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,

But what is a legislative day? It means days when at last one house of Congress is in session, and while most business days are legislative days and vice versa, that's not necessarily the case. (Note the Saturday sessions held in both houses to push the health care bill through.)

According to an informal count done yesterday by D.C. Council's chief attorney, Brian Flowers, gay marriages are projected to be legal in the District come March 2.

That counts last Tuesday as a legislative day, and it assumes that Congress takes Martin Luther King Day and all of the week following Presidents' Day off and stays out of session on weekends. That may be a pessimistic assumption, given the goal to have health care done by the State of the Union address.

Unknown to LL: Whether you have to wait until March 2 to take the vows, or whether you can start hitchin' as soon as business is gaveled to a close on March 1. Anyone know?

From: "Flowers, Brian (COUNCIL)"
To: "Flowers, Brian (COUNCIL)"
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:56:11 PM
Subject: March 2, 2010 – projected law date for Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009

FYI – The date has slipped because Congress was out on the Jan. 6,7,8 and 11. As of today, the projected law date fore the marriage equality bill would be March 2, 2010. The count includes 14 days in January, 15 days in February and one day in March, making March 2 the 31st day as follows. This count excludes the MLK holiday and the week including the President’s Day week.

January (14 days)
5, 12, 13, 14, 15
19, 20, 21, 22
25, 26, 27, 28, 29

February (15 days)
1,2,3,4,5
8,9,10,11,12
22,23,24,25,26

March (1 day)
1

Brian K. Flowers
General Counsel
Council of the District of Columbia

"This is the most contentious issue of the 21st century," he says. Even accounting for "the fact we have two wars, a struggling economy, health-care reform, 13 percent unemployment rate, 50 percent dropout rate, African-American kids, Latino kids dying in the streets at an alarming rate—this is still the most contentious issue of the 21st century, and the registered voters are demanding to be heard."

Yikes. With emotions running that deep and many options for same-sex marriage opponents hoping to derail the D.C. Council's vote today, expect much drama to come. In fact, the process up to this point has been rather predictable. What will follow is anyone's guess.

Bishop Harry Jackson, the face of the anti-gay-marriage movement here, says: "We are simply going to try every available opportunity politically and legally to make this happen."

OK, let's start with the political options: King et al. are making the rounds of congressional offices hoping to drum up interest in Capitoll Hill intervention into the council vote. King boasts a full schedule of meetings, and says the refrain he's hearing is this: "Let the people vote!"

At-Large Councilmember David A. Catania, prime supporter of the marriage bill, says he's got strategy of his own. "I was on the Hill last week," he says. "I'm not going to telegraph to the world what our plans are....Rest assured we are working very diligently to defend this victory on the Hill. in the worst case scenario....we'll get up the next day and begin pushing the boulder up the hill."

As for the legal side, King and Jackson put a lot of faith in their attorneys, from the Alliance Defense Fund: "I believe that we have the best legal team in America," King says. A hearing is set for Jan. 6 before a Superior Court judge on one suit to force a popular vote on marriage.

For his part, Catania notes that anti-marriage forces have already been dealt an early loss in Superior Court, and that the lawyers tasked with defending the city's decision are no slouches. "You never know when you go before an independent judiciary; nothing is assured," he says. "But I think our arguments are sound, and we're working were hard to put an architecture in place of legal justifications for our actions. We've had a good track record so far, and I expect that to continue."

In fact, Catania says he's less scared of the lawsuits than of the prospect of a "nongermane amendment" getting added to some random congressional measure—and that's a threat that will continue indefinitely. "There's no question were going to be defending this, and defending it and defending it, until the other side realizes it's costing them more votes than gaining them," he says.

In the best-case scenario, same-sex couples can expect to get married by early-to-mid-March, after Congress' 30-legislative-day review period expires. Or it might take much longer. In any case, expect a surfeit of quasi-apocalyptic rhetoric as the debate proceeds.

"I'm going to use the full power of the black church to kill this bill," says the Rev. Anthony Evans of Mount Zion Baptist Church. "I feel pity for those who voted for this because they have defied the will of God. We have warned them."

Adds King: "The battle may have been won here today, but the war is on, and we intend to win God's war."

In 1998, District voters cast ballots on a medical marijuana ballot question. After a series of court battles and run-ins with Congress, the votes were finally counted a year later; nearly 70 percent of voters supported the measure. But Congress has kept the District from implementing the law through budget riders ever since.

Now the question that must be answered is: Will the 1998 vote now be honored by our elected officials?

There's a lot of different ways to answer that question. First, there's the simple yes. The D.C. Council could dust off the text as passed in 1998, and send it on to Congress for 30 legislative days of review, after which it would become law.

That's what Wayne Turner, one of the original sponsors of the marijuana initiative, hopes will happen: "What we would like...would be for the results on Initiative 59, which passed all those years ago, to be sent to the Hill and become law." It's been 11 years since the measure was written, but Turner says that the text passed by the voters has "capacity" to deal with American med-marijuana innovations.

That text establishes a right "to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed physician has found the use of marijuana to be medically necessary" and recommends it to treat AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, or other diseases. The law allows District residents to establish "not-for-profit corporations for the purpose of cultivating, purchasing, and distributing" medical marijuana and also protects doctors from being "punished, or denied any right, privilege or registration" for prescribing cannabis to patients. Furthermore, the city health department is directed to make a plan 'to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled in Medicaid or a Ryan White CARE Act funded program' who need and want to use medical marijuana. And the council has to "deliver a copy of this act to the President and the Congress to express the sense of the people of the District of Columbia that the Federal government must develop a system to distribute marijuana to patients who need it for medical purposes."

Within that framework, Turner says, there's plenty of room to shape a medical marijuana regime that works for the District. "We want to look at over jurisdictions are doing in terms of best practices," he says. "New Mexico has a model; California has various models...Colorado has model. We want to implement a law that best fits what we have here."

That also means, Turner says, "we want to have our ducks in a row and involve our community, our elected officials, public health officials, law enforcement officials." And also to strategize how to avoid further congressional meddling.

In an interview on Wednesday evening, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton encouraged local officials and activists to keep the issue away from Congress as much as possible. "I wouldn't submit a thing," she told LL, and suggests that city authorities to implement medical marijuana through rulemaking. "If this is like regulating any other [medicines], then they could proceed to regulation."

That possibility didn't compute for LL. Sure, the medical licensing and permitting of cultivation and dispensary organizations could be done administratively, but marijuana is illegal by criminal statute, and only a legislative fix could change that—a fix that would have to go to Congress.

Still, Norton said she sees a case for keeping the issue away from Congress: "You could argue that the referendum needed to be transmitted to Congress; I would say that it did not, particularly at this stage where the Congress has spoken....The Congress speaks when it says, 'We overturned that [rider].' That means you can do it."

It's questionable whether various lawyers will agree with that opinion, but in any case sources consulted by LL were sanguine about the prospect of congressional interference if a marijuana bill were sent to Congress. Most agreed that the biggest threat is ongoing possibility that future members of Congress will reimpose the riders at some point; few think an immediate disapproval resolution is a real possibility—including Norton.

Norton, however, raises another point—one that should be particularly sobering to Turner & Co. Just as the city could give a simple thumbs-up to Initiative 59, it could also give a simple no.

"D.C. has to decide whether they want to do it," she says. "D.C. doesn't have to do it simply because it was a referendum. Who knows, the U.S. Attorney or some such or the police could [say] you do have problems with large buys of marijuana. Don't assume that the council will simply want to do it. In fact, I think it would raise some issues for many in the District."

Back in July, the general counsel to the D.C. Council, Brian Flowers, said there was "a very real possibility" that Initiative 59 would simply be sent to Congress when the rider died. But, for the time being, the council's keeping mum. "It's too early to say what the next steps are," says spokesperson Doxie McCoy. Her boss, Council Chair Vincent Gray, "needs to consult with the members as well as with the general counsel to see what the next moves would be, what is necessary, and what would be the best way to handle the referendum," she says.

Same goes for Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration; Attorney General Peter Nickles said Wednesday that he plans to "carefully" review the issue. "No one has thought about this in 10 years," he wrote in an e-mail. His boss has said little on the issue; in 2000, Fenty as a council candidate vowed in a Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance questionnaire to oppose a council bill upping the penalties for marijuana possession and distribution, based on the implications for medical pot users.

LL will also note that no ballot measure is outside the reach of legislators—meaning that the council could fiddle around with the text and pass a bill that comports more closely to contemporary conceptions (and political realities) of what medical marijuana should be in the District. That could mean hearings, votes, amendments, the whole shebang.

If things don't move immediately, Turner says he's willing to wait. "The process itself takes time. It's taken 11 years already," he says. "We want to do this right."

A joint appropriations press release [PDF] says that an omnibus spending bill, almost certain to pass "[e]liminates a prohibition on the use of local tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 states. Also allows the District to implement a referendum on use of marijuana for medical purposes as has been done in other states, allows use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs except in locations considered inappropriate by District authorities, and discontinues a ban on the use of funds in the bill for domestic partnership registration and benefits."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton says in a release that the abortion provision is a particular victory, noting that it "became an issue as a result of the Senate debate on abortion in the healthcare reform bill."

"The D.C. abortion rider has created severe hardships for low income women in the District," Norton says in a statement. "It has singled out the District and its women for unfair and unequal treatment.”

But perhaps the most interesting development is the death of the marijuana rider.

LL explored over the summer what might happen if the rider disappeared. There's a real possibility that the 1998 ballot initiative approving medical marijuana in the District might simply go into effect:

What exactly would happen is up for debate: The reigning school of thought is that the Barr amendment essentially placed Initiative 59 in a deep freeze—the votes were counted and certified by the elections board, per the federal ruling, but city officials were still barred from expending any resources to move forward with it. So, the thinking goes, the bill should be able to be thawed out, so to speak, sent to Congress for its usual 30-day review, and become law.

Brian Flowers, general counsel to the D.C. Council, says there is “a very real possibility” that once the president signs a rider-free District budget bill, the law can simply be sent to Congress and then become law. No new initiative necessary.

Even in that scenario, the District body politic would have plenty of opportunities to weigh in. Flowers says there’s a possibility that the council would have to appropriate money to put the initiative into effect, and then there’s the simple fact that no District ballot initiative is out of the reach of the council: If lawmakers don’t like it, they can strike it down, much as they did to the term-limit statute passed by 62 percent of voters in 1994.

[...]

If Initiative 59 were do go straight into law, the Fenty administration would be required to do a number of things. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs would be required to license nonprofit, tax-exempt corporations “for the purpose of cultivating, purchasing, and distributing marijuana” for medical marijuana patients. The health department would have to come up with a plan to get medical marijuana in the hands of patients in Medicaid or government-funded HIV/AIDS programs. And the mayor himself, along with the council, would have to “deliver a copy of this act to the President and the Congress to express the sense of the people of the District of Columbia that the Federal government must develop a system to distribute marijuana to patients who need it for medical purposes.”

LL will update with any developments along these lines.

Julia Corker, the 22-year-old daughter of Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), was carjacked last night.

Corker (second from left in photo) was driving a Chevy Tahoe SUV at 7th and D Streets NW, in Penn Quarter, when a man knocked on her window. She proceeded to roll down the window, and the man opened the door, grabbed her by the neck, and threw her to the pavement, WJLA-TV reports. She reportedly lost consciousness but "was not seriously injured."

Luckily the Tahoe had OnStar!

Cops tracked the vehicle to Prince George's County, and two were apprehended in Seat Pleasant. They will be charged in the District, CNN reports.

Kudos to the senator for not (yet) cutting loose on crime in the federal city. Rather, he "really appreciated the professionalism of the D.C. Police, the Capitol Police, the FBI and the Seat Pleasant Police," his chief of staff told Politico.

An invite might seem a formality
Not so, it turns out, in reality
To slip by a sentry
Is false pretense entry
What's that, do I smell illegality?

Stories broke this morning in the Los Angeles Times and in the Examiner reporting that D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee took an active role in investigations of her fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Allow LL to explicate a little more fully what this is and what Rhee is alleged to have done.

Rhee's involvement in Johnson's dealing has been revealed as part of an investigation by two congressional Republicans into the firing of Gerald Walpin, who had served as inspector general for the federal AmeriCorps program until June. Republicans allege that Walpin was fired by the Obama administration for political reasons—in particular, for pressing his investigation of mismanagement of federal funds by St. Hope, the nonprofit founded by prominent Democrat and Obama ally Johnson. The Republican report [PDF], released today, concludes that the White House's decision to fire Walpin was "based on incomplete and misleading information"; that a White House lawyer's explanation for the firing is "not credible"; and that the firing "is likely to have a chilling effect on the IG community." In other words, there's a lot of political posturing going on here.

But along with their report, the Republicans also released Walpin's IG report on St. Hope, which includes interview notes indicating that Rhee got involved after a St. Hope employee reported being "touched inappropriately" by Johnson.

Rhee's involvement in the probe stems from the statements of Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, a former St. Hope staff member, to federal investigators. According to an interview report, Wong-Hernandez told an investigator that Rhee was well known as someone who filled several roles with Johnson's St. Hope organization and would use Johnson's office when she was in town. Wong-Hernandez said that Rhee 'played the role as "Damage Control". When there was a problem at St. HOPE, Ms. Rhee was there the next day taking care of the problem.'

When the sexual misconduct allegations were raised, Rhee contacted Wong-Hernandez to figure out what had happened, telling her "she was making this her number one priority and she would take care of the situation." Subsequently, Wong-Hernandez found out that Johnson's lawyer had contacted the accuser, after which the accuser dropped the complaint.

Disgusted with how the incident had been handled, Wong-Hernandez quit St. Hope, and it was Rhee who conducted the exit interview. She told Rhee the reason she was leaving was the way St. Hope had handled the sexual misconduct allegation. According to the interview report, "Ms, Wong-Hernandez also informed Ms. Rhee that she didn't trust the management at St. HOPE. Ms. Rhee documented the interview in her daily planner and responded to Ms. Wong-Hernandez by thanking her for bringing it to her attention how disorganized the program had become. Ms. Rhee didn't try to talk Ms. Wong-Hernandez into staying."

The L.A. Times further reports that Rhee spoke directly to Walpin, having discussions "in which she made the case for Johnson and the school he ran in Sacramento" and described Johnson as "a good guy." Still, the paper reports, "Rhee's position had little effect on [Walpin], who filed a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney on Johnson....But both the Sacramento police and federal attorneys declined to pursue charges."

When Walpin's report had to say regarding Johnson's sexual misconduct was a relatively minor part of the report, which focused on misappropriation of federal funds and other serious-but-less-salacious charges. But allow LL to share what Walpin turned up—the first instance related in the report is what was described to Rhee by Wong-Hernandez; it's unknown if Rhee was aware of the other allegations below:

G. Improper Sexual Physical Conduct

Our investigation disclosed evidence of sexual misconduct towards young female Members by Mr. Johnson. One Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 19 hereto), reported that, in the February/March 2007 time frame, she was entering grades into the SAC High database system per Mr. Johnson's instructions at the St. HOPE office at night, purportedly as part of her AmeriCorps service. [REDACTED] contacted Mr. Johnson to inform him that she had completed the grades and wanted him to review them. About 11:00 pm, Mr. Johnson arrived at St. HOPE and instructed [REDACTED] to gather her things and come with him. Mr. Johnson drove to [REDACTED] apartment, which is managed by St. HOPE Development and houses its AmeriCorps Members, purportedly so that they could review the students' grades. While in [REDACTED], in which another AmeriCorps Member had a separate bedroom, Mr, Johnson laid down on [REDACTED's] bed, [REDACTED] sat on the edge of the bed to show him the grades, at which time Mr. Johnson "layed down behind me, cupping his body around mine like the letter C. After about 2-3 minutes or so, I felt his hand on my left side where my hip bone is." Further, although not detailed in her written statement, [REDACTED], during the interview, demonstrated, while explaining, that Mr. Johnson's hand went under her untucked shirt and moved until his hand was on her hip. [REDACTED] immediately got up and stated she was done and left the room. When she returned, Mr. Johnson was still in her bed, but now apparently sleeping. Only after [REDACTED] sought to take a blanket to sleep elsewhere did Mr. Johnson exit to the living room of the apartment. [REDACTED] related that Mr. Johnson slept on the couch in her apartment living room that night and subsequently left the apartment at approximately 6 a.m. the next day.

After, as [REDACTED] put it, she "got the courage to tell... my supervisors," she reported the incident, which, she was informed, was communicated to St. HOPE Academy's Human Resources Department and the Chief Financial Officer. The night after [REDACTED] made her report, Mr. Johnson approached her and apologized. Subsequently, Kevin Hiestand, Johnson's personal attorney, met with [REDACTED], described himself only "as a friend of Johnson," and "basically asked me to keep quiet." Also, about one week after this incident, when [REDACTED] told Mr. Johnson she was going to quit because of financial and family reasons, Mr. Johnson "offered to give me $1,000 a month until the end of the program," stating that it would be confidential "between him and I." As [REDACTED] related that conversation, Mr. Johnson "said all he needed was my savings account number," he would make the deposit and "no one needed to know about it." [REDACTED] did not accept this offer by giving Mr. Johnson her account number.

Another former Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 20 hereto), reported that, while attending a St. HOPE sponsored trip to Harlem, NY, from June 26 to July 16, 2006, Mr. Johnson, on three occasions, "brushed [her] leg with his hand," including once "flip[ingj up the edge of her skirt. Other times, she stated, Mr. Johnson kissed her cheek, brushed up against her as he walked past, and massaged her shoulders. ([REDACTED] reported another incident that occurred in Sacramento, CA, in which Mr. Johnson touched [REDACTED's] inner thigh with his hand while enroute to a restaurant. [REDACTED] said she did not report the incidents to AmeriCorps officials at that time because she feared she would be terminated from the program and because Mr. Johnson was assisting her in obtaining acceptance into the United States Military Academy, where she subsequently enrolled.

In addition, former SAC High teacher Mr. Erik Jones (Ex. 12 hereto) reported that a former AmeriCorps Member, [REDACTED], reported to him, sometime in 2007, that, while at SAC High, Mr. Johnson had inappropriately touched her. Mr. Jones stated that [REDACTED] had reported that Mr. Johnson started massaging her shoulders and then reached over and touched her breasts. (Attempts to interview [REDACTED] have been so far unsuccessful.) Mr. Jones related that, after he reported this incident to St. HOPE Academy officials, he was contacted by Mr. Hiestand, Mr. Johnson's attorney, but who identified himself solely as St. HOPE'S counsel, and stated he was conducting an internal investigation. Mr. Hiestand told Mr. Jones that [REDACTED's] "story" was different from Mr, Jones' and told Mr. Jones to change his "story" and then go back to work. Mr. Jones, realizing what he was being asked to do, elected to resign as a teacher and left SAC High.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Amendments proposed so far include a number of social-policy riders that have been removed in subcommittee and committee actions. They also include attempts to prevent gay marriage in the District.

Here's a rundown:

• More than 25 members, including GOP leadership members Eric Cantor and Tom Price have proposed Amendment 87, which would "ensure that low-income DC students are able to receive a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program by removing the requirement that students must be OSP recipients during the 2009-2010 school year."
• Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), and Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) have proposed Amendment 50, which would "reinstate the prohibition on all public funding of abortions within the District of Colombia [sic]."
• Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) proposes Amendment 37, which would "ensure that none of the local or Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia by this Act can be expended for any abortion except in instances where the life of the mother would be endangered or where the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape" and Amendment 38, which would "ensure that none of the funds appropriated by this Act to the District of Columbia could be used to operate a system for registering privately-owned firearms."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have proposed Amendment 16, which would "provide that any law enacted by the D.C. Council that recognizes any definition of marriage other than a union between one man and one woman shall be invalid unless approved by the electors of the District of Columbia in the first general election that follows the enactment of that law. This provision would apply to any law enacted by the Council at any time before, on, or after the enactment of this Act."
• Chaffetz and Jordan have also proposed the stricter Amendment 19, which would "prohibit D.C. funds from being used by the District of Columbia to implement or enforce any recognition of a marriage between two individuals other than a marriage between one man and one woman."
• Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed Amendment 65, which would "prohibit any funds appropriated by the act from being used to violate the Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia."
• Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) proposes Amendment 64, which would "require the District of Columbia to comply with section 104 of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Establishment Act of 2004 (Sec. 2—1515.04, D.C. Official Code) and section 1102 of the Omnibus Juvenile Justice Act of 2004 (Sec. 24—941, D.C. Official Code) in operation of the New Beginnings Youth Facility located in the State of Maryland.."
• Rep. David Souder (R-Ind.) proposes Amendment 18, which would "Would prohibit District of Columbia funds from being used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. section 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative. It also would prohibit funds in the Act from being used to carry out the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Act of 1998 (Initiative 59) approved by D.C. electors on November 3, 1988." In other words, Souder's the new Bob Barr.

The D.C. budget made it out of its appropriations subcommittee without the so-called Barr amendment—a rider, first introduced by Georgia Republican Bob Barr, which has graced the District budget since 1998. But this evening Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson attempted to put it back on.

After a short debate, with Jim Moran (D-Va.) standing up to defend District home rule, the Emerson measure failed by a voice vote. The bill still has to survive the House floor, Senate consideration, and conference committee.

Presently, the committee is debating an amendment that would preserve the rider banning the District from funding abortions. It's unclear whether an amendment regarding the District's gun laws will come up this evening.

UPDATE, 10:05 P.M.: The abortion amendment has failed, 26-33. If the bill as passed out of committee is made law, the District will be free to spend local funds on abortion.

As LL noted this morning, it seems young Jason Chaffetz of Utah is taking the lead in the House of Representatives in attempts to overturn the District's recognition of same-sex marriages.

His hometown newspapers, the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune, both published stories about his involvement today.

Here's what the latter wrote:

While Chaffetz agrees he would object to the federal government telling his hometown of Alpine to recognize or not recognize gay marriage, the freshman congressman says the District of Columbia is different because it receives federal funding as the nation's capital.

"People in Salt Lake City are paying for the operation and government in the District of Columbia," Chaffetz says. He adds that he believes Congress should vote on the issue.

Um, so, congressman, you did check whether your hometown of Alpine is receiving any federal funds, right?

LL is certain you made sure that your community received no community development block grants or police bulletproof vest money or any of that stimulus money and that none of those roads in your beautiful town were built with a portion of the federal highway trust fund, right? Because that would mean Congress should get a say over how your town is run, if LL understands you correctly. More to the point, it would follow that, LL, as a federal taxpayer, would be entitled to congressional representation he doesn't currently have.

And surely you made especially certain that your hometown fire department didn't receive, in 2006, a nearly million-dollar handout from the Department of Homeland Security in order to hire firefighters, right?

Wrong.

Flickr photo by wickenden

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.