DC's "Right To Vote."

I hear on more than one occasion from Liberals, that they could never live in the District Of Columbia, because residents of DC don't have the "right to vote." Really? The District has three electoral votes in presidential elections, and elects their mayor and council members. They don't have the "right to vote?"

The Twenty-Third Amendment to the US Constitution, which was proposed by Congress in 1960, and ratified by the states in 1961, gives Washington, DC, three Electoral College votes in presidential elections. It limits the number of Electoral College votes to three, currently, which the amendment specifies is the same number of electors as allowed in the least populated state. As of 2011, that state is Wyoming.

Residents of the District voted in presidential elections for the first time in 1964. Before that time, yes, they didn't have the "right to vote." That voting right continues today. Yes liberals, they do have the "right to vote." What I think these liberals are really saying, is that DC doesn't have a representative in Congress that can vote on the House floor. DC's representative has the same committee voting rights as the representatives of the US Territories: Guam, Marshall Islands, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico. It was the same when Arizona was a territory, North Dakota was a territory, and Hawaii was a territory.

If you read the US Constitution, it specifically states that a Federal District would be established as the center of government, but it would not be a state. DC is not a state. It is a Federal District. In order for DC to have a House floor voting representative, there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment granting DC statehood. With that requiring a 2/3 majority congressional vote from both houses, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the states, that would be just about impossible.

There is a reason why the founders of this country didn't want the center of government to have the same rights as the respective states. At the time, it was expected that those that worked for the Federal Government would live in the District. The idea was to keep those that worked for the government from voting themselves a pay raise, since all bills pertaining to the federal budget begin in the House Of Representatives. Until 1961, they couldn't even vote for the President or Vice-President. That had been in effect since 1789. At the time, and until the 1973, it didn't seem to bother the residents of the District Of Columbia. They lived under a congressional gravy train, with a city government controlled by three Congressional Managers from the House Of Representatives. DC was given home rule by Congress in 1972. Their first mayor, Walter Washington, was elected mayor in 1973.

Here's my idea: make all federal employees, current and retired, no matter where they live, residents of the District Of Columbia as part of their employment contracts. That way no federal employee could vote themselves a pay raise. Those that reside outside of the District would vote by absentee ballot, whether they live in Montgomery County, Maryland, or Omaha, Nebraska. They would also vote for the DC mayor and council, having a say in who controlled the local government of their domicile. With the financial mess that DC is in, that would not be a bad thing.

What about the military? Yes, the military are federal employees. However, there is one fly in the ointment. It's called the Soldiers And Sailors Relieve Act of 1918, reinstated in 1940, and even though it had not expired, reinstated again in 2003 as a formality. One provision allows members of the military to retain their home of record as their legal domicile along as they are members of the active duty military. I was active duty Air Force for 26 years. During that time, I remained a legal resident of Connecticut, which was my home of record when I joined the military. After I retired, I had to become a Maryland resident, since that is where I lived, acquire a Maryland drivers' license, since that is where I lived, and pay state income tax to the State Of Maryland, since that is where I lived, and was now a Maryland resident. While I was active duty, I maintained a Connecticut drivers license, and was subject to Connecticut state income tax, but Connecticut exempts military members on active duty from that tax. That is Connecticut's right under the States Rights provisions of the US Constitution applied to the Soldiers And Sailors Relief Act. The act also covers garnishments and other financial actions, giving them statutory relief while they are in the service of their country. This is a law, not a constitutional provision, so any or all parts of the act could be rescinded by federal law.

The part granting them the right to retain their home of record as their domicile could be rescinded by federal law, while leaving the other provisions in place. However, would Liberals want all members of the US Military to be residents of the District Of Columbia? Most members of the military are Conservatives. Today, and based on my observations, starting about 20 years ago, many military personnel in power and policy positions are fundamentalist, born again Christian, religious Conservatives. They would vote for any Republican running for office in the District. DC might actually end up with a Republican mayor, a Republican council, and a non-floor voting representative that is a Republican. Also, DC's meager three electoral votes would go Republican too.

As a side note: I have never been comfortable with the Fundamentalist Movement that has established itself as the power base of the US Military in recent years. While I respect their right to believe what they believe...after all, their beliefs are protected, constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, I find it uncomfortable when they promote their religious beliefs in a public forum, or let it be known under the table, that if you  don't belief in a certain aspect of Fundamentalist Christianity, you will not be promoted.  I'm sorry, but this is wrong! I shouldn't have to belong to the "right" church in order to be considered for promotion.

Granting the District more electoral votes by a constitutional amendment would be much easier than granting DC statehood. I believe that most states would go along with that, just like they granted DC residents the right to vote in presidential elections in 1961. That would mean that DC could end up with 7 to 10 electoral votes, rather than 3... maybe more, depending on the size of the federal workforce, including the US Military. If you included retired military, since they are technically still military in retired status, and there are many, it could be 15 to 20 electoral votes, most of whom just might vote Republican...talk about "swing..."

We'll see what happens...