DOCSLIB.ORG

Laboratory of Democracy: How the District of Columbia Is Using the Home Rule Act to Achieve Elements of Statehood

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Laboratory of Democracy: How the District of Columbia Is Using the Home Rule Act to Achieve Elements of Statehood University of the District of Columbia Law Review Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 5 March 2019 Laboratory Of Democracy: How the District of Columbia is Using the Home Rule Act to Achieve Elements of Statehood Walter A. Smith Jr. Kevin M. Hilgers Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/udclr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Walter A. Smith Jr. & Kevin M. Hilgers, Laboratory Of Democracy: How the District of Columbia is Using the Home Rule Act to Achieve Elements of Statehood, 21 U.D.C. L. Rev. 108 (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/udclr/vol21/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UDC Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the District of Columbia Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ UDC Law. LABORATORY OF DEMOCRACY: HOW THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS USING THE HOME RULE ACT TO ACHIEVE ELEMENTS OF STATEHOOD Walter A. Smith Jr. &Kevin M. Hilgers* INTRODUCTION On January 3, 2019, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's (the "District') nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives, reintroduced the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would make much of the District the 51st state.1 While Norton had made a tradition of opening each new Congress by introducing D.C. democracy bills,2 the context this time gave District advocates more reason to be optimistic. With the Democrats gaining control of the House, the bill gained a record 155 original cosponsors, and Representative Elijah Cummings, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, committed to holding a hearing on a statehood bill for the first time since 1993. Meanwhile, blocks from the Capitol, a lawsuit had been brought two months prior by a group of District residents against the federal government arguing that the denial of the full congressional voting rights was unconstitutional. 4 This strategy of asking Congress or the courts for relief has been tried before with limited success and may yet succeed in the current environment.5 However, there is another strategy that has been applied in recent years that indisputably has secured greater autonomy for the District's nearly 700,000 residents, who have long lived without the same basic rights to democracy as other Americans. This article discusses this new strategy adopted by the District in recent years to take advantage of authority, by District voters and the District government, and to advance democracy at the local * Executive Director, DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and Associate, Goldblatt Martin Pozen LLP. Thanks to the many lawyers who have committed extensive pro bono time developing the legal arguments outlined in this article, including, but not limited to: Jon Bouker, Aaron Brand, Rick Bress, Karen Dunn, Merril Hirsh, Lone Masters, Alan Morrison, Brian Netter, Thorn Pozen, Gary Thompson, Wayne Turner, Ilir Zherka, and David Zvenyach. Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51, 116th Cong. (2019). 2 See also., H.R. 1291, 115th Cong. (2017); H.R. 733, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 1054, 110th Cong. (2017); H.R. 4054,105th Cong. (1998); H.R. 4055, 105th Cong. (1998). Press Release, Norton introduces D.C. Statehood bill with record number of original cosponsors, announces House Oversight Committee will hold hearing and markup this year, https://norton.house.gov/media- center/press-releases/norton-introduces-dc-statehood-bill-with-record-number-of-original (last updated Jan. 3,2019). Castafion v. United States, Amended Complaint, Case No. 18-2545 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2018), http://www.dcappleseed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Amended-Complaint.pdf. Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000); Jenna Portnoy, To Dream the Impossible Dream:D.C. Officials File Bill, Petition for Statehood, WASH POST, Mar. 1, 2017; Press Release, Norton Releases Prepared Remarks for D.C. StatehoodPress Conference, https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-releases- prepared-remarks-for-dc-statehood-press-conference (last updated Mar. 1, 2017). 108 level, instead of relying exclusively on the federal government to take affirmative action on the District's behalf First, the article recounts the history of Congress's inability or unwillingness to give the District greater democracy. Second, it explains how given this history, the District can and should rely on the broad authority delegated to it by Congress in the Home Rule Act to advance democracy. Finally, the article describes several initiatives of the new strategy through which the District has applied or is applying this principle. I. CONGRESS IAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS EITHER UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO GIVE THE DISTRICT GREATER DEMOCRACY. In 1970, Congress gave the District a non-voting delegate seat to the United States House of Representatives.6 In 1973, it adopted the District of Columbia Self-Government and Reorganization Act ("Home Rule Act"), which created the locally elected government that exists today.7 Since then, however, Congress has been either unwilling or unable to make meaningful additions to the limited democracy it established more than forty years ago. For instance, in 1978, Congress passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given District residents full voting rights in Congress.8 This proposed amendment expired in 1985 after being ratified by only sixteen of the necessary thirty-eight state legislatures. In 1993, a statehood bill was brought to the House floor for the first and only time, but it failed 277-153.9 The District then pursued congressional voting rights through the courts, but to no avail. In Adams v. Clinton, Judge Merrick Garland, writing for a 2-1 majority of a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, determined that under Article I of the Constitution District residents were not constitutionally entitled to voting representation in the House.10 Judge Garland reasoned that Article I requires voting representation only for residents of states, and the District is not a state." Judge Garland noted, however, that advocates could seek a remedy through "other venues." 12 Judge Garland's observation helped set in motion a new direction for voting rights advocacy. In 2007, Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton 6 District of Columbia Delegate Act, Pub. L. No. 91-405, § 201-06, 84 Stat. 845, 848-55 (1970) (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 25a (2012)) (the "Delegate Act"). District of Columbia Self-Government and Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 777 (1973) (codified at D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01-207.71) (hereinafter "Home Rule Act"). H.J. Res. 554, 95th Cong. (1978). New Columbia Admission Act, H.R. 51, 103rd Cong. (1993). Io Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000). Id. at 48-49. 12 Id. at 72. 109 introduced a bill that would give the District a Member of the House with full voting rights, and also give Utah an additional Member.13 This measure was passed by bipartisan majorities in the House in 2007 and the Senate in 2009.14 However, the Senate added an amendment to the 2009 bill that would have significantly undermined the District's gun safety laws and prohibited the Council from legislating in this area." This amendment effectively killed the bill.16 Most local District leaders called for the bill to be withdrawn deciding that a significant cutback on the city's gun safety laws was too steep a price for voting representation in the House.17 In addition to this effective denial of congressional voting rights, Congress has also been unable to grant the District autonomy over local matters enjoyed by other local governments. For example, for years, the District has been asking Congress for local "budget autonomy" the ability to spend local dollars without an affirmative congressional appropriation and legislative autonomy the ability to enact local laws without waiting for congressional review of those laws." Both of these changes would significantly improve local governance without interfering with Congress's prerogatives, either practically or constitutionally.19 As with congressional voting rights, these ideas have drawn significant support from leaders in both parties.20 In fact, Republican chairs of the committee with oversight of the District have either co-sponsored legislation or expressed support for such greater District autonomy.21 Nonetheless, they have never been able to garner majority support.22 Like the voting rights bill, this has been due in large part to the inclusion of amendments that otherwise undermine home rule and are unacceptable to local officials.23 13 H.R. 1905, 110th Cong. (2007). 14 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, H.R.1905, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 160, 111th Cong. (2009). 15155 CONG. REc. S2507, S2513 -16, S2526 -38 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2009). 16 See Byron Tau, How the Gun Lobby Shot Down D.C.'s CongressionalVote, CITY PAPER (June 4, 2010). 17 Id. 1 See, e.g., H.R. 960, and H.R. 1045, Greater Autonomy for the Nation's Capitol: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Fed. Workforce, PostalServ., and the District of Columbia, 111th Cong. (2011) [hereinafter Greater Autonomy for the Nation's Capitol]; Budget Autonomy for the District of Columbia: Restoring Trust in Our Nation's Capital: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 108th Cong. (2003). 1 See GreaterAutonomy for the Nation's Capitol, supranote 17, at 40 (statement of Adrian Fenty). 20 See, e.g., Press Release, Davis Introduces D.C. Budget Autonomy Legislation (Apr. 13, 2005), httns://www.dcvote.or2/news/davis-introduces-dc-bud2et-autonomy-le2islation (announcing introduction of bipartisan congressional budget autonomy legislation).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HR 51: MAKING DC the 51St STATE HEARING
    H.R. 51: MAKING D.C. THE 51st STATE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 22, 2021 Serial No. 117–10 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform ( Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 43–960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Ranking Minority Columbia Member STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JIM JORDAN, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois JODY B. HICE, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas KWEISI MFUME, Maryland BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina KATIE PORTER, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas CORI BUSH, Missouri FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANDY BIGGS, Arizona DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida ANDREW CLYDE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont NANCY MACE, South Carolina HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland JAKE LATURNER, Kansas JACKIE SPEIER, California PAT FALLON, Texas ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois YVETTE HERRELL, New Mexico BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BYRON DONALDS, Florida MARK DESAULNIER, California JIMMY GOMEZ, California AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts VACANCY DAVID RAPALLO, Staff Director MARK STEPHENSON, Director of Legislation ELISA LANIER, Chief Clerk CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051 MARK MARIN, Minority Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page Hearing held on March 22, 2021 ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012
    VERIZON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS JANUARY – DECEMBER 2012 1 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 A Message from Craig Silliman Verizon is affected by a wide variety of government policies ‐‐ from telecommunications regulation to taxation to health care and more ‐‐ that have an enormous impact on the business climate in which we operate. We owe it to our shareowners, employees and customers to advocate public policies that will enable us to compete fairly and freely in the marketplace. Political contributions are one way we support the democratic electoral process and participate in the policy dialogue. Our employees have established political action committees at the federal level and in 20 states. These political action committees (PACs) allow employees to pool their resources to support candidates for office who generally support the public policies our employees advocate. This report lists all PAC contributions, corporate political contributions, support for ballot initiatives and independent expenditures made by Verizon in 2012. The contribution process is overseen by the Corporate Governance and Policy Committee of our Board of Directors, which receives a comprehensive report and briefing on these activities at least annually. We intend to update this voluntary disclosure twice a year and publish it on our corporate website. We believe this transparency with respect to our political spending is in keeping with our commitment to good corporate governance and a further sign of our responsiveness to the interests of our shareowners. Craig L. Silliman Senior Vice President, Public Policy 2 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 Political Contributions Policy: Our Voice in the Political Process What are the Verizon Good Government Clubs? and the government agencies administering the federal and individual state election laws.
    [Show full text]
  • COG Board,Committees and Staff 2009 Metropolitan W Ashington
    2008 Annual Report 2009COG Board, Metropolitan Committees Washington and Staff Regional Directory METROPOLITANWASHINGTONCOUNCILOFGOVERNMENTSMETROPOLITANWASHINGTONCOUNCILOFGOVERNMENTS Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2008 Annual Report Meeting the Region’s Short-Term Needs and Long-Term Goals Metropolitan Washington Member Jurisdictions COG 2009 Metropolitan Washington Regional Directory Council of Governments District of Columbia ..........................16-21 COG Board of Directors ...........................3-5 Maryland...........................................22-45 Board, Committees and Staff Transportation Planning Board (TPB).........6-8 Bladensburg.............................................22 Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Bowie ......................................................23 Committee (MWAQC).............................9-11 College Park .......................................24-25 COG Policy Committees ............................12 Frederick .................................................26 COG Public/Private Partnerships ................13 Frederick County .................................27-29 COG Administrative Staff ...........................14 Gaithersburg.......................................30-31 Greenbelt............................................32-33 Montgomery County ............................34-37 Prince George’s County .......................38-41 Rockville .............................................42-43 Takoma Park.......................................44-45 Virginia..............................................46-69
    [Show full text]
  • Voting System Failures: a Database Solution
    B R E N N A N CENTER FOR JUSTICE voting system failures: a database solution Lawrence Norden Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law about the brennan center for justice The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communication to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. about the brennan center’s voting rights and elections project The Brennan Center promotes policies that protect rights, equal electoral access, and increased political participation on the national, state and local levels. The Voting Rights and Elections Project works to expend the franchise, to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote, and to ensure that every vote cast is accurately recorded and counted. The Center’s staff provides top-flight legal and policy assistance on a broad range of election administration issues, including voter registration systems, voting technology, voter identification, statewide voter registration list maintenance, and provisional ballots. The Help America Vote Act in 2002 required states to replace antiquated voting machines with new electronic voting systems, but jurisdictions had little guidance on how to evaluate new voting technology. The Center convened four panels of experts, who conducted the first comprehensive analyses of electronic voting systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Year End Report
    1 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2014 A Message from Craig Silliman Verizon is affected by a wide variety of government policies ‐‐ from telecommunications regulation to taxation to health care and more ‐‐ that have an enormous impact on the business climate in which we operate. We owe it to our shareowners, employees and customers to advocate public policies that will enable us to compete fairly and freely in the marketplace. Political contributions are one way we support the democratic electoral process and participate in the policy dialogue. Our employees have established political action committees at the federal level and in 18 states. These political action committees (PACs) allow employees to pool their resources to support candidates for office who generally support the public policies our employees advocate. This report lists all PAC contributions, corporate political contributions, support for ballot initiatives and independent expenditures made by Verizon during 2014. The contribution process is overseen by the Corporate Governance and Policy Committee of our Board of Directors, which receives a comprehensive report and briefing on these activities at least annually. We intend to update this voluntary disclosure twice a year and publish it on our corporate website. We believe this transparency with respect to our political spending is in keeping with our commitment to good corporate governance and a further sign of our responsiveness to the interests of our shareowners. Craig L. Silliman Executive Vice President, Public Policy and General Counsel 2 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2014 Political Contributions Policy: Our Voice in the Political Process What are the Verizon Good Government Clubs? contributions process including the setting of The Verizon Good Government Clubs (GGCs) exist to monetary contribution limitations and the help the people of Verizon participate in America’s establishment of periodic reporting requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA D.C. ASSOCIATION of CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Et Al., Plaintiffs
    Case 1:14-cv-01293-TSC Document 46 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 14-1293 (TSC) v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Court’s May 26, 2016 Minute Order, defendants move for summary judgment on all claims in the Complaint [1]. The basis for this Motion is Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and the grounds are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which shall also serve as an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [43]. A proposed order is attached. Because this Motion is dispositive of the Complaint, defendants have not sought plaintiffs’ consent. See LCvR 7(m). DATED: September 9, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia ELIZABETH SARAH GERE Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division /s/ Toni Michelle Jackson TONI MICHELLE JACKSON [453765] Chief, Equity Section /s/ Matthew Robert Blecher Case 1:14-cv-01293-TSC Document 46 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 78 MATTHEW ROBERT BLECHER [1012957] GREGORY M. CUMMING [1018173] Assistant Attorneys General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 442-9774 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants 2 Case 1:14-cv-01293-TSC Document 46 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D.C. ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Government Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6A Agenda for March 08, 2007
    District of Columbia Government Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6A Agenda for March 08, 2007 7:00 pm Call to order, adopt agenda and approve previous meeting’s minutes. 7:05 Community Comments (2 minutes each) 7:10 Community Presentation: Interim DC Fire Chief, Brian Lee 7:20 Officer Reports: Chair (2 minutes) Vice-Chair (2 minutes) Secretary (2 minutes) - starts on page 41 1. ANC Informational Flyer Copies Available 2. Letters Remaining From February 08 ANC Meeting a. Letter to OAG reminding them of obligation to provide information to ANC’s b. Letter to G. Simon and City Council regarding support for interpretive services 3. Announcement of Tommy Wells Office Hours on H - on page 39 4. Final Business Card Design - on page 40 Treasurer (2 minutes) - starts on page 41 5. Approve treasurer’s report and previous month’s disbursements. 6. Approve monthly photocopying expenses. 7:30 Single Member District reports (2 minutes each) Standing Committee Reports: 7:35 Alcohol Beverage Licensing (5 minutes) – starts on page 42 1. Recommendation: Adopt annual goals for ABL Committee presented 2. Recommendation: Pursue a voluntary agreement with Atlas Spotlight Productions 3. Recommendation: Protest the CT and CR application and pursue a voluntary agreement with Langston Bar & Grill. 4. Next meeting: 7p.m., March 20, 2007. (third Tuesday) 5. Accept Committee Report 7:40 Economic Development and Zoning (10 minutes) – starts on page 45 1. Recommendation: Approve letter of support to HPRB for the extension of the 3rd floor rowhouse at 139 11th St. N.E. 2. Recommendation: Approve letter of opposition to the alley closing behind 1359 H St.
    [Show full text]
  • Government of the District of Columbia
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 20004, phone 724–8000 Council Chairman (at Large).—Linda W. Cropp, Suite 504, 724–8032. Chairman Pro Tempore.—Jack Evans. Council Members: Jim Graham, Ward 1, Suite 406, 724–8181. Jack Evans, Ward 2, Suite 106, 724–8058. Kathleen Patterson, Ward 3, Suite 107, 724–8062. Adrian Fenty, Ward 4, Suite 506, 724–8052. Vincent B. Orange, Sr., Ward 5, Suite 108, 724–8028. Sharon Ambrose, Ward 6, Suite 102, 724–8072. Kevin P. Chavous, Ward 7, Suite 402, 724–8068. Sandy (Sandra) Allen, Ward 8, Suite 408, 724–8045. Council Members (at Large): Harold Brazil, Suite 404, 724–8174. Phil Mendelson, Suite 400, 724–8064. Carol Schwartz, Suite 105, 724–8105. David A. Catania, Suite 110, 724–7772. Secretary to the Council.—Phyllis Jones, Suite 5, 724–8080. General Counsel.—Charlotte Brookins-Hudson, Suite 4, 724–8026. Budget Director.—Arte Blitzstein, Suite 508, 724–8139. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor of the District of Columbia.—Anthony A. Williams. Chief of Staff.—Kelvin J. Robinson, Suite 509, 727–2643, fax 727–2975. Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff.—Lisa Johnson-Ingram, Suite 509, 727–2643, fax 727–2975. Deputy Mayor for: Children, Youth, Families and Elders.—Carolyn N. Graham, Suite 307, 727–8001, fax 727–0246. Planning and Economic Development.—Eric W. Price, Suite 317, 727–6365, fax 727–6703. Public Safety and Justice.—Margret Kellems, Suite 327, 727–4036, fax 727–8527. Operations.—Herb Tillery, Suite 310, 727–6053, fax 727–9878.
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgementscontents
    GrowinG An INCLUSIVE CITY: FROM VISION TO REALITY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL: DISTRICT ELEMENTS SeCtion 3(d) oF BiLL 16-876 Enrolled ORIGINAL Adopted By the CounCiL oF the diStriCt oF CoLuMBiA deCeMBer 19, 2006 10 DCMR • PART 1 D C O FFI C E O F D O C UMEN T S A N D A DMINIS T RA T I V E I SSUAN C E S AdriAn M. Fenty, MAyor • oCTOBer 2007 • LAShAndA J. hoLLowAy, direCtor CONTENTS CERTIFICATION This document certifies, pursuant to section 53(c) of the District of Columbia Documents Act, D.C. Law 2-153, D.C. Official Code $2-612(3) (2001), that the text of the rules compiled or codified in this title of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations have been compared with the original text of rules duly promulgated, filed and published in accordance with law and that the text has been found to be correct and complete. Signed this 14th day of August 2007 Joanne Ross-Thomas Acting Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCONTENTS The Honorable Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia The Council of the District of Columbia Vincent C. Gray, Chair Kwame R. Brown, At-Large David Catania, At-Large Phil Mendelson, At-Large Carol Schwartz, At-Large Jim Graham, Ward 1 Jack Evans, Ward 2 Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Muriel Bowser, Ward 4 Harry Thomas, Jr. Ward 5 Tommy Wells, Ward 6 Yvette M. Alexander, Ward 7 Marion Barry, Ward 8 Comprehensive Plan Revision Task Force Gale Black Cheryl Cort Wayne Dickson Maureen Dwyer Ann Hughes Hargrove Richard Hawkins Renee Ingram Gwyn Jones Sally Kram Jeff Lee Nancy MacWood Sue Marshall Eastman Osborne Penny Pagano Lillian Perdomo Stephen Porter Laura Richards Naomi Robinson T’Chaka Sapp Johnnie Scott-Rice Steve Sher Barbara Spillinger Adrian Washington David Watts Gerry Widdicombe Lavinia Wohlfarth Dick Wolf Special thanks to past elected leaders: Anthony A.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNCIL of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA COMMITTEE of the WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 DRAFT
    COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 DRAFT TO: All Councilmembers FROM: Chairman Phil Mendelson Committee of the Whole DATE: July 9, 2019 SUBJECT: Report on Bill 23-1, the “Comprehensive Plan Framework Amendment Act of 2019” The Committee of the Whole, to which Bill 23-1, the “Comprehensive Plan Framework Amendment Act of 2019” was referred, reports favorably thereon with amendments, and recommends approval by the Council. CONTENTS I. Background And Need ...............................................................1 II. Legislative Chronology ............................................................10 III. Position Of The Executive .......................................................10 IV. Comments Of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ............10 V. Summary Of Testimony ...........................................................11 VI. Impact On Existing Law ..........................................................27 VII. Fiscal Impact ............................................................................28 VIII. Section-By-Section Analysis ...................................................28 IX. Committee Action ....................................................................28 X. Attachments .............................................................................28 I. BACKGROUND AND NEED On January 3, 2019, Bill 23-1, the “Comprehensive Plan Framework Amendment Act of 2019”1 was introduced by Chairman Phil Mendelson as
    [Show full text]
  • DC Libertarian Party 415 W Street NE #A Washington, DC 20002
    DC Libertarian Party 415 W Street NE #A Washington, DC 20002 December 26, 2018 Federal Election Commission Office of General Counsel 1050 First Street NE Washington, DC 20463 (and via email to [email protected] and [email protected]) Re: Advisory Opinion Regarding Qualification of a State Party Committee Dear Commissioners: This is an official request for an advisory opinion regarding the state party status of the DC Libertarian Party (ID # C00690479). We have submitted our statement of organization and were informed by letter of November 29, 2018 that we must obtain an advisory opinion from the FEC, with response requested from us by January 3, 2019. I am the Chair and Acting Treasurer of and represent the DC Libertarian Party, the DC affiliate of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian National Committee and its staff can attest that the DC Libertarian Party is the LNC’s sole qualifying organization in the District of Columbia, responsible for the day to day operation of that political party at the state level, and that the state party organization is part of the official structure of the national party. See Advisory Opinion 1975-129 (qualification of the national Libertarian Party as political party). In accordance with federal law and FEC advisory opinions, we have attached the DC Libertarian Party bylaws as Appendix 1. These bylaws fulfill essential element (1) for the DC Libertarian Party to be recognized. Our bylaws indicate we engage in various political party activities in the District of Columbia, including nominating candidates for partisan public office and sending delegates to the Libertarian Party’s national convention.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNMENT of the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA Office of the State School Superintendent of Education (OSSE)
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the State School Superintendent of Education (OSSE) Responses to Fiscal Year 2020 Performance Oversight Questions Shana Young Interim State Superintendent of Education Submission to: The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman Committee of the Whole Council of the District of Columbia Committee of the Whole John A. Wilson Building 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 402 Washington, DC 20004 FY 2020 Performance Oversight Questions Office of the State Superintendent of Education February 26, 2021 Chairman Phil Mendelson Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Chairman Mendelson, Please find enclosed the Office of the State Superintendent of Education’s (OSSE’s) Fiscal Year 2020 Performance Oversight responses. Per your request, OSSE submits two (2) bound, printed copies of the responses. Additionally, all responses and permitted attachments will be submitted electronically to the Committee of the Whole. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Justin Tooley, Deputy Chief of Staff at [email protected] or (202)-215-3617. Sincerely, Shana Young Interim State Superintendent of Education 2 FY 2020 Performance Oversight Questions Office of the State Superintendent of Education Table of Contents Agency Operations.......................................................................................................................... 4 Data and Research........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]