On Tuesday, 2 November, 2004 the voters of majority-Black Washington, DC gave John Kerry 90 - NINETY - % of their vote. Now I hear investigative journalist Greg Palast has published a piece entitled, "Kerry Won". www.tompaine.com.
On U.S. Election Day I made sure I was home in Washington, DC. I voted, but I also did phone calls for several hours at Democratic National HQ... thanking voters in Ohio who'd voted for Kerry and reminding others to vote for Kerry before Ohio's polls closed at 7:30pm.
I counted the very few "hang-up" and "kiss-off" responses on less than one hand. So I was as surprised as anyone else by some of the election returns that started coming in Tuesday night during Washington's Democratic election night party. Now we're hearing allegations of hundreds of thousands of "spoiled" votes - and mostly in U.S. communities of color. What the heck does this mean?
Is it true, as Palast states, that in different parts of the U.S. last Tuesday, Nov 2nd, some Black, Latino and American Indian voters were (again) blocked from voting or were given a disproportionately large number of something called "provisional" ballots? Allegedly such ballots weren't counted with regular votes in Tuesday's final presidential vote tallies.
Sadly, what Greg Palast claims is plausible. Like the hazards and humiliations of - take your pick - driving/ walking/ shopping - even trying to get a cab - "while Black", in the USA (and elsewhere), "voting while Black" (or Red or Brown) has a far longer history of being impossible or risky at best, and not long ago also deadly.
Today we are still too often subjected to the most bizarre hassles, not infrequently with consequences that turn horribly tragic - & also tragic for human rights and democracy.
The media are saying almost nothing about it - and many of us don't realize - the capital city of the U.S., Washington, DC, voted 90% for John Kerry. Gee. For some reason DC voters don't seem impressed by the white house's current occupant, George Bush, and this is not even mitigated by the fact that the white house is IN DC.
Ever since the election less than a week ago everyone including mass media keeps saying Massachusetts delivered the most solidly Democratic vote. Massachusetts voted 62% for Kerry.
But the people of Washington, DC - which doesn't even have statehood after all these years - cast 90% of their votes for Kerry! Has anyone bothered to thank the folks of DC or even start to examine WHY they vote this way in such incredible numbers, and to figure out how to encourage the same kind of voting behaviour elsewhere in the USA?
Massachusetts is a *state* but mostly Black Washington and its residents do not have the political status of a state despite more than 30 years of local and national citizen activism to gain support to create our 51st state of New Columbia. Support DC Statehood: www.dcstatehoodgreen.org
"Massa"... oops; I mean "the powers-that-be" in the U.S. Congress have "given" DC voters 3 electoral votes. Wow... thanx for that!
But unlike every state, Washington, DC has no voting representation in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. Washington is 60% Black. Contrast that with Vermont - a tiny state that is still 98.6, or virtually 100, % White.
So why is DC treated differently? As far as I can tell Washington is still treated pretty much like a colony. I've just read on the Internet that the Republican-controlled House voted in September to REPEAL DC's self-instituted gun control law.
Please sign the online petition to "Uphold Washington, DC Gun Laws" - www.petitiononline.com/s1414/petition.html
In other words, public policy formulated and approved by and for DC and her residents can be overturned by outsiders, while policy that is unrepresentative of, unwanted and unasked for by the people of the District of Columbia can be imposed any time by women and men elected by other people in other parts of the USA to represent the interests of publics in other parts of the country. By and large those elected do not know Washington, don't live there full-time, know almost no one in the local DC community and care even less about the future of Washington, DC's local community.
Such politicians know few or none of DC's people of color and most come from areas far more racially homogenous and racially separated than the DC/suburban Maryland/northern Virginia area. Meanwhile I found the following headline on the Internet. October 3rd, 2004 news headlines: "House votes to repeal District of Columbia's gun-control laws."
Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine (especially the rather sad interview with actor Charlton Heston) points out the anti-gun control positions of the Republican Party and its politicians.
The news item reads: "Voting 250 for and 171 against, the House on Sept. 29 passed a bill (HR 3193) to repeal the District of Columbia's gun-control laws. Now awaiting Senate action, the measure would legalize the possession of handguns, semi-automatic assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets in the federal city. The bill would repeal registration requirements for firearms and ammunition, remove criminal penalties for possessing unregistered weapons and allow residents to have loaded firearms at home.
Zach Wamp [his real name I suppose], R[epub.]-Tenn[essee], called it "fallacious to insinuate to people that somehow they are going to be safer if you ban guns. There are no facts to back that up....The truth is that when we control guns, the bad guys have plenty, and there is a gun culture, and the good guys cannot defend themselves.""
www.reflector.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/10/03/1096777481.18121.8398.3028.html
Oh yeah. I forgot the 'logic' behind all this. GUNS don't kill people; EVIL kills 'em!
The tiny state of Vermont has about 600-thousand people - not that different from Washington, DC. But the U.S. Constitution has ensured Vermont a real congressional delegation - 2 Senators and a Representative - and all of them can vote in Congress, which is their job anyway.
With over 550-thousand people, the District of Columbia is allowed an "honorary Delegate" who can sit in Congress, almost like a member, but with no vote. A few years ago the Republicans moved further to the right and stopped our "non-voting Delegate" (Eleanor Holmes Norton) from being able to cast even her symbolic, uncounted vote.
Meanwhile some people (possibly uncomfortable around any Blacks) have even said Washington is "too Black" (60%). But Vermont is 98.6% white. That's basically statistically 100%. What's worse is that it's obvious these two locales aren't treated anywhere nearly the same.
Below are some stats on Washington, DC. (Source:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html)
U.S. census info on Washington/the District of Columbia:
2003 Estimated population: 563,384; Persons 65 years old and over, percent, [Year] 2000 12.2% National: 12.4%; Female persons, percent, 2000 52.9% National: 50.9%; White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 30.8% National: 75.1%;
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 60.0% National: 12.3%;
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.3% National: 0.9%; Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 2.7% National: 3.6%; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) 0.1% National: 0.1%; Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) 3.8% National: 5.5%;
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 2.4% National: 2.4%; Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 7.9% National: 12.5%; White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 27.8% National: 69.1%.