Aug. 1, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER

D.C. Advocates Ask: Is That All?

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo
Norton said she was “baffled” that the president failed to mention the District’s representation woes in his State of the Union address.

President Bill Clinton said in his 1997 address that D.C. should be among those cities to enjoy increased low-tax empowerment zones, and in 1998 he called on Congress to collectively “renew our resolve to make our capital city a great city for all who live and visit here.”

In the early 1970s, during more turbulent times for the District, Richard Nixon devoted portions of three State of the Union speeches to the subject of rampant violence in America’s cities.

“We have a tragic example of this problem in the nation’s capital,” he said in 1970, “for whose safety the Congress and the executive have the primary responsibility. I doubt if many members of this Congress who live more than a few blocks from here would dare leave their cars in the Capitol garage and walk home alone tonight.”

In 1974, Nixon boasted that the city’s crime rate had been cut in half, when “a few years ago [it] was threatening to become the crime capital of the world.”

Had Obama chosen to speak about D.C. in terms of expanded rights on Tuesday night, he also would not have been the most radical: The last president to advocate for “full voting representation in Congress” for District residents was Jimmy Carter in 1981.

In his 1965 State of the Union address, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the House to take up the Senate-passed D.C. Home Rule bill. In his 1953 and 1961 speeches, President Dwight D. Eisenhower called for D.C. to be granted increased self-governance and the “right of suffrage” and to be eradicated of segregation.

And President Harry Truman, in 1947, said, “We should take adequate steps to assure that citizens of the United States are not denied their franchise merely because they reside at the nation’s capital.” In 1950 and 1952, he endorsed home rule.

Incidentally, Norton said she provided Obama and his staff with many of these examples in her last-ditch effort to compel the president to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors on both sides of the aisle.

In the wake of the slight, she intends to follow up: “I want to know exactly what happened,” she said.

Other local officials and activists, however, are less concerned about what Obama did or did not say than they are about what he might or might not do going forward.

Though “pleasing words” would have been nice, according to DC Vote Communications Director James Jones, “it is more important for us that the president take action when we need him.” Jones’ organization and others will especially be paying attention in April when the city votes on whether to amend the city charter to give itself budget autonomy, as well as how lawmakers continue to work toward that same goal on Capitol Hill.

D.C. Councilmember Mary Cheh agreed and cited the White House’s statement of support for expanded D.C. rights as a reason to be optimistic about future wins.

“Even just one line in the State of the Union would have been really wonderful, but I’m not counting as a loss,” she said. “In truth, I didn’t expect it.”

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?