist:
"Only in DC, the colony, could it be found acceptable to push for Statehood by legislative decree and to do so without a real Constitutional Convention fully untethered except by that of the will of the people through elected delegates.
Your bill Mr. Mendelson and Mrs. Bowser is a great paradox and will make it difficult for your push for statehood to pass in high numbers or if at all. You are risking Statehood through this greatly flawed bill.
3) that any provision which gives any Legislative Assembly the chance to constrain the scope of the constitutional convention be removed
4) a call for a constitutional convention ONE year after admission
Chris Otten, 16 Year Ward One resident
co facilitator DC for Reasonable Development., www.dc4reality.org
"Only in DC, the colony, could it be found acceptable to push for Statehood by legislative decree and to do so without a real Constitutional Convention fully untethered except by that of the will of the people through elected delegates.
Maybe the residue of the control board still pervades your minds and souls, where the people of DC cannot be trusted to determine their own fate. Hogwash!
We, the people of DC, deserve:
1) to have a real constitutional convention with delegates to amend the constitution
2) to make it absolutely clear that the delegates are elected by the people1) to have a real constitutional convention with delegates to amend the constitution
3) that any provision which gives any Legislative Assembly the chance to constrain the scope of the constitutional convention be removed
4) a call for a constitutional convention ONE year after admission
1) Voters are asked to vote YES on Statehood, but if they do they are also voting YES on the Mayor's Constitution. At this time we of the Statehood Green Party and many others feel we must vote NO unless serious flaws are removed from the Constitution and a dated Constitution posted on line before Absentee and Early voting.
2) The Mayor's Constitution eliminates the minority party 2 Council seats set-aside which will help keep her party (Democrat) in total control. Probably no more Statehood Green, Republican, Libertarian, or Independent Party members elected when we become a state.
3) New language was added to the Mayor's second draft of the Constitution. ARTICLE VII, Sec. c., says NO Constitutional Convention can be held until 5 years after we get Statehood. Lots of time to consolidate pay to play politics. This provision must go. The people want to begin drafting their Constitution in early 2017.
4) The Independent Auditor, Chief Financial Officer, and Attorney General will all be under control of the Governor (former Mayor). Recent firing of two DC employees for not choosing the bid of a local contractor who bid more than double ($6 versus $13 million) shows the extreme danger of that move.
In several places I have added my own comments or additions to original testimony by several others on this blog article shown in brackets [ ].
Testimony
by G. Lee Aikin, before DC Council Committee of the Whole, 9/27/16 on
B21-826, Constitution of the State of New Columbia Approval Amendment
Act of 2016
Thank
you for hearing our very grave concerns regarding this bill. By any
reasonable analysis you should not even be considering such a bill.
No one elected the Mayor, the Chairman, or the three “Shadows” to
write a Constitution in a few short months. Earlier
elected Delegates worked a number of months to create a fair and
comprehensive document which
the electorate then voted to approve.
People
are being told we had 3 days of “Constitutional Convention”.
This is not true,
they were basically 3 days of hearings with people allowed 3 minutes
each to testify. No one was elected to do anything with this
information. Now, although at least ¾ of the people testifying then
insisted a vote for Statehood should NOT be combined with a vote for
the Constitution, you are
asking us to include this
Constitution in our vote for
Statehood. The majority
testifying also wanted a true Constitutional Convention started
early in 2017, and
I do too.
Will
the final language even be available for voter viewing prior to
Absentee and Early Voting? Are you even aware that the spring version
of the Constitution and the one that is currently available for
reading on line have
NO DATE? Is this Council
acting like shyster lawyers presenting us with an undated blank
check for our approval and
signature?
Already serious changes have been made from the draft given to us in
May at the Lincoln Cottage. Who knows what other changes without our
knowledge will appear in the document we will automatically
approve if we vote YES for Statehood in
November.
The
more recent change has added a paragraph c. to Article VII, Sec. 3,
saying “on or about the
fifth anniversary of [Statehood], the House of Delegates MAY
call for a Constitutional
Convention...” In essence
we could not
have a Constitutional Convention to change the one voted on in
November until at least 5 years after we achieve Statehood.
This
is very wrong, and it deeply
pains me that unless a major change is made in Article VII, Sec. 3.c.
I will NOT vote for Statehood
with this Constitution included in
this form when I vote on November
8.
I will also urge all whom I contact to vote NO if
unchanged. As a DC
Statehood Green Party candidate
for At Large Council member, it deeply pains me that after all our
efforts to achieve Statehood we face the supreme irony of
recommending a NO
vote.
A
substitute that could
change our NO to a
YES vote is
the following language. “No later than one month following the
effective date of the Admission Act, the House of Delegates shall
initiate steps to hold a Constitutional Convention charged with
creating a constitution for our new state with this process following
the model of the 1982 Constitutional Convention with elected
delegates. Completion of the work of this Constitutional Convention
and the vote
ratifying
its Constitution must occur no more than one year after the effective
date of the Admissions Act. The election of new members to the House
of Delegates should only occur after the new Constitution is voted
on and approved by a
majority of qualifed voters.”
Only
timely placing
this change in the
published, dated
Constitution can permit our
YES vote.
By timely is meant the Council
makes this change final and perfectly transparent to the DC
electorate with the Constitution ready, printed and on line in final
voting form, with the publication date included, at least one
week before absentee balloting and early voting begin. Only this
will cause us to revisit our decision to vote NO in the
current circumstances.
Other issues related to the
Constitution include the fact that the set-aside created in 1973 to
have at least 2 non dominant party (non-Democrat) members elected to
the Council has been completely omitted from this Constitution. All
references regarding voting refer to “shall be elected on a
partisan basis.” This could be remedied by changing this wording
to “shall be elected on a non-partisan basis.”
As it stands, this means that
virtually no DC Statehood Green, Republican, Libertarian or
Independent stands much chance of ever being elected to the Council
[state legislature]. In addition to being grossly unfair, this also
means that Republicans in Congress will be even less likely to
support Statehood for DC.
I am also told that the
Independent Auditor will no longer be independent, but rather under
control of the Mayor, I mean the Governor. Given the recent action
by the administration to fire several people because they failed to
approve a favored (generously contributing) nearby business for a
contract this is a serious consideration. Even the fact that this
contractor's bid was more than double the winning bid did not save
these people their jobs. [It was also pointed out that the Chief
Financial Officer was being moved under the control of the Governor,
and the Attorney General appears there too. With this Constitution
in force for 5 years, will we be voting for a pro big contractor
Governor or a Dictator?]
I also favor the name Douglas
Commonwealth rather than New Columbia. NC already stands for North
Carolina whereas DC should be acceptable to more in Congress.
The electorate has recently
demonstrated their opinion of the Mayor's actions on a number of
topics, even before most became aware of this effort to force us to
choose between her Constitution and Statehood. Three of her frequent
supporters will not be back on the Council next year. Unless you
demonstrate a willingness to abide by the wishes of your voters, you
may join them in future years. It is not too late to demonstrate
your understanding and willingness to support the wishes of the
voters and correct this draft Constitution to support the will of the
majority. Or else you could separate the vote for this Constitution
from the vote for Statehood, so we have the liberty to vote for
Statehood while displaying a different opinion on this Constitution.
Thank you for giving careful
consideration to the serious decisions you must make if we are to
have a successful vote for Statehood. [Items in brackets added after
testifying.]
G. Lee Aikin, DC Statehood
Green Party, and 55 year resident of DC.
gleeaikin@yahoo.com
[I hope you will
consider voting for me on November 8, 2016 as one of your two At
Large choices.
Please
vote G. Lee Aikin, At Large
Council*]
[*
Paid for by ELECT G. LEE AIKIN, campaign committee, 1754 Swann St.,
NW, Washington, DC 20009, Don Wharton, Treasurer
Contributions
can be written to ELECT G. LEE AIKIN, and mailed to 1754
Swann St., NW, Washington, DC 20009
A copy of our report is filed
with the Director of Campaign Finance of the DC Board of Elections]
- - - - - - - - - -
Testimony, COW
Public Hearing on the following Legislation: B21-826,
Constitution of
the State of New Columbia Approval Amendment Act of 2016.
Sept. 27, 2016
11:00AM, Room 500, Wilson Bldg., by David Schwartzman, PhD.
These are the 4
main points of my testimony:
1)From its
start with a 5 member Commission holding a charade of a
Constitutional Convention, the process creating the draft
Constitution has been a travesty of democracy, disempowering to the
cause of DC Statehood. As Professor Maurice Jackson, a delegate to
the 1982 Constitutional Convention and Chair of the DC Commission on
African American Affairs, said at Lincoln Cottage on May 6, 2016 "If
we want democracy, we have to give democracy". As a result the
draft Constitution's Bill of Rights is highly deficient compared to
the progressive 1982 Constitution.
2)Such a
Constitution should be created by an elected delegated Constitutional
Convention, following the model of the 1982 Convention process. This
opportunity is lacking in B21-826.
3)The Council
could have facilitated a strong positive vote for Statehood on the
Advisory Referendum by either removing language regarding the
constitution or providing for separate votes on each section. We
vigorously lobbied the Council to remove any mention of a
constitution in the wording of this Referendum, leaving a simple vote
Yes or No on statehood, and of course we would have strongly urged a
vote of Yes if this change was implemented, but the Council rejected
our plea. Hence the DC Council and Mayor should be held accountable
for a weak or negative vote
on the Advisory
Referendum on November 8. Such a vote should not be interpreted as a
vote against DC Statehood.
4)Therefore we
urge the DC electorate to vote NO on the Advisory Referendum on
November 8 since we only get one vote on all sections of the text,
unless the DC Council does the following:
a)The draft
Constitution now being considered by the Council must require the
convening of a Constitutional Convention, following the model that
created the 1982 Constitution, and the ratification of its
Constitution must be completed in no more than one year after
admission of the state of New Columbia, and
b)The DC
Council make a [dated] final text with this revision widely available
to the DC electorate no less than one week before absentee
ballot/early voting.
Further
explanation
The whole
process to produce this "Constitution" is a facade of
democracy, starting with the three hearings of the so-called
Constitutional Convention held in May and June as well as the DC
Council hearings today and on October 6. Only an elected delegated
Constitutional Convention along the lines of the 1982 model can
produce a legitimate Constitution for what we prefer as the name of
our state, "The Douglass Commonwealth", with the name of
our state to be likewise determined by this Convention.
We say
so-called Constitutional Convention because this was not a
democratic process, no one elected the New Columbia Statehood
Commission to come up with a new Constitution, now being considered
by the DC Council. This task is not in their job description. No one
was delegate to a real Constitutional Convention in this charade, nor
should anyone so claim for those who testify to the DC Council in
this public hearing. A delegate is elected, participates in the
drafting of a constitution and has a vote on its final product.
We first point
out that unless the final approval of this "Constitution"
is completed and made fully transparent to our electorate before
November 8, we will be asked to "approve a Constitution of the
State of New Columbia to be adopted by the Council" without
actually seeing the final text. Is this Council actually expecting
our electorate to approve a Constitution without full transparency
regarding its text? If a second vote on this bill comes after
November 8 that is precisely what will happen, an outrageous assault
on democratic practice.
We want to
emphasize the top-down undemocratic process that created this
"Constitution", and its gross deficiencies, for example in
its Bill of Rights and number of legislators in the House of
Delegates in comparison with the visionary 1982 Constitution, the
only one ratified by voters (go to
http://statehood.dc.gov/page/statehood-resource-center for pdfs of
both and compare). The Bill of Rights in the 1982 included provisions
for freedom from discrimination based on race, color, religion,
creed, citizenship, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
poverty, or parentage, and disabilities (Section 3), right to
employment or for those unable to work, an income sufficient to meet
basic human needs (Section 20),
and equal pay for equal and comparable work (Section 21). As such
these provisions anticipated the official status by our Mayor and
Council as the nation's first Human Rights City on December 10, 2008
based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent
Conventions in international law.
The number of
legislators in the House of Delegates provided for in the draft
Constitution is too small (21, compared to 40 in the 1982
Constitution). A House of Delegates of 21 corresponds to a ratio of
legislators to population one half that of Delaware, one fourth that
of South Dakota and one fifth that of Wyoming.
There is only
one revision in this draft "Constitution" that may change
our decision to vote NO, a change in the amendment process spelled
out in Article VII, Section 3. We urge the deletion of this text as
it now stands, all provisions, noting especially the following:
"c. On or
about the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Admission
Act, the House of Delegates may call for a Constitutional
Convention to assess the transition from a federal district to a
member of the Union." [bold added]
As a substitute
we urge the following language:
"No later than
one month following the effective date of the Admission Act, the
House of Delegates shall initiate steps to hold a Constitutional
Convention with the charge of creating a constitution for our new
state with this process following the model of the 1982
Constitutional Convention, with elected delegates. The name of our
new state shall be reconsidered in this Constitutional Convention.
The completion of the work of this Constitutional Convention and the
ratification vote of its Constitution must occur no more than one
year after the effective date of the Admissions Act. If ratified by a
majority of qualified voters this Constitution shall replace "The
Constitution of the State of New Columbia" The
election of new members to the House of Delegates should only be
scheduled after this process is completed."
If the Council
makes this change final and perfectly transparent to our electorate
with the Constitution ready, printed and on line in final voting
form, with the publication date included at least a week before early
voting and absentee balloting begins, then we will revisit this
decision to vote NO.
We support
parallel legislation by the Council for the convening of a
Constitutional Convention in 2017 following the 1982 model, as the
basis for a petition for statehood to the U.S. Congress. Further, the
likelihood that a statehood bill will be approved by Congress and
signed by the President in 2017 should be clear by the results of the
Nov. 8 election, and the legislative agenda of both the incoming
President and Congress. If this likelihood is low, then we support
efforts, e.g., by Council legislation or Initiative, for the
convening of a Constitutional Convention in 2017 following the 1982
model, as the basis for a petition for statehood to the U.S.
Congress.
David Schwartzman,
PhD
Political Policy
and Action Committee, DC Statehood Green Party
dschwartzman@gmail.com, 202-829-9063
- - - - - - - - - -
Testimony
on Behalf of the Coalition for Democracy and Statehood, on
B21-826,
Constitution of
the State of New Columbia Approval Amendment Act of 2016,
October 6, 2016 by
Glenda Richmond
[For some reason Google refused to allow me to make proper paragraphs in this testimony.]
[For some reason Google refused to allow me to make proper paragraphs in this testimony.]
First, I wish to
thank those elected members who served as delegates at the DC
Statehood
Constitutional
Convention and who utilized the democratic process for drafting the
constitution
for the state of
"New Columbia". This constitution was approved and ratified
by 60% of the
electorate of the
District of Columbia, in 1982.
Thank you, Charles
Cassell, David Clark (D), Hilda and Charles Mason (D), Reverend James
E.
Coates, Absalom
Jordan, Theresa Jones, Mildred Lockridge, Gwendolyn Paramore,
Reverend
Jerry Moore,
Reverend James Terrell, Richard Bruning, Maurice Jackson, Robert
Love, Marie
Nahikian, Anita
Shelton, Joel Garner, Franklin Kameny (D), Michael Marcus, Talmadge
Moore,
Norman Nixon, Samuel
Robinson, Harry Thomas (D), James Baldwin, David Barnes, Alexa
Freeman, Barbara
McGuire, William Cooper, Jeannette Feeley, Jannette Hoston- Harris,
Victoria Street,
Howard Croft, Janice Eicchron, Chestie Graham, Charlotte Holmes,
Geraldine
Warren and a dear
friend and mentor Barbara Lett Simmons.
My name is Glenda
Richmond. I am a resident, as well as a registered voter of the
District of
Columbia. I am also
a supporter of the Coalition for Democracy and Statehood. Today, I
rise in
support of
statehood. The struggle for statehood is a struggle for freedom...
freedom from the
colonial oppression
of the Federal Government and self-determination from the economic
oppression and
dominance of the Federal City Council. We, the residents of
Washington, DC,
deserve better. We
deserve the ability to determine our own destiny and the right, that
is, we
the people, to
create our own constitution utilizing the democratic process. We
must not
allow our destiny to
be controlled and determined by the Federal Government, the Federal
City
Council nor our
"shadow" government of the District of the District of
Columbia.
Again, I am a
supporter of DC Statehood, however, I am oppose to the process which
was
utilized by our
Mayor/City Council to create the constitution now contained in this
bill, B21-
0826, Constitution
of the State of New Columbia Approval Amendment Act of 2016.
•The process
creating the draft Constitution for petitioning Congress for
admission as
the state
of "New Columbia" is a facade of democracy, disempowering
to the cause of
DC
Statehood. A 5 member commission voted on this text. [Not elected to
do this.]
•The District
electorate is being asked to vote in the upcoming election on
November 8,
2016, for a
proposed constitution. This constitution was not created by an
elected
delegated
Constitutional Convention.
Therefore, we are
asking that the DC electorate vote NO on
the Advisory Referendum on
November 8, 2016,
unless the DC Council does the following:
1. That the
Council agrees to offer and support an amendment to Bill 21-0826
which will
require the
election of and funding a Constitutional Convention , as provided in
DC Law
3-171,
within 30 days of the approval of the Advisory Referendum on
statehood, and
2. The DC
Council make a final [dated] text of the Bill 21-0826 with this
revision widely
available to
the electorate of the District no less than (1) week before absentee
ballot/early voting
commences.
Glenda Richmond,
2001 15th St., NW, #602, Washington, DC 20009, Telephone:
(202) 367-5527
- - - - - - - - - -
[This next testimony
emphasizes the general feelings of confusing and puzzlement I have
encountered among DC voters regarding the sudden rush to approve a
finished Constitution. I agree that inclusion of a Table of
Organization showing which offices are subordinate and which offices
control others would be very helpful. In addition a map showing the
actual boundaries of the Federal Enclave would be a valuable
addition.]
Council Hearing
on the Proposed Constitution for the State of New Columbia
Testimony of
Anntoinette White-Richardson, 10/6/16, Ward 4 Resident
Good evening my name
is Anntoinette White-Richardson and I am a Ward 4
resident, whose
"roots" date back in this city since 1833. I come before
you today
as a citizen very
confused and disappointed at the proposed New Columbia
Constitution.
If this document's
mission was supposed to be informative in explaining the
positive effects of
supporting statehood to residents, then it has done the
opposite effect. It
is inconceivable that this city council expects anyone to
understand such an
unwieldy document. Portions of this document such as the
Legislative
Districts and the Board of Education are vague in defining
jurisdictions
and oversight. In
most geography classes you learn that states consist of
municipalities
(cities, counties and/or townships). However there is nothing
proposed in this
constitution that speaks to this concept being applied in the
planning of New
Columbia. Fact, in our surrounding jurisdictions they (the
municipalities) are
responsible for the maintenance of their own schools, libraries,
parks and etc. The
bone of contention around internal boundaries deals with
questions around tax
and revenue bases being equally shared from one set of
funds to maintain
entities equally, regardless of where they are located. Also,
there is a lack of
clarity in reference to the organizational structure at various
levels and who is in
charge of what!
As an Education
Specialist with a focus on literacy a few diagrams could have
helped in the
presentation of this proposed constitution from the aspect of helping
those who are more
visual, interpret the governing body.
I understand that
having a voice on the Hill is important, but at what cost! We are
already dealing with
issues around gentrification that are whispered, but never
spoken about in the
open. This constitution looks as if it could add to our
gentrification
fears, because it is not easily understandable for most of us to feel
comfortable enough
to vote for statehood. People say Washington DC is a
transient city, but
the reality is it is only transient for a certain population. It is a
permanent home for
natives and those seeking a better life. In 1973 we got home
rule and most
residents native or newly arrived can't even begin to tell you what
we got out of it!
Mayor Bowser's Parents and my parents all had "Good
Government"
jobs that were federally funded and we both grew up with a solid
middle class
upbringing.
In addition, I am
unclear to whether or not our status as the Nation's Capital will
stay intact, the
constitution does not address this concern. I say concern, because
being from the
Nation's Capital gave me great pride and bragging rights wherever
I travelled in these
United States and abroad.
In closing there are
too many unanswered questions for me to feel comfortable
about supporting
statehood for the District of Columbia. I thank you for your time
and listening to my
concerns.
- - - - - - - - - -
[Google sometimes did not allow me to make proper paragraphs here either.]
[Google sometimes did not allow me to make proper paragraphs here either.]
[Prior to writing
our testimony, activists in our DC Statehood Green Party communicated
to determine the most serious defects in this entire “Constitutional”
process and decide key points to emphasize in our testimony. The
DCSGP members who testified are marked below in bold type.]
Our draft
position on the Constitution/Advisory Referendum for your review
From: David
Schwartzman <dschwartzman(>gmail.com> Today at 3:37 PM,
9/20/16
To Eugene
Puryear, Scott McLarty, Mike Wang, Darryl Moch, David Bosserman,
Dominique
Hazzard, Tracye
Redd, Jonathan Lykes, Philip Barlow, Lee Aikin, Lino
Stracuzzi, Jenefer Ellingston,
Philip Blair,
Debby Hanrahan, John Hanrahan, Jabari Zakiya, Ann Wilcox, Perry
Redd
I made a few
clarifying revisions from what I sent you on Sept. 9, we need to come
to a
final position on
the conference call tomorrow at 9 pm, see below.
The whole process to
produce this "Constitution" is a facade of democracy,
starting with the three
hearings of the
so-called Constitutional Convention held in May and June as well as
the DC Council
hearings today and
on October 6. Only an elected delegated Constitutional Convention
along the lines
of the 1982 model
can produce a legitimate Constitution for what we prefer as the name
of our state,
"The Douglass
Commonwealth", with the name of our state to be likewise
determined by this
Convention. As
Professor Maurice Jackson, a delegate to thel982 Constitutional
Convention and Chair of DC Commission on
African American Affairs, said at Lincoln Cottage on May 6, 2016 "If
we want democracy, we have
to give democracy".
We say so-called
Constitutional Convention because this was not a democratic
process, no one elected the New Columbia
Statehood Commission to come up with a new Constitution, now being
considered by the DC Council.
This task is not in their job description. No one was delegate to a
real
Constitutional
Convention in this charade, nor should anyone so claim for those who
testify to the DC
Council in this
public hearing. A delegate is elected, participates in the drafting
of a constitution and
has a vote on its
final product.
We first point out
that unless the final approval of this "Constitution" is
completed and made fully
transparent to our
electorate before November 8, we will be asked to "approve a
Constitution of the
State of New
Columbia to be adopted by the Council" without actually seeing
the final text. Is this
Council actually
expecting our electorate to approve a Constitution without full
transparency regarding its text? If a
second vote on this bill comes after November 8 that is precisely
what will happen, an outrageous assault
on democratic practice.
We want to emphasize
the top-down undemocratic process that created this "Constitution",
and its
gross deficiencies,
for example in its Bill of Rights and number of legislators in the
House of Delegates in comparison with the visionary 1982
Constitution, the only one ratified by voters. Therefore we urge
the DC electorate to vote NO on the Advisory Referendum on November 8
since we only get one vote on all sections of the text. The
Council could have facilitated a strong positive vote for Statehood
by either removing language regarding the constitution or providing
for separate votes on each section. We vigorously lobbied the Council
to remove any mention of a constitution in the wording of this
Referendum, leaving a simple vote Yes or No on statehood, and of
course we would have strongly urged a vote of Yes if this change was
implemented, but the Council rejected our plea. Hence the DC Council
and Mayor should be held accountable for a weak or negative vote on
this Advisory Referendum on November 8. For the reasons we provided,
such a vote should not be interpreted as as a vote against DC
Statehood.
There is only one
revision in this draft "Constitution" that may change our
decision to vote No, a change in the
amendment process spelled out in Article VII, Section 3.
We urge the deletion
of the text as it now stands, noting especially the following
section:
"c. On or
about the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Admission
Act, the House of
Delegates may
call for a Constitutional Convention to assess the transition from a
federal district to a member of the
Union." [bold added]
As a substitute we
urge the following language:
"No later
than one month following the effective date of the Admission Act, the
House of
Delegates shall
initiate steps to hold a Constitutional Convention with the charge of
creating a
constitution for our
new state with this process following the model of the 1982
Constitutional
Convention, with
elected delegates. The name of our new state shall be reconsidered in
this
Constitutional
Convention. The completion of the work of this Constitutional
Convention and the
ratification vote of
its Constitution must occur no more than one year after the effective
date of the
Admissions Act. If
ratified by a majority of qualified voters this Constitution shall
replace "The
Constitution of the
State of New Columbia" The election of new members to the House
of Delegates
should only be
scheduled after this process is completed."
If the Council makes
this change final and perfectly transparent to our electorate with
the Constitution ready, printed and
on line in final voting form, with the publication date included
at least a week before early voting
and absentee balloting begins then we will revisit this decision
to vote No.
We support parallel
legislation by the Council for the convening of a Constitutional
Convention in 2017 following the 1982
model, as the basis for a petition for statehood to the U.S.
Congress. Further, the likelihood that a
statehood bill will be approved by Congress and signed by the
President in 2017
should be clear by
the results of the Nov. 8 election, and the legislative agenda of
both the incoming
President and
Congress. If this likelihood is low, then we support efforts, e.g.,
by Council legislation or Initiative, for the
convening of a Constitutional Convention in 2017 following the 1982
model, as the basis for a petition
for statehood to the U.S. Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment