Fifty years ago today, Congress passed the Alaska Statehood Act, giving Alaska, among other things, two Senators and a US Representative.

208 years ago, Congress, apparently without noticing what it was doing, allowed Americans living in the then-new District of Columbia to lose their right to representation in Congress.

Today, Alaska has a population of 670,053; DC's population is 581,530 -- both roughly the size of one congressional district.

Alaska has three Members of Congress - pictured here, all under ethical clouds.  DC has one non-voting Member of Congress - no ethical clouds for Delegate Norton, just no vote.

I've got nothing against Alaska and they deserve better representation in Congress, but DC deserves voting representation now.  The Senate needs to vote again to end the filibuster by Senator McConnell and give DC the vote!

Virginia will be getting a lot of attention in the presidential election - it's one of the new battleground states. There are many good things about Virginia (the Big Eared long-eared bat, for one).

But there are many things that need reform: one of the nation's weakest campaign finance laws, many still voting on the mysterious electronic voting machines and behind the times on granting felons voting rights once they've served their sentence. The WaPo said today:

What do people who don't live in our nation's capital know about the city?  Not much - a lot of myths and misinformation.  Some don't even realize it is a city with nearly 600,000 residents; or that it wasn't until 1974 that it had a local elected government - 185 years after the Constitution.  According to one survey, few Americans know that DC doesn't have voting representation in Congress - more than 80% - but when told about it, they support the vote overwhelmingly.

Here's a quick anecdote from a DC resident visiting Georgia, illustrating the poll's analysis.  Here's what one person said when told about the lack of a vote: "Well, that's just wrong. Shouldn't be like that."

read more...

My former colleague, Meredith McGehee, has a scathing, incisive piece on the pathetic Federal Election Commission in Roll Call today ($$ - but an excerpt here from Josh Z).  In it she says:

Who was a key player in the design of the FEC 30+ years ago?  A US Rep long forgotten to history, but a fearsome power in the House at the time.  Wayne Hays chaired the House Administration Committee and the DCCC, wielding power over everything from campaign laws to campaign money and office furniture -- and abusing his power to a degree that would make Tom Delay envious.

When Hays did not succeed in blocking reform legislation entirely, he made sure that the FEC would not be able to enforce the law.

He was brought down in a scandal - hiring a "secretary", Elizabeth Ray, who later said, "I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone."  But part of his legacy, the FEC, lives on.

The big problems with our voting - electronic voting machines, vote-suppressing ID requirements, long lines - get attention in the media and by advocacy groups like Common Cause.  Less attention is paid to the face of voting - the tens of thousands of pollworkers who run the polling place in neighborhoods across the country.  Of course, most are dedicated, do a good job - but some don't.  This story came to my attention recently:

And this dispiriting conclusion:

Nearly eight years ago, the country had an election meltdown, ending with misguided Supreme Court intervention in a presidential election. There's been some progress in fixing the "system", but Election Day still is a time for election officials to pray that there won't be a close election exposing the fatal flaws in their state's system.

One reason we still cannot trust our voting system is the resistance to change by many state and local officials. For instance, their opposition recently helped derail an effort in Congress to fix the voting machine problem. There are heroes, of course, among them these Profiles in Courage (see 2008 awards). But, as the NY Times pointed out today, but not enough of them. The Times editorial notes some federal reform leglislation that is languishing in Congress:

Read more...

I lost my respect and reverence for the Supreme Court long ago so I was among the large group of unsurprised yesterday when the court upheld a law erected as a barrier to voting - Indiana's strict voter photo ID law.  Not only have the justices left only the thinnest thread of hope for future challenges but, more importantly, they have encouraged those who seek to build more barriers to the polling place.  My state, Virginia, has an ID requirement.  I'm sure it won't be too long before it's amended to require a photo.  Poll tax, anyone?

While there's been a lot of legal analysis whizzing across my screen - "facial challenge" (is that acne?) -- I liked this quote:

Several years ago, at a Senate hearing, I heard Robert Squier, a pioneer of big-time, big money campaign consulting, trying to explaining why candidates at times take contributions from questionable sources. He said that when you're at a point in a campaign when you're desperate for cash, that's when problems start.

I was reminded of Squier's remarks reading the NY Times story about Hillary Clinton's campaign cash troubles (I'm not picking on Clinton - this happens in a lot of campaigns at all levels). The story says "the campaign is actively hunting for new wellsprings of cash" and facing a "daily challenge ... to scrounge up new names of people to ask for money." Clinton, according to the piece, is has been "exhorting fund-raisers to `think outside the box.'"

One place they're looking may be outside the "box" of campaign finance laws - 527's and other groups that spend money purportedly independent of the campaign. One fundraiser said, somewhat defensively and not too convincingly, "These are very smart people who are being very thoughtful about it." The word "thoughtful" conjures up notions of being careful to do the right thing (as opposed to pushing the legal envelope). I doubt it.