Could DC’s ‘Nay’ on Pepco-Exelon Merger Kill It’s Future in Mid-Atlantic?

By Nicole Raz, WMAL, August 28, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Pepco-Exelon merger holds a murky future in the Mid-Atlantic after a DC regulator denied the power companies’ application Tuesday.

State regulators in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia had already approved the $6.8 billion merger; now that the DC Public Service Commission unanimously denied it “the whole deal goes down,” says Montgomery County Councilman Roger Berliner.

Pepco and Exelon have 30 days to file an appeal. “We will review our options with respect to this decision and respond once that process is complete.,” they said in a statement.

DC Councilmember David Grosso said an appeal would mean lots of activity around the Wilson Building.

“There will be a bunch of lobbyists from Pepco and Exelon coming in trying to get us to support changing the decision,” Grosso said.

If the power companies don’t file an appeal, or if an appeal doesn’t work out, then DC pulled the plug on what would have been the Mid-Atlantic’s largest electric and gas utility.

“If they try to put a new deal on the table for everybody to look at, if they want to continue to pursue this option then that’s certainly an option–but [then] they play the tape all over again,” Berliner told WMAL.

If Pepco is still interested in finding a partner for a merger, then Grosso suggests finding a company that is committed to renewable energy.

“The only way I would support any kind of merger like this is if the merger clearly supports and demonstrates that they’re doing what’s in the best interest of the public. In this case Exelon didn’t come close to meeting their burden,” Grosso said.

The Pepco-Exelon merger had been in the works since April 2014.

D.C. and New York City Could be Next in Giving the Vote to Noncitizens

By J. Weston Phippen, July 15, 2015, National Journal

In Washington, D.C., about 54,000 people pay taxes, send their kids to school and can join the military because they have green cards, making them legal U.S. residents. But because they're not citizens, they can't vote for who runs their children's' schools, what city hall does with their tax money, or who manages essential public services in their neighborhoods.

There are about 12 million immigrants in similar situations nationwide.

In D.C., about one in eight people are immigrants, but only 30 percent of them are citizens eligible to vote. Last week, local D.C. legislators heard mostly supportive testimony for a bill that would grant voting rights to noncitizen residents.

The Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2015, introduced by council member David Grosso, would allow legal residents to vote for, among other things, leaders on the education board, city council members, and the mayor.

Given today's heated immigration reform debates, the idea is extremely controversial. However, six towns in Maryland have similar laws allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, the oldest being Takoma Park. Chicago allows permanent residents who are parents of schoolchildren to vote in district elections. And in New York City, a council member is currently drafting a similar bill that would extend local voting rights to 1 million people. Two years ago, Queens council member Daniel Dromm had the city council's majority support, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out against it. The bill never saw a vote. But now there's a new mayor, and the proposed law is expected to gain wide support once more.

Critics of such legislation often say that allowing noncitizens to vote would tarnish what is supposed to be a sacred privilege.

Dorothy Brizill, a local D.C. activist, told WAMU that something like this is "particularly sensitive, and of concern to those individuals, both black and white, who are aware of the long historical struggle to secure the right to vote for all American citizens. For many, the right to vote is the essence of citizenship."

Grosso understands this concern, but he thinks that "when you're talking about these very local issues that impact you on a day-to-day basis, I don't think that requires being a citizen."

The history of noncitizen voters goes back several hundred years. From 1776 to 1926, the U.S. allowed some noncitizens to vote in more than 40 states and federal territories

It began, says Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at Queens College in New York, with noncitizens demanding voting privileges. That turned into a battle cry: "No taxation without representation!"

Noncitizen voters helped expand the American West. They settled territories that later became states. Then, in the 1920s, anti-immigrant sentiment spread across the country. In response, the government set quotas for how many people could enter the United States, and from which countries.

Hayduk advocates for noncitizen voting rights in local elections, and he even wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. In it, he wrote that in some towns, noncitizens make up almost half of voting-age adults who have no say in their local government. Even in places like Los Angeles and New York City, they make up one-third to a quarter of the voting age of the population.

"Noncitizens suffer social and economic inequities, in part, because policymakers can ignore their interests," Hayduk wrote in the op-ed. "The vote is a proven mechanism to keep government responsive and accountable to all."

Opponents believe that noncitizens get a good deal from their tax money. They gain access to social services and public schools. They can serve in community organizations. And, some argue, blurring the line between citizens and noncitizens will only lead to confusion.

"Boy, is that a slippery slope," says Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

Boehm says his wife immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua and spent years obtaining citizenship. Voting is a privilege for those who struggled through the process. Anything else would be "diluting the value" of citizenship, he says.

There's also, he believes, quite a bit of political pandering in a bill like this. "The people who advocate this clearly think they would get the votes of the noncitizens," Boehm says.

Yet there are a lot of people who live in this country for many years, hoping to become citizens, but can't because of how hard it has become. "We always encourage people to become full citizens," says Jaime Contreras, vice president of the D.C. division of the Service Employees International Union, called 32BJ. "This is a good first step to give them a local voice in their politics."

Most of the people Contreras advocates for in D.C. are Latino immigrants. Many come from El Salvador and work as security officers or in maintenance. They clean public schools, offices, and buildings where politicians meet. The majority would like to become citizens, Contreras says, but the average wait is about eight years. And it's expensive. So as they wait for citizenship, they live, work, and become part of communities in which they have no say.

D.C. residents can empathize with this, as they have no voting power in Congress. This despite paying federal taxes and having a population as large as the state of Wyoming. They are constantly reminded of this fact, because their license plates bare that revolutionary slogan, "No taxation without representation."

Upcoming hearings and roundtables for the Committee on Education

All hearings and roundtables will be at the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW.

June 22 –- PERAA Roundtable Part II -– 11am (Rm 500)

This is the continuation of a public roundtable on the summative evaluation of public schools in the District of Columbia as required by the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007. Please contact Christina Henderson at chenderson@dccouncil.us  by close of business Thursday, June 18 to testify.

June 23 -- Value of Investing in Trauma-Informed Public Schools and Support Services –- 1pm (Rm 123)

The purpose of this roundtable is to learn more about the importance of trauma-informed schools and environments. How do we identify students affected by trauma? What exactly does it mean to be trauma-informed? What types of existing services and trainings are available to students and school-based staff in this regard? How can the District of Columbia better coordinate and improve mental health services for students? Please contact Christina Henderson at chenderson@dccouncil.us  by close of business Friday, June 19 to testify.

June 29 –- Joint Education & Committee of the Whole Roundtable on Truancy -– 11am (Rm 123)

The purpose of this roundtable is to receive testimony from government witnesses and partners, including the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, the Child and Family Services Agency, the District of Columbia Public Schools, the Public Charter School Board, and the Justice Grants Administration regarding truancy in the District and the continued implementation of truancy reform initiatives. Please contact Christina Setlow at csetlow@dccouncil.us by close of business Thursday, June 25 to testify.

July 1 -– Joint Education, Judiciary & Committee of the Whole Hearing on B21-66, the Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2015 -– 11am (Rm 412)

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on B21-0066, the Language Access for Education Amendment Act of 2015. Please contact Kate Mitchell at kmitchell@dccouncil.us by close of business Friday, June 26 to testify.

July 6 -– Hearing on B21-239, the Testing Integrity Amendment Act of 2015 -– 1pm (Rm 123)

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on B21-0239, the Testing Integrity Amendment Act of 2015. Please contact Christina Henderson at chenderson@dccouncil.us  by close of business Thursday, July 2 to testify.

July 8 -– Joint Education and Transportation & the Environment Roundtable on DGS Contracting and Procurement Practices for Constructing and Modernizing District of Columbia Public Schools -– 11am (Rm 500)

This roundtable is specifically on the Department of General Services contracting and procurement practices for constructing and modernizing facilities for DCPS. Please contact Aukima Benjamin at abenjamin@dccouncil.us  by close of business Monday, July 6 to testify.

Grosso Introduces Bill to Expand Voting Rights in Local Elections to Permanent Resident Immigrants in D.C.

For Immediate Release
January 20, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

Grosso Introduces Bill to Expand Voting Rights in Local Elections to Permanent Resident Immigrants in D.C.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At-Large) introduced the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015, a bill to grant voting rights in local municipal elections to all non-citizens in D.C. with permanent residency immigration status.

The full text of Grosso's statement follows:

This morning along with Councilmembers Allen, Nadeau, Evans and Silverman, I introduced the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015. This bill would grant voting rights in local municipal elections to D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens but have permanent residency status.

“All politics is local” is a common phrase in the U.S. political system and what most District residents care about are the tangible things that affect their day-to-day lives like potholes, playgrounds, taxes, snow removal, trash collection, red light cameras and more.  All of these issues are important to voters in D.C.  Unfortunately, not all of our residents have a say in choosing the officials who make these decisions.  In my opinion, that is unjust.

Since 1970, the District of Columbia has had a steady increase in the number of foreign-born residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012), approximately 53,975 residents in the District are foreign born, but not naturalized U.S. citizens.  Over 90% of that population is 18 years of age or older. These are taxpayers who should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in local elections.

For most of American history, non-citizens were permitted to vote in 22 states and federal territories. It was not until the 1920s that, amidst anti-immigrant hysteria, lawmakers began to bar non-citizens from voting in local and statewide elections.  Unfortunately, this hysteria continues across the United States, but it does not need to continue any longer in the District of Columbia.

Currently, there are seven jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in local elections in the U.S., six of which are in neighboring Maryland. None of these cities or towns has experienced incidents of voting fraud with regard to non-citizens voting in federal elections.  A similar bill was introduced in the Council in 2004 and unfortunately, due to the political climate at the time regarding immigration reform, it did not receive full consideration by this Council. Eleven years later, the time is now to reignite this conversation.

###

Politics and Arts: A Jam Session in the Wilson Building

Please join me and the Washington Performing Arts on Wednesday, November 19 from 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. as we host "Politics and Arts: A Jam Session in the Wilson Building."  The event will showcase local musicians and also provide musicians from different genres and backgrounds with an opportunity to network and share their own passion for the arts. Special performances of the night will include SynchroniCity, Roof Beams, and for an added bonus a dance selection by SerendibDance.  

This spectacular event will be the third in a series of arts events that I have hosted. The events are used as an opportunity to showcase the thriving arts community and also serve as a continuing effort to provide community engagement opportunities at the John A. Wilson Building.  Prior events have been held in my office but I wanted to expand the event to welcome the arts community and members and staff of the D.C. Council.  The event will be held on the first floor of the John A. Wilson Building (foyer) and will consist of a "mix and mingle" with light refreshments followed by a program with local musicians.

My last event, an "Evening of Poetry" showcased D.C.'s artistic youth with selections from the D.C. Scores, Free Minds and the D.C. Youth Slam Team who won first place at the Brave New Voices youth poetry slam contest. To see a recap of the event, click here.

For more information, please contact my office at (202) 724-8105.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION: Watch Live & Submit Your Questions to Address Urban Farming in the District

For Immediate Release

June 11, 2014

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun

(202) 724-8105

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:  Watch Live & Submit Your Questions to Address Urban Farming in the District

Washington, D.C. – Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m., the D.C. Council will hold a legislative hearing on the D.C. Urban Farming and Food Security Act of 2014; a measure to transform vacant District-owned lots into food producing urban farms.  During this hearing, residents will have a unique opportunity to participate live by submitting questions, comments and other feedback directly to Councilmember Grosso via the MadisonDC collaborative platform.

This is the first time such direct citizen involvement has been captured by the city government.

“MadisonDC is an exciting platform because it promotes and encourages transparency in the legislative process,” said Grosso.  “This tool will spur community engagement and prompt robust dialogue around the issues that matter most to District residents.”

To join the conversation and learn more about the platform, visit MadisonDC.  Also, visit the Urban Farming and Food Security Act and submit your questions or comments before, during and after the gavel drops.

###

About Madison

MadisonDC is the District of Columbia’s version of the free Madison software that reinvents government for the Internet Age.  Madison is custom-built to connect the decision-makers in our democracy to the people they serve.

About The OpenGov Foundation

OpenGov is a small non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)3 working to open government. That means making it easier for people to access and use as much government information as possible via innovative technology.

Grosso Announces New Initiative to Collaboratively Draft DC Laws Online with the Public

For Immediate Release:

May 16, 2014

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun

(202) 724-8105

Grosso Announces New Initiative to Collaboratively Draft DC Laws Online with the Public

MadisonDC powers historic initiative to give the public a direct voice in the creation of District legislation, starting with bills on urban agriculture, open primaries, and marijuana policy

Washington, D.C.--Today, Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) and The OpenGov Foundation announced that three legislative proposals on urban farming, tax and regulation of marijuana, and open primaries are now open on the Internet to give the public a direct voice in the lawmaking process. This historic effort is made possible by the new Madison online lawmaking tool, empowering all residents to log on, be heard and ensure that their elected officials get policy right for the District.  MadisonDC connects people directly with their elected officials, turning a confusing lawmaking process into an interactive, seamless user experience where everyone can add their input. Grosso will review and consider suggestions starting today and ending June 12.

WATCH: Grosso Invites Constituents to Help Draft DC Legislation

“As we encourage more public engagement in the legislative process, I hope D.C. residents will take a moment to log onto the Madison project,” said Councilmember Grosso. “I look forward to seeing the public input on my proposed bills.”

WATCH: Learn How MadisonDC Gives You A Direct Voice in DC Government

Grosso is the first-ever local elected official to give residents—and others—a chance to participate in their municipal lawmaking process on the Internet. The three bills currently online with MadisonDC for public input are the D.C. Urban Farming and Food Security Act of 2014, the Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Act of 2013, and the Open Primary Elections Amendment Act of 2014. MadisonDC not only opens up legislation to feedback from local residents, but also from people around the United States and other parts of the world who have experiences with similar laws and can provide their perspectives.

“We are excited to support Councilmember Grosso’s unprecedented efforts to bring residents - and their ideas--directly into the local lawmaking process.  But what really matters is that we’re going to produce better City Council bills, with fewer frustrations and unintended consequences,” said OpenGov Foundation Executive Director Seamus Kraft.

“These three bills are only a start,” Kraft continued.  “The ultimate goal of MadisonDC is transforming D.C.’s entire policymaking machine for the Internet Age, creating a completely seamless, on-demand collaboration ecosystem for both citizens and city officials.  The possibilities are limitless.”

About MadisonDC

Madison is a free online policymaking tool created by the non-partisan, non-profit OpenGov Foundation to empower you to participate in your government, efficiently access your elected officials, and hold them accountable.  Currently in beta, Madison is open source software that can be used to put any policymaking process online, increasing government transparency and connecting users like you directly to the decision-makers in our democracy.  Click here if you want Madison working to improve your local, county or state government results.

###

Video from Councilmember Grosso's Poetry Event

Clean Hands Elections Reform Amendment Act of 2014

Councilmember Tommy Wells                   Councilmember David Grosso

 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh                 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie

A BILL

_______________

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________

Councilmembers Grosso, Wells, Cheh, and McDuffie introduced the following bill, which was

referred to the Committee on                                                 .

To amend Section 1-1001.08 of the District of Columbia Official Code to require all candidates for elected office to obtain a “clean hands” certification from the Office of Campaign Finance prior to obtaining ballot access for any election. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this

act may be cited as the “Clean Hands Elections Reform Amendment Act of 2014”.

            Sec. 2. Definitions.

For the purposes of this act, the term:

(1) “Ballot access” means the conditions under which a candidate or political party is either entitled to stand for election or to appear on voters’ ballots.
            (2)  “Campaign” means any organized effort to influence the vote of District residents affiliated with a candidate.

(3)  “Clean Hands” means free from debt; owing no outstanding taxes, fines, fees or the equivalent to local or federal officials.

Sec. 3. Clean Hands Certification.

Section 1-1001.08 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended by adding subsection (t) to read as follows:

“(a) In addition to the qualifications of candidates outlined in this section, each candidate for election to the office of Mayor, Attorney General, Chairman of the Council, member of the Council, or member of the Board of Education, must first obtain a clean hands certification from the Office of Campaign Finance prior to obtaining ballot access for any election. This certification shall provide that:

            (1) The candidate owes no outstanding taxes, fines or fees to the District.

            (2) The candidate’s previous campaign or political committee owes no outstanding fines or fees to the District.

Sec. 4.  Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(3)).

Sec. 5.  Effective date.
            This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(2)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register.

Instant Runoff Voting Amendment Act of 2014

Councilmember David Grosso

A BILL

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Councilmember Grosso introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on __________________________.

                                                            .

To provide for the election of the Mayor, Members of Council, and the Attorney General using instant runoff voting, to require that District voting systems be compatible with an instant runoff ballot system, and setting a date and conditions for implementation.

            BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Instant Runoff Voting Amendment Act of 2014”.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

            For the purposes of this act, the term:

(1)   “Instant runoff voting,” also called “ranked choice voting,” means a method of

casting and tabulating votes whereby the voters rank candidates according to the order of their choice and counting proceeds in rounds in which candidates are eliminated. In every round, each ballot is counted as one vote for the highest ranked advancing candidate.

(2)   “Continuing candidate” means a candidate who has not been eliminated.

(3)   “Continuing ballot” means a ballot that is not deemed an exhausted ballot.

(4)   “Exhausted ballot” means a ballot that does not rank any continuing candidate,

contains an overvote at the highest continuing ranking or contains two or more sequential skipped rankings before its highest continuing ranking.

            Sec. 3. Instant Runoff Voting.

            Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended by adding the new section 1-1001.08(b) to read as follows:

            “1-1001.08(b). Instant Runoff Elections.

            “(a) The Mayor, Attorney General, Chairman and members of the Council shall be elected using a ranked choice, or “instant runoff” ballot in both the primary and in the general election.

            “(b) In each primary and general election for the office of Mayor, Attorney General, Chairman and member of the Council:

                        “(1) The ballot shall allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; provided, however if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the District cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for office, then the Board of Elections may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a write-in candidate. A voter may include no more than one write-in candidate among that voter’s ranked choices for each office.

                        “(2) For election to a single office, tabulation proceeds in rounds and the following procedure is used. In each round, each continuing ballot must be counted as one vote for its highest ranked continuing candidate. If more than two continuing candidates receive votes in a round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a new round begins. If two or fewer continuing candidates receive votes in a round, the candidate with the most votes is elected.

                        “(3) For election to more than one office, the following procedure is used. Tabulation proceeds in rounds. In each round, each continuing ballot must be counted as one vote for its highest ranked continuing candidate. If the number of continuing candidates is greater than one more than the number of offices to be elected, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a new round begins. If the number of continuing candidates is equal to or less than one more than the number of offices to be elected, the candidates with the most votes are elected.

                        “(4) Optionally where appropriate, during the Board’s tabulation of results, two or more candidates may be eliminated simultaneously by batch elimination.  Batch elimination may only occur if in any round there is a candidate who’s vote total plus the vote totals of all candidates with an equal number or fewer votes is less than the vote total of the candidate with the next higher vote total. Under those conditions, then that candidate and all candidates with an equal number or fewer votes in the current round may be simultaneously eliminated.

                        “(5) If all the choices indicated on a voter’s ballot have been eliminated, that ballot shall be deemed an exhausted ballot.

                        “(6) If a ranked-choice ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared an exhausted ballot when such multiple rankings are reached.

                        “(7) If a voter cases a ranked-choice ballot but skips a rank, the voter’s vote shall be added to the totals of that voter’s next ranked choice.

                        “(8) A tie between two or more candidates shall be resolved pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.10(c).

            “(c) The ballot must be simple and easy to understand and allow a voter to rank candidates for an office in order of choice. If feasible, ballots must be designed so that a voter may mark that voter’s first choices in the same manner as that for offices not elected by instant runoff voting. Instructions on the ballot must conform substantially to the following specifications, subject to usability testing and modification based on ballot design and voting machine: “Vote by indicating your first-choice candidate and ranking additional candidates in order of preference. Indicate your first choice by marking the number “1” beside a candidate’s name, your 2nd choice by marking the number “2” beside a candidate’s name, your 3rd choice by marking the number “3” beside a candidate’s name and so on. Rank as many choices as you wish. Indicating 2nd and later preferences will not count against your first choice. Do not skip numbers, and do not mark the same number beside more than one candidate.”

            “(d) The Board of Election shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with instant runoff voting. Sample ballots illustrating “instant runoff” voting procedures shall be posted in or near the voting booth, and shall be included in the instruction packed for absentee ballots.

            “(e) Any voting system, vote tabulation system, or similar or related equipment acquired by the District shall be capable to administer instant runoff voting without further modifications.

“(f) Instant runoff voting shall be used for the primary municipal election in 2016 and all subsequent elections. If the Board of Elections certifies to the Mayor and the Council no later than November 1, 2015 that the Board will not be ready to implement ranked-choice balloting in 2016, then the District shall begin using ranked-choice or “instant runoff” balloting at the immediate next municipal election, including special elections.”

Sec. 5. Effect on Rights of Political Parties.

For all statutory and charter provisions in the District pertaining to the rights of political parties, the number of votes cast for a party’s candidate for an office elected by a ranked choice or instant runoff method is the number of votes credited to that candidate after the initial round of counting.

Sec. 6. Rules.

            Within 120 days of the effective date of this act the Mayor shall, pursuant to title I of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, approved October 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 1204; D.C. Official Code  §  2-501 et seq.), issue rules to implement the provisions of this act.

Sec. 7.  Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the

fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(3)).

Sec. 8.  Effective date.
            This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register.

Open Primary Elections Amendment Act of 2014

Councilmember David Catania                                               Councilmember David Grosso

Councilmember Tommy Wells                                                Councilmember Mary M. Cheh

   Councilmember David Grosso  

A BILL

IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Councilmembers Grosso, Catania, Wells, Cheh, and Evans introduced the following bill, which

was referred to the Committee on _________________________________                                         .

To amend the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955 to provide that a qualified voter shall

have the right to change his or her party affiliation after the 30th day preceding an

election and on election day.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL FO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this act may be cited as the “Open Primary Elections Amendment Act of 2014”.

 Sec. 2. Section 7(g) of the District of Columbia Election Code of 1955, approved August 12, 1955 (69 Stat. 702; D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.07(g)), is amended as follows:

(a) Paragraph (4) is amended by striking the phrase "A qualified elector shall not change his or her party affiliation after the 30th day preceding an election." in its entirety.

(b) Paragraph (5) is amended by striking the phrase "A qualified elector shall not change his or her party affiliation on election day." in its entirety.

Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the fiscal impact statement required by section 602(c)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(3)).

Sec. 4.  Effective date.
            This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(2)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register.

Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013

This morning along with Councilmembers Graham, Bowser and Wells, I introduced the Local Resident Voting Rights Act of 2013. This bill would grant DC residents who are not U.S. citizens but are legal permanent residents voting rights for local municipal elections.

“All politics is local” is a common phrase in the U.S. political system. And while plenty of ink is spilled in this town giving the play-by-play on the endless rounds of political tug-a-war on the federal level, what most District residents care are the tangible things that affect their day-to-day life.

Pot holes, community centers, playgrounds, minimum wage, taxes, supercans, snow removal, alley closings, alcohol license moratoriums, red light cameras…these are all important issues that voters in the District of Columbia entrust their leaders with. And unfortunately, not all of our residents have say in choosing the individuals who make these decisions. In my opinion, that is unjust.

Since 1970, the District of Columbia has had a steady increase in the number of foreign-born residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012), approximately 53,975 residents in the District are foreign born, but not naturalized U.S. citizens.  Over 90% of that population is 18 years of age or older. These are law-abiding taxpayers who should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in local elections.

For most of American history, noncitizens were permitted to vote in 22 states and federal territories. It was not until the 1920s that, amidst anti-immigrant hysteria, lawmakers began to bar noncitizens from voting in local and statewide elections.

Currently, there are seven jurisdictions where noncitizens can vote in local elections in the U.S., six of which are in neighboring Maryland. None of these cities or towns has experienced incidents of voting fraud with regard to noncitizens voting in federal elections.

A similar bill was introduced in the Council in 2004 and unfortunately due to the political climate at the time regarding immigration reform, did not receive a full consideration by this Council. Almost ten years later, its time for us to reignite this conversation. After all, if we are in fact ‘One City’, how can we continue to deny every legal District resident of age their one vote?

13 Public Forums on School Reform 2.0

Earlier this year, the Committee on Education held hearings on nine bills designed to strengthen the public education system in the District. I co-sponsored seven of the nine bills that range from radically changing how we finance our schools to the creation of a unified lottery. I co-sponsored these bills because they are a great first step in spurring a public conversation and debate about the next step in the public education reform discussion here in the District.

I was pleased to join the Chairman of the Education Committee, David Catania at all five of the public hearings at the Wilson Building and at the eight important public forums held in all eight Wards of the District. Each of these 13 distinct public meetings were attended by large crowds eager to share thoughts and feedback on our legislative plan. The conversations ranged from specifics about the draft legislation to the overall state of our public education system. The resurgence of public interest in education reform was evident.

The education debate that surrounded these bills elicited a wide variety of opinions within Wards and between Wards. Although in each of the Wards, residents brought specific concerns about the state of education to the discussion, more often than not parents, activists and educators had common concerns and ideas.

Parents and families across the city expect a culture of high expectations in the public school system. They do not accept that poverty is an excuse to demand less from children. They believe that poverty does not reflect a student’s ability to achieve, but that poverty is a hurdle that must be overcome with targeted, well-financed support. There was a consensus that a weighted student funding formula was one way to begin to address this problem. During the Committee’s earlier hearings, we learned that successful charter schools on average spend $1500-$1800 more per student to cover the additional needs of educating their students from high poverty backgrounds. This is one area where the traditional system can learn from the charter sector.

Our families desire more in terms of educational enrichment opportunities for their children. No one denies the fact that our current proficiency rates do not meet our standards. Almost every resident who came to the forums believe that test scores alone should not dictate whether or not children receive a full and vibrant education. In Ward 7, we heard of a thoughtful proposal from the community to establish an application middle and high school in Hillcrest. In Ward 2, families attending Garrison Elementary would love to see a language immersion program, especially considering the Office of Bilingual Education is located in their school building. In Ward 6, a parent spoke about the desire for her child to learn art and dance as part of the educational experience. In Ward 1, an educator expressed concerns that there is no longer an emphasis on cursive writing and civics in school curriculums. These comments, and many others, served as a constant reminder that for parents and educators, they are not raising test takers, but instead productive, engaged members of society. We cannot lose sight of the responsibility of our public education system to help ensure robust educational opportunities – for everyone.

Our families also desire meaningful communication with D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). From west of the Park, to east of the River, and everywhere in between, this issue was vociferously raised by residents. Parents can forgive poor facilities if they have strong leadership, curriculum, and communication.  Leadership on these priorities must come first from the Chancellor and Mayor and then from the D.C. Council to ensure that parents, teachers and other community members have the opportunity to engage and ultimately “buy-in” to the current school reform effort. Teachers and other employees of DCPS will respond to strong guidance from the Chancellor and Mayor. No resident should ever have to say with desperation in her voice: “It is as if we want DCPS more than DCPS wants us.” The Council must make sure the government is responsive to the people in all issue areas, but especially during this tumultuous time in our school reform process.

Finally, during this public engagement period I saw, as I did during my campaign, that our residents are passionate and engaged in our public school reform process. While there were a lot of parents and grandparents represented at these meetings, there was also a strong presence from members of the community who do not have children in schools. They want to engage and be active in a way that is not disruptive, but so far have not been given opportunities to do so. Even some parents reflected on the difficulty of volunteering with their child’s school. Why does the government bureaucracy make volunteering at our local schools so complicated? For instance, why is DCPS’ central office the only place that someone can go to get fingerprinted to become a volunteer? Can we not work out a system with the Metropolitan Police Department that allows individuals to be fingerprinted at any district station and the list of those cleared are simply shared with the school system? We are focused on achievement, but these conversations in the community highlighted some easily achieved success, that if addressed would actually support more academic growth.

I found these meetings to be incredibly informative and fruitful. As the summer continues, I hope that more residents will share their thoughts and opinions with me and the Committee on Education. I know that working together we can certainly improve the current legislation and the overall performance of our public school system. I, for one, am committed to ensuring that your voice is heard.