Voting Rights Confusion

For those of us who live in the national capital and pay federal taxes but have no vote in the Congress that decides how those taxes are spent, this sounds hopeful, doesn’t it?

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that she hopes to swiftly bring the District a step closer to full voting rights in the House, a measure D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton called a move in the right direction.

But the article goes on to say that although Norton would be able to vote on changes to legislation, “she would not be able to vote on final passage”. Okay, but that’s still something, right? Wrong. Look at the fine print, a few paragraphs down (emphasis added):

From 1993 to early 1995, Norton and delegates from four U.S. territories were allowed to vote on the House floor in most cases. However, if their votes ever provided the margin of victory on a measure, a House member could request a second, binding vote without them. Republicans nixed the limited vote in 1995, after taking control of Congress.

Pelosi’s press secretary, Jennifer Crider, said last night that the proposed rule changes would seek a return to those provisions. However, she said, Pelosi had not yet specifically addressed the issue of the U.S. territories’ voting rights.

So if Norton’s vote ever actually makes a difference, they’ll re-vote without her. In other words, the whole thing is just symbolism. I realize that Norton has been complaining for more than a decade now about losing this meaningless voting power, but that doesn’t mean that restoring it is anything to rejoice about.