n Oct. 23, I addressed an open letter to Washington's Democratic delegate to the

Norton. I suggested that she spearhead a renewed effort to pass a D.C. Voting Rights Amendment.

The amendment would provide the city with congressional representation, period. I think that makes more practical political sense than chasing the wisp called statehood.

A voting rights amendment would fix what's broken, I argued. Pushing for statehood would entangle the city in a proposition and a process that might end up being self-defeating.

Norton sent me the following reply a few days ago:

"Dear Bob Levey:

"Many thanks for bringing into the open a question that has returned to lots of minds in D.C.: Is statehood a viable approach or is there a better and quicker way to greater democracy and independence for the District? You suggest revival of the Voting Rights Amendment (VRA) that failed, with only 16 of the required 38 states ratifying. between 1978 and 1985.

"Unfortunately, 1) Even today, the VRA would meet opposition for some of the same reasons that statehood does, and 2) The VRA would leave Washingtonians frustrated because it would bring few practical benefits to the District.

"Apart from elemental democracy, these practical concerns are what drive our quest for greater autonomy. Howeyer, the VRA would leave us as completely tethered to federal authority as we are now.

"Voting representation would do nothing to keep the Congress from reviewing—and even, for patently political reasons, overturning-our democratically passed laws. That's what some members of Congress are attempting right now with bills to override the assault gun referendum approved overwhelmingly in every ward in the city. "Voting representation would not remove from our charter the Congressionally-mandated provision that bars the District from any form of reciprocal tax. An estimated 65 percent of the revenue earned in this city would still roll out with commuters, leaving District residents and businesses with the highest per capita tax rates in the country except for Connecticut and New Jersey.

"Voting representation would not eliminate one day of the mandated Congressional review of all of our legislative enactments. My bill recently introduced to eliminate this review has met opposition, even though, short of statehood.

Congress could still overturn D.C. legislation by passing its own bills.

"Voting representation would do nothing to eliminate the undemocratic redundancies in our budget process, which is steeped in costly delay and inefficiency and often subjects residents to palpable hardship. After our elected representatives complete their painstaking budget process, we are treated like a federal agency, not an independent jurisdiction.

"Our budget, including the 75 percent raised locally, travels to the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and the President, and to the House and the Senate, which may reorder our budget in any way they choose and micro-manage our government, subjecting city agencies to the kind of oversight which should belong only to elected officials. My bill to eliminate Congressional oversight only on the portion of our budget we raise has just finished its first round of hearings. with Democrats for and Republicans against, even though Congress would still retain ultimate authority to redo our budget by passing its own legislation.

"Only statehood, not voting representation, would eliminate these disabilities. Besides leaving intact the entire superstructure through which Congress exercises power over the District, the VRA would probably not be much easier to pass.

"One of the greatest impediments to the VRA is voting representation in the Senate and the probability that the District would send two Democrats to add to the present majority and that they might be more liberal than some other Senators. Are three-fourths of the states (including some with Democratic majorities in conservative states, such as those in the South) ready for this change?

"Charitably, the answer is certainly in doubt. It would be mighty frustrating to go down the VRA road a second time, only to be stopped for some of the same reasons statehood is opposed.

"A vote for the VRA would be a vote for democracy, but that would not guarantee passage. The VRA might win more votes than statehood, but many of the same political considerations could hold back the necessary super majority. Even then, the VRA would free me to vote, but it would not free D.C. Only statehood would do that."

Persuaded? Or is the voting amendment your preference? What about ceding the District back to Maryland, or other possibilities?

My mailbox is open for your thoughts. Please write to Bob Levey. The Washington Post, Washington, DC. 20071.

C26 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1991

THE WASHINGTON POST

on. Eleanor Holmes Norton

Longworth House Office Building

Dear Rep./Del. Norton:

I address you that way because that's precisely the problem. You are the closest thing this city has to a representative in Congress. Yet as you know only too well, you're officially a delegate, without full voting status. You're a nose pressed against the window whenever it really counts.

That's an outrage, and it will never cease to be one. To change it, you have advocated statehood, and only statehood, for that strangely shaped slice of pie that you represent called the District of Columbia.

But statehood has stalled, and it looks to me as if it's starting to roll backwards. Statehood has no sympathy at the White House, and little push from the Democratic leadership on the Hill. The shadow lobbyists for it have accomplished zip. The idea is getting stale, and stale bills never go anywhere but the landfill.

Meanwhile, to judge from many conversations, with people here and elsewhere, the climate has changed, slightly yet perceptibly. I say it's time to take a new look at an old approach. It would give the city what it deserves-and move you from Delhood to Rephood.

In the early 1980s, the Senate passed and sent to the states a proposed constitutional amendment. It would have given the District two senators and the appropriate number of congresspersons-possibly one, most likely two.

The proposal had nothing to do with statehood. In fact, it was crafted so that states could give the city full congressional representation without significantly diluting their own power and influence.

The measure was called the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment. DCVRA needed ratification from at least 38 state legislatures. It missed by more than two dozen

The reason was racism. I tracked the progress of the bill through the Delaware legislature, and wrote a series of columns about it. One afternoon, in Dover, I walked the halls of the legislature with a group of DCVRA lobbyists. I'll never forget how direct the questions from the leadership were.

"This would mean two black senators, wouldn't it?"

"Are there any white people still living in the District?

"Why should I help put four black Democrats in power?"

"Are we talking about voting rights for a bunch of street dudes?"

Remember, Ms. Norton, that those questions came from political leaders in one of the few states that eventually passed DCVRA. One can only imagine-and shudder at-the level of discourse in the states that defeated the bill.

What's different in 1991? The attitude of the city. In the early 1980s, we asked for voting rights because we felt we were owed them. We were whiny and pouty. We sounded like children who had been passed over for dessert.

Make no mistake: we're still owed those voting rights, with interest. But I don't hear the same nasal tone of voice here, and neither do others around the country. Because of your excellent work, because we have a new mayor, because the general concept of D.C. voting rights has bipartisan support, because the business community would welcome the chance to back voting rights without backing statehood, I think DCVRA2 could go.

Remember that there's no substitute for justice, and we have that firmly on our side. We also have the element of surprise. We Washingtonians may be excruciatingly well aware of our lack of representation. But Outside-the-Beltwayers either don't know that we lack it, or they think the issue has been resolved.

Most important, DCVRA would fix precisely what's broken. And it wouldn't muddy the waters with statehood.

What you need is a Gang of 40: Washingtonians from both parties and all walks of life who will "work" state legislatures throughout early 1992. But don't just put them on planes and hope for the best. Train them. Arrange introductions for them. Put together media binges, starring famous faces. Sell an idea that will ultimately sell itself.

Of course, it will take leadership. But we don't have to search for that. I hereby nominate you to put the drive together, and to shepherd it. If you start right away, DCVRA2 can be before the legislatures before next summer's political