On this occasion, we remember the day in 1862 when President Lincoln freed the enslaved people of Washington, DC – nine months before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.   I am proud that an original copy of that document now hangs in the Oval Office, and we remain forever grateful as a nation for the struggles and sacrifices of those Americans who made that emancipation possible.
 
Americans from all walks of life are gathering in Washington today to remind members of Congress that although DC residents pay federal taxes and serve honorably in our armed services, they do not have a vote in Congress or full autonomy over local issues.  And so I urge Congress to finally pass legislation that provides DC residents with voting representation and to take steps to improve the Home Rule Charter.

The catch: Marimow reports the measure will include some sort of amendment constraining the District's gun-control laws—an idea massively unpopular among the city political establishment.

The bill would grant a voting member of Congress to the District for the first time, and heavily Republican Utah would get an additional member until the post-census apportionment is complete.

Writes Marimow: "Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's non-voting House member, said she is still negotiating to try to weaken the gun amendment, but that she is unwilling to sacrifice the opportunity to win a long-sought voting seat for the District by insisting on a stand-alone bill. 'This is the best chance we've had to get a House vote for D.C. in my lifetime,' Norton said. 'Nobody would leave it on the table because it's not at all clear when there will be another chance.'"

Question is, will local politicos, notably Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, line up behind Norton to support a gun-ridered bill? Fenty once expressed support for accepting gun language, but his attorney general, Peter Nickles, has argued vigorously in federal court that the District's status as national capital demands strong gun control laws.

The announcement comes two days ahead of Emancipation Day,

The decision to hold off on current legislation due to the threat of gun-related amendments follows a conference call on Sunday with various advocates and local politicos. A compromise gun legislation proposed by the office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was reviewed.

The consensus was not to move forward with the compromise. "Please understand that we are holding the bill for now, not giving up on voting rights," Norton wrote.

[UPDATES BELOW, with statements from Ilir Zherka of D.C. Vote, Council Chairman Vincent Gray, and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty]

Here is the full statement she sent this morning to various legislators, staff, and advocates involved in the voting rights push:

TO: Sen. Lieberman
Sen. Hatch
Rep. Conyers
Rep. Lee
Mayor Fenty
Chairman Gray
Ilir
Wade
Nancy

From: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

As you are aware, I have been working to remove the Ensign gun amendment from the DC voting rights bill with leaders in the House and Senate, the Administration, and my colleagues. Majority Leader Hoyer has been trying unsuccessfully to get the votes for a clean bill before the thick of the upcoming appropriations period and heavy legislation headed for the floor. The Majority Leader and I met on Friday afternoon to discuss our bill, a draft of a compromise gun amendment from his office, and other options for moving the voting rights bill to the House floor now.

We sent a memo summarizing the content of the meeting with the Majority Leader and of the compromise amendment and shared the memo before a conference call on Sunday with the bill’s major advocates whom we could reach, including the DC vote coalition. The conference call discussed in detail all of the options available to us at this time, none of which would result in the elimination of the Ensign amendment, as well as the split in opinion in the city about attaching a bill that carries a danger to public safety and elimination of the city’s authority over gun legislation. All agreed that there were good reasons to wait for now. Please understand that we are holding the bill for now, not giving up on voting rights. I would be happy to discuss details with you personally.

On Monday evening, I discussed this matter with the Majority Leader. Majority Leader Hoyer indicated he will say at his regular Tuesday press conference that there is not a consensus to move forward with the bill at this time. Concerning the future of the bill, he will make clear that the bill continues to be important because the 600,000 American citizens in the District deserve the vote.

Hoyer indeed made such remarks today.

UPDATE, 1:55 P.M.: A statement from D.C. Vote:

"The fight is far from over," said Ilir Zherka, DC Vote Executive Director. "We will do everything in our power to pass the DC Voting Rights Act in this Congress. But, it's obvious that we'll also need to take our battle on guns to the next level. Unfortunately we know that the NRA will continue to find a vehicle for the Ensign amendment and we will fight this at every step."..."We are so grateful for Majority Leader Hoyer's commitment to this issue," Zherka added. "We are confident that with the continued support of the House Leadership, that the DC Voting Rights Act will pass in the 111th Congress."

Zherka adds in an interview with LL that the enduring question was, "were pro-gun Democrats willing to support the DCVRA without the Ensign amendment." The answer, apparently, was no, and Zherka and allies found themselves unwilling to swallow the poison pill, which he deems "outrageous and a infringement on D.C.'s local democracy."

Zherka declined to discuss the Sunday conference call, though he denies ever reviewing any gun compromise from Hoyer's office.

As far as a timeline for further movement, Zherka says, "I'm not that concerned about projecting a timeline. We're going to get it through if we can....I don't know if it's going to be the fall, the winter, next year. We've never been too preoccupied with a official deadline."

UPDATE, 3:50 P.M.: D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray, in an interview, reports he spoke with Norton and Hoyer over the weekend, where he reiterated his opposition to accepting any gun amendment. "I hate to be glib," he says, "but it was as if we had to give up democracy to get democracy."

Particularly troubling, Gray notes, is the prospect of accepting gun language then having the voting-rights provision struck down under a constitutional challenge.

Disappointment, however, is the word for Gray, given the rapid turn of events since the measure passed the Senate in February. "I think if you had said six months ago we'd be having anything besides a celebration today," he said, "I wouldn't have believed you."

UPDATE, 3:55 P.M.: Here's a statement from Mayor Adrian M. Fenty: “On behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia, I applaud the leadership and great effort put forth by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, District Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton and other Congressional leaders for their work to secure full voting representation for District residents. Going forward, I remain committed to working with our Congressional leaders, as well as members of the Council of the District of Columbia, to secure full voting representation as fast as humanly possible.”

Reports Newmeyer:

"As a result of there not being a consensus, I don’t think we’re going to be able to move the bill at this point in time,” Hoyer told reporters at his weekly briefing....Hoyer had originally set Memorial Day as his target for passing the D.C. voting bill. Before the break for that holiday, he acknowledged the difficulty in reaching a breakthrough but pledged action this year. “It is going to happen,” he said. He declined to repeat the prediction on Tuesday.

Call this one more step toward oblivion for the DCHVRA. Without a 180-degree turn by Eleanor Holmes Norton and others on a possible gun amendment compromise, this thing looks dead in the water.

But, says one wag, "Things are still in the works."

Hoyer acknowledged that "we've been distracted by the gun issue and a couple of other issues that haven't gotten as much publicity" but said he's been "talking to the mayor, talking to Vince Gray, talking to members of the city council...trying to get this done."

DCist's Sommer Mathis asked Hoyer whether he saw a way forward. "Yes, there is," he replied. "I don't want to go deeply." He did note the possibility of "taking the gun thing then getting the vote, then dealing with the gun issue as we go along"—though he said "that is not my preference."

In response to question from Tom Sherwood of WRC-TV, Hoyer said there was no "drop dead deadline" for getting the bill passed. "I don't expect we'll get past May and not get it done," he said. "Ultimately, we're going to create a sense of how we can do this."

Sherwood asked if it would help if President Barack Obama spoke out on the issue. Said Hoyer, "We're talking to the administration about that, and we're getting a read on what the city wants to do about that and what [Eleanor Holmes Norton] wants to do about that."

Like legalized prostitution.

That would be the thinking of At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown, who has penned a letter asking Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and House majority leader Steny Hoyer to introduce something called the "Roses" amendment.

"The 'Roses Amendment,'" Brown writes, "would revise the Mann Act by prohibiting US citizens from crossing state borders to solicit sex in states where prostitution is legal. The amendment would further prohibit these states from using the Internet as a portal to advertise or solicit prostitution. Furthermore, the amendment would make it illegal to complete financial transactions where electronic data or information is shared with any entity located outside of the state for which prostitution is legalized."

Talk about hitting him where it hurts.

Brown explains his reasoning thusly: "If elected officials from states, namely Nevada, can introduce legislation that alters the local laws of the District, I believe the District should offer an amendment that imposes our moral values on such states where prostitution is legal."

As for the name of the bill? "I believe we should fight guns with roses," he writes.

Wow. Wonder what Axl would do?

These days, Nevada Sen. John Ensign's playing the role pretty well.

Ensign's the guy who introduced the amendment to D.C. House Voting Rights Act last week that gutted that gun laws passed by the D.C. Council and signed by the mayor. It looks like his legislative maneuver has the potential to derail the larger bill, which would leave Ensign pleased as punch.

The senator strolled up to the Senate daily press gallery this afternoon to talk guns, voting rights and vouchers with a gaggle of reporters. LL was not present, but frequent City Desk commenter Ryan Grim was, and he passes on audio of the discussion.

The recording starts with a question about whether Ensign would be OK with separating the gun language from the D.C. House Voting Rights Act.

"It's best to keep it on the bill simply because if it's taken off the bill, there's no guarantee that it won't just get shoved someplace in the dark, and they can't guarantee that. We've seen that too many times."

Then things turned to vouchers. Ensign lamented the fact that it looked unlikely that the Senate would have the opportunity to strip language threatening voucher reauthorization from spending bills: "They know they can pass the reauthorization and this program dies anyway because the D.C. city council will vote to kill this bill....The problem that I have with that is that people are voting with their feet; they are saying—these families, these poor kids are saying that they want...their kids to have a better education than what the D.C. public schools are allowing."

Then a reporter raised the fact that in the rest of the country, Congress doesn't get to meddle in local educational affairs.

Responded the senator, "First of all, under the Constitution we absolutely have the constitutional authority to regulate Washington, D.C. We have that guarantee under the constitution. Now, having said that, also one of the reasons that D.C. was chosen [for vouchers] was because of the constitutional authority and to prove whether the system works."

A reporter then raised the fact that Eleanor Holmes Norton is having a civil-rights group "score" a House rules committee vote on the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, much as the National Rifle Association is threatening to.

"Well, first of all, the D.C. voting rights bill all by itself is completely unconstitutional...and if she wants to change it then she needs to change the constitution, that would be the proper forum to address it."

Would you support an amendment? asked another reporter.

"I would not support that simply because I believe that the founders wanted to see the District as not controlled by any of the states. There were a lot of political reasons that they did that and I believe that they had a lot of wisdom in doing that, and that has nothing to do in my mind with civil rights."

Ensign went on to point out that the District gets a whole lot of federal funds. To which a reporter pointed out that it can't say how much of it gets spent—"Isn't there a bit of a conflict there?"

"I go back to the constitution. The constitution didn't want the politics of the city that housed the seat of government—that was the whole compromise: Let's have a District of Columbia that was not part of the states. There was a lot of wisdom in that because they would be disproportionately powerful."

After speaking about the omnibus spending bill now wending its way through the Hill, Ensign fielded a simply question: "Is the gun amendment designed to move forward or to implode the D.C. vote legislation?"

"The gun amendment is to, figuring that the D.C. bill was moving forward and there was no way to stop it—we didn't think we could stop it—so on a bill that was moving forward, to restore the 2nd Amendment rights to people in Washington, D.C."

Then one reporter asked Ensign if he'd rather see the House Voting Rights Act defeated or see his gun legislation enacted into law.

Said Ensign, "I'd rather see the legislation go down and my legislation passed."

Any room for compromise with D.C. folks on the gun language? a reporter then asked.

"I dunno. They haven't offered it," Ensign said before expounding on the District's gun laws: "What they've done now is just made the burdens too great on gun ownership—way too burdensome, much more burdensome then anywhere....Matter of fact, I think they are more burdensome than any place in the country. and when you have the highest murder rate of anyplace in the country for decades and the strictest gun control laws, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense."

Later another reporter asked, "Do you oppose the idea of District residents having a vote in Congress?"

"Yes," Ensign replied, "because of the constitution."

He then expressed some extremely measured support for retrocession to Maryland though he did have some awareness of reality: "I understand Maryland doesn't want it."

LL's old colleague Grim then asked Ensign his opinion, given all of his meddling in District affairs, of home rule.

"I mean, there is nothing wrong with giving them some say-so over what they do," Ensign said, "but you still have to have the federal government oversight."

According to LL's game-planning here, you probably shouldn't be that worried. Civics lesson time, people:

First off, there's very little chance that the House version of the bill will be similarly amended. The DCHVRA will almost certainly be brought to the House floor with terms of debate and amendment set in advance. It's likely that the Democratic leadership will make sure that the voting-rights legislation is considered under a "closed rule," which would allow debate but no amendments.

When the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill, a "conference committee" is typically appointed to sit down and hash out the differences. Compromise language is determined, which is sent back to each House for a final vote.

Once the House bill is passed, conferees would be appointed by each house. They usually include the senior members of the standing committees that reported the original bill—in this case, the House judiciary committee and the Senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee.

This is good news for the DCHVRA, especially on the Senate side, where the chair and ranking member of the reporting committee typically have broad latitude in appointing conferees. The ranking member of Senate homeland security and governmental affairs is Maine's Susan Collins, who, while a supporter of the pro-gun Ensign amendment (likely for reasons discussed below), has been a relatively resolute supporter of the DCHVRA. Sometimes dozens of conferees can be appointed—especially on big spending bills—but the DCHVRA will probably see a relatively small committee.

It's very difficult to predict what would happen at a congressional conference, but barring the appointment of a John McCain or John Ensign or Tom Coburn—unlikely to happen on this bill with a Democratic majority—it seems unlikely the gun language would survive.

And final passage, where a simple majority is required in both chambers, would probably not be a huge problem in either chamber—even without the gun language. Make no mistake, a big reason that the gun language got 62 votes is because the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups are likely to use such that vote in candidate ratings and as a campaign litmus test generally. A vote for the deamended bill would carry no such political consequences.

Then we heard: "Senator Cochran, aye."

Thad Cochran? Republican of Mississippi? Gentleman Southerner? Certainly not a fellow anyone thought would stick his neck out for the District.

Plotkin immediately though he knew what was up: "That was Jack Evans! It worked!"

So he goes into the story: Two years ago, Evans with Plotkin at West End steakhouse The Prime Rib, where the radio man was celebrating his birthday. Plotkin—a walking, talking Capitol Hill facebook—spotted Cochran seated with another distinguished-looking gentleman at a nearby table. As is his wont, Plotkin told his buddy to introduce himself to Cochran and put a word in for voting rights.

Evans did so. But Plotkin neglected to tell Evans which of the two was the actual senator.

"I introduced myself to the bodyguard," Evans remembers. "He looked like a senator—gray hair, very distinguished looking."

Once that was straightened out, the Ward 2 councilmember asked him to consider a vote for District voting rights. "He said something to the effect of, 'Oh yeah, I'll think about that. Thanks for mentioning it.'" He followed up with a note and didn't think much more of it.

As it happens, Evans was one of the few members not on the scene yesterday—he was tending to council business back at the Wilson Building—but Plotkin was convinced he'd done his part years before.

"And it worked," Plotkin beamed. "It worked! [Cochran]'s smarter than I thought!"

The point was first raised this morning by Sen. John McCain. The vote essentially is on whether the measure before the Senate is out of order because it is unconstitutional; assuming the bill survives, the tally should prove to be a good indicator of the vote for final passage. (Actually, not rue at all.)

UPDATE, 2:30 P.M.: Hmm. Max Baucus, whose opposed the bill on constitutional grounds, votes not to sustain the point of order. Odd.

UPDATE, 2:35 P.M.: Point not taken, 36-62.

UPDATE, 3:15 P.M.: Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) rises to introduce retrocession amendment. Would require Maryland legislature to approve such a move, plus amendment of 23rd Amendment. It;'s the second amendment now on the floor—the first is one proposed by John Ensign (R-Nev.) that would severely restrict the District's ability to regulate gun possession.

UPDATE, 3:40 P.M.: Phil Mendelson's getting his day in the sun, sorta: Dick Durbin is approvingly reading the District's gun legislation on the Senate floor.

UPDATE, 3:42 P.M.: Oh, god—here we go: Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, rises to introduce fairness doctrine amendment. Why is this related to D.C. voting rights? "This also has a lot to do with the constitution." MORE—"If we don't respect the constitution on one end, why should we respect it on the other?"

UPDATE, 3:55 P.M.: With friends like these...Not-Yet-Former-Sen. Roland Burris rises in support of DCHVRA—his second floor speech since appointment.

UPDATE, 4:30 P.M.: Oklahoma Repub, certified ideologue Tom Coburn has an amendment to abolish federal income tax in the District: "They'll have to change all the auto tags. Dunno how much that'll cost."

Said Norton, "We see all lights on go, and we can say with all confidence, there's no turning back now."

Earlier, the Senate minority leadership held a brief conference, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska explained her decision to vote for cloture. "The people of the District of Columbia have expressed quite clearly that they want this debate. I think we should have the debate," she said. "I think it's important for the people here to know that we're having this debate." (Incidentally, in a D.C. GOP press release, former council candidate Patrick Mara is taking credit for helping to swing Murkowski's vote.)

But Murkowski opposes the DCHVRA on constitutional grounds, and will vote against final passage, she announced. She did express some support for constitutional amendment or retrocession options.

Before that, LL's former City Paper colleague Ryan Grim was able to buttonhole Utah Sen. Robert Bennett to have him explain his flip from pro-DCVRA cloture to against. His reply: "The more I wrestled with the constitutional issues, the more I found it difficult to get them resolved. I had already planned to vote against the bill unless i could find a fix for them. When I couldn't find a fix for them, I decided I had to be consistent."

Fenty, in an interview after the press conference, said he'll spend the next days lobbying for final passage of the bill, under direction from the Senate Democratic leadership. And just to get him on the record, LL asked Fenty if he had any plans to run for District of Columbia representative. His reply: "No."

"I think it's an important civil right for the residents of this city," said Steele, a native of Ward 4. "Having grown up here I understand how important it is to them."

And Steele pumped up the GOP's civil rights history: "We’ve always, as a party, been on the right side of that history so, hopefully, everybody will be there again.”

The bill is now clear for a vote on final passage, but landmines remain. Paul Strauss, one of two "shadow senators," says the worry now is that an opponent of the bill will introduce a divisive amendment that could scuttle the bill's passage. "They'll find something that folks from the more conservative states will have trouble voting against," he said. "Probably something on guns."

Steele was asked about the possibility of one of his fellow Republicans introducing such an amendment. "I haven't heard anything about that," he said. "Hopefully, it'll be a nice clean vote."

The roll is still being tallied, but here are some early surprises: Thad Cochran, of Mississippi voted yes, while fellow Republican Robert Bennett of Utah—a state that stands to benefit from the DCHRVA—voted no. Among the Democrats, Max Baucus of Montana, long an opponent of a District House vote, voted no just before the roll was closed.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty appeared on the Senate floor, along with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. Fenty, for the most part, either chatted with Democratic members or kept to himself at the back of the floor.

Watching above in the gallery was a majority of the D.C. Council—Vincent Gray, David Catania, Phil Mendelson, Kwame Brown, Jim Graham, Mary Cheh, Muriel Bowser, and Tommy Wells all attended, as did shadow senators Michael D. Brown and Paul Strauss.

The cloture vote, which requires 60 votes for approval, clears the way for the bill's passage by the Senate, which requires a simple majority. It's quite unlikely that the tally on final passage will reach 62 ayes, since several senators had indicated that they would support cloture without actually voting for the final bill.

UPDATE, 12:10 P.M.: Here are the surprise votes: As mentioned before Utah Republican Robert Bennett voted against; the surprise yeses were from Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Mississippi's Thad Cochran. Freshman North Carolina Dem Kay Hagan, reportedly wavering, voted in favor of cloture. These votes helped boost an aye count that suffered from the absences of Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin.

UPDATE, 12:20 P.M.: After the vote, councilmembers, staffers, and D.C. Vote types gathered in a reception room off the Senate floor to celebrate and take a few pictures. There they met with none other than embattled Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, who seemed delighted to greet such a happy group of people. Gray invited Burris to come to the John A. Wilson Building and exchanged cards with the senator's chief of staff.

Folks snapped pictures of Burris surrounded by members of the council, which now included Michael A. Brown and Harry Thomas Jr.

After meeting with the councilmembers, Burris told LL that casting a voe for D.C. voting rights was "a great feeling, having gone to school out here [at Howard Law School]."

"Finally, it comes 50 years later," he said.

With the D.C. House Voting Rights Act set to hit the Senate floor early next week, and with House consideration likely not far behind, things are looking up enough that LL can ask the question: What happens after the bill becomes law?

Well, Eleanor Holmes Norton isn't magically transformed from delegate into full-fledged congresswoman.

As Norton told Bruce DePuyt on his show last Friday, an election will have to be held to elect a representative: "There has to be a special election, and I do not know how that will occur, " she told DePuyt. "This is another office, a new office created by the house for two jurisdictions."

She added that she has talked to D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray about planning for such circumstances. Gray's office had no comment, but LL is told that the council's general counsel has been investigating the mechanics of electing a representative.

Some of the issues at stake: Before a special election could be held, District election laws will have to be changed, abolishing the elections for congressional delegate and shadow representative and creating an election for member of congress. There is some question over whether Congress can amend those laws, or whether the Council must do so itself; the current Senate version of the DCHVRA includes language that would amend District law along those lines.

Then there's the question of what would happen in the interim period between when the DCHVRA is signed and the results of a special election are certified. The council could decide to leave the office vacant, automatically appoint the delegate for the interim period, or give the mayor the power to appoint an interim representative.

But all of these questions could very well turn out to be moot.

As soon as the bill is signed, it's widely expected that several parties will attempt to challenge its constitutionality.

Who exactly? To be determined.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has repeatedly testified to the unconstitutionality of the DCHRVA and other bills like it, says that while federal courts have made it increasingly difficult in recent decades to challenge government decisions, it's hard to imagine a court not granting legal standing to a challenge in this case.

"There's an array of potential litigants," he says, including District residents, members of Congress, residents of other states. "My expectation is that at least one group of those plaintiffs will be found to have standing. It will be very hard for Congress to say that it can change the structure of the institution with no judicial review."

Once a judge grants standing, Turley says, he will likely order an injunction preventing any newly minted representative from being seated until the legal matters are sorted out. His prediction: "I don't think a court would have much difficulty finding this unconstitutional."

With an injunction in place, and the legality of the DCHVRA up in the air, it would make little sense for the council to spend the time and money to hold a special election.

In other words, don't hold your breath, Eleanor.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery