Comment

Grosso Supports Deputy Mayor’s Plan for Community Academy Public Charter School Closure

For Immediate Release
February 19, 2015

Contact: Dionne Johnson Calhoun
(202) 724-8105

 

Grosso Supports Deputy Mayor’s Plan for Community Academy Public Charter School Closure

Councilmember Grosso (I-At Large), Chairman of the Committee on Education released the following statement regarding the vote today by the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board (PCSB) to revoke the charter for Community Academy Public Charter School (CAPCS):

This morning, the PCSB voted to revoke the charter of CAPCS.  The Deputy Mayor for Education announced a collaborative plan for school year 2016-2017 that includes Friendship Public Charter Schools, D.C. Bilingual Public Charter School, and the Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools that will ensure continuity of education services for all students enrolled at CAPCS campuses or the online program.  The CAPCS charter will remain effective until June 30, 2015. 

I have been fully briefed by Deputy Mayor Niles on the future plans for the CAPCS campuses and the steps that will be taken to move the process forward to meet the needs of each student.  I will work closely with the Deputy Mayor and the Public Charter School Board to ensure that all of the necessary systems are in place for the successful implementation of this plan.

###

Comment

Comment

D.C., other cities debate whether legal immigrants should have voting rights

By Pamela Constable February 9, 2015, Washington Post

David Nolan and Helen Searls are a professional couple in the District, active in their children’s school and local civic associations. As taxpayers and longtime residents, they feel they have a duty to be involved in public life. But as legal immigrants who have not become U.S. citizens, they have no right to vote — even in local elections.

“It’s frustrating at election time to have no say in what’s happening,” said the British-born Searls, 54, who works at a media company. “Washington has people from all over the world. If they are engaged and participating in public issues, it benefits the city.”

Searls and Nolan are among 54,000 immigrants in the District — and about 12 million nationwide — who have been granted green cards that allow them to remain in the United States permanently. Most are sponsored by relatives or employers. They pay taxes and serve in the armed forces. Yet in all but a handful of localities, they have no voting rights.

Last month, for the third time in a decade, a bill was introduced in the D.C. Council to allow legal immigrants to vote locally. The measure has little chance of passage, but it is illustrative of a growing movement to expand local voting rights to noncitizens that has spawned similar proposals in several dozen communities across the country.

Most immigrant groups focus on promoting citizenship as the path to political influence, and the effort to enfranchise noncitizens remains controversial. It has succeeded in only a handful of places, including Chicago and Takoma Park, Md., but has been gaining traction recently in others, including New York City and Burlington, Vt., as the population of settled legal immigrants grows.

Student Maria Ferreira goes over her study book, which has questions about American history that she will need to know for a citizenship test. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

Proponents point out that noncitizen voting was the norm early in American history, when new regions needed people to populate them. It was abandoned only after spates of anti-foreign sentiment in the 1860s and 1920s. Proponents have not urged that immigrants be allowed to vote for president, which is against federal law; they want them to be permitted a political role in their communities.

But opponents assert that the right to vote at any level is a defining quality of citizenship. They say it should not be easily granted to the foreign-born, who might have divided loyalties and insufficient knowledge of American democracy. And they point out that any legal permanent resident can apply to become a U.S. citizen with full voting rights after a five-year wait.

“To be a voter is to signify that you have cleared hurdles and that you understand what it means to be an American, with responsibilities as well as rights,” said Carl Horowitz, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Falls Church, Va. Allowing noncitizens to vote, he said, “renders the idea of citizenship meaningless.”

Some opponents also think the campaign is part of a political scheme to create more Latino voters, who polls show tend to prefer Democrats — a concern that has spread with the protracted debate over illegal immigration. The largest numbers of green-card holders are from Mexico, followed by China, India and the Philippines.

D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), who introduced the immigrant voting bill last month, said his attempt in 2013 met with a “huge backlash,” and he acknowledged that the new proposal is unlikely to go far. A similar bill in 2004 also died.

“This is the right thing to do, but a lot of people still have a misguided understanding of what it’s about,” Grosso said. “I get e-mails and tweets from around the country saying I want to give the vote to people who snuck over the border.”

Despite such fears, advocates said the political impact of the noncitizen vote has often been marginal. In many cases, the impetus has come from liberal or civic groups, while the beneficiaries may be less enthusiastic or aware of the benefits.

Washingtonians David J. Nolan and his wife, Helen Searls, say they hope to become U.S. citizens so they can vote. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

The pioneering community was Takoma Park, which gave legal immigrants voting rights in a 1991 referendum. Sean Whittaker, 46, a Canadian-born engineer who lives there, said that being able to vote made him feel as if he truly belonged in the community. In the town’s most recent election, the district candidate he supported won by six votes. “Maybe I made a difference,” Whittaker said.

Since then, four other Maryland towns have approved similar policies, although noncitizens cannot vote in state elections. In 2012, Del. Patrick L. McDonough (R-Baltimore County) sponsored a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in any Maryland locality, warning hyperbolically that even Osama bin Laden would have been allowed to vote in Takoma Park.

But the repercussions from Maryland’s experiment have been far from dire. Takoma Park officials say no more than a handful of immigrants have voted in any local election, where turnout is also generally low among citizens, too.

“This has not fulfilled either the worst predictions of critics nor the great hopes of supporters,” said state Sen. Jamin Raskin (D-Montgomery), a law professor who helped pave the legal path for the initiative. Still, he said, “it has remained an important statement of welcome, a way to give people a taste for the democratic process.”

Elsewhere in the United States, efforts to enfranchise foreign-born residents have spread to scattered municipalities, including liberal college towns such as Madison, Wis., and Amherst, Mass., and cities with large immigrant populations.

But such proposals have also encountered an array of hurdles, including conflicts with state laws, public antipathy and lack of awareness among immigrant groups. In 2010, voters in Portland, Maine, narrowly rejected a proposal for noncitizen voting in local elections, and a ballot measure in San Francisco to allow noncitizen parents to vote for school board members lost by 55 to 45 percent.

In Amherst, activist Vladi­mir Morales, who has spent a decade promoting the cause, said the idea has wide local support but continues to meet resistance from state legislators, who would have to amend home-rule laws to allow it.

“There is fear. The subject is immigration, and the representatives don’t want to touch it. It just keeps dying in committee,” said Morales, a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico and a retired Amherst school board member.

In New York, home to about 1.3 million legal permanent residents, noncitizens were allowed to vote in school board elections from 1969 to 2003, when the board system was abolished. In recent years, a coalition of academic, political and immigrant groups has been trying to revive noncitizen voting rights and expand them to all local offices. Advocates said they are close to securing enough city council support to pass legislation this spring, but they lamented that the area’s major immigrant groups have not gotten involved.

“It’s hard to sell,” said David Andersson, the coalition coordinator. “Most voters don’t understand what legal immigrants are, and a lot of immigrant groups are focused on issues like deportation and wages. Sadly, voting is just not a priority.”

In the Washington area, few people know about Grosso’s proposal and few groups have expressed support, except the Service Employees International Union. But many of its members are not legal residents, and the union is strongly identified with illegal-immigrant causes.

Still, a variety of legal immigrants in the District said they would welcome being able to vote for city council and Board of Education members. Some said they wanted to become citizens but had difficulty passing the required tests in English.

At the Central American Resource Center in Northwest Washington, a half-dozen middle-aged Latinos bent over citizenship test workbooks one night last week, struggling with questions that ranged from “What is your current occupation?” to “Why did the colonists come to America?” and “What rights are in the Declaration of Independence?”

Maria Carpio, 57, a retired office cleaner from El Salvador, has been a legal resident since 1987. She said she had failed the citizenship test because of her limited eyesight and poor English, but that she volunteered to pass out fliers for a Latino school board candidate in November.

“I have worked hard here all my life,” Carpio said. “I should have the right to express my opinion.”

Comment

Comment

Chairman Grosso's Opening Remarks at Committee on Education Hearing on the Pre-K Student Discipline Amendment Act

I first introduced the Pre-K Student Discipline Amendment Act last year after the Office of the State Superintendent of Education released a report on out-of-school suspensions and expulsions in the District, which I had required in the Attendance Accountability Amendment Act of 2013. The report found that during the 2012-2013 school year, over 10,000 of the District’s public school students were suspended at least once.

Comment

Comment

Examining school discipline data from school years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014

The Attendance Accountability Amendment Act of 2013 required the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) to issue a report including findings and recommendations to aid each educational institution in eliminating out-of-suspension and expulsions, except for those students who pose a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or other or violate the Expulsion of Students Who Bring Weapons Into Public Schools Act of 1996, effective April 9, 1997 (D.C. Law 11-174; D.C. Official Code § 38-231 et seq.). In June 2014, OSSE released the report "Reducing Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions in District of Columbia Public Schools and Public Charter Schools."

Comment

1 Comment

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.

###

1 Comment

Comment

Defiant D.C. Politicians Push Ahead With Pot Legalization

Defiant D.C. Politicians Push Ahead With Pot Legalization

By Steven Nelson, U.S. News & World Report, January 8, 2015

Congress recently passed legislation intending to stop the District of Columbia from becoming an East Coast outpost of marijuana legalization, but district politicians are moving forward with efforts to open recreational pot stores anyhow.

Councilman David Grosso, an independent, quietly introduced legislation Tuesday to tax and regulate sales of marijuana like alcohol. Four Democratic colleagues on the 13-member D.C. Council are co-sponsoring the bill.

“I think we’re on the path to seeing this bill enacted,” Grosso tells U.S. News, noting that “by moving this bill forward, we’re directly confronting Congress.”

Grosso introduced a similar bill in 2013, and it passed two council committees last year. In November, district voters overwhelmingly endorsed legalization, with 70 percent approving Initiative 71, which would cast off all penalties for possession of up to 2 ounces of pot for adults 21 and older.

The initiative results have not yet been transmitted to Congress for a mandatory review period, but that’s likely to happen soon. Congress has the power to block district laws with resolutions of disapproval, but more often passes budget riders to dictate city policies.

That happened in December, when Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law a budget rider written by Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., that bans the district from spending its own funds to legalize marijuana in the nation's capital.

Harris told U.S. News last year that district leaders can unilaterally abandon marijuana enforcement whenever they would like, but he intended with his rider to stop the actual law from changing and to prevent shops from opening.

Congress passed a similar budget rider after district voters passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1998, stalling the opening of dispensaries for more than a decade. Grosso says city officials didn't put up enough resistance then, and hopes for a fight this time.

Some politicians say Initiative 71, which also allows home cultivation of six plants, was already enacted when voters passed it, and thus will take effect regardless of congressional input. 

The initiative was not able to establish a regulated marketplace for marijuana sales – as successful ballot measures in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington did – leaving such regulation to the D.C. Council.

“This is a golden opportunity to do direct civil disobedience,” Grosso says of his bill, “because if Congress is saying, ‘No, you can’t do it,’ and we do it, it challenges them to do what they think they have to do, unlike going out in the street and blocking traffic, where it’s an indirect message to the cause you’re trying to move forward.”

Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, and most of the council appear to support moving forward with legalization. The council passed one of the nation’s most lenient decriminalization laws last year, lowering penalties for possession of 1 ounce to a $25 fine, with an eye toward going even further.

A spokeswoman for Bowser did not respond to a request for comment on Grosso's bill. But during a Sunday appearance on "Meet the Press," the mayor said, "We want to respect the will of the D.C. voters," and, "We have to have regulations in place."

Though Harris’ budget rider prohibits the district from spending funds to create a regulated pot marketplace, a successful bill like Grosso’s likely would still need to be killed with a congressional resolution of disapproval.

Grosso believes if the regulation bill is sent to Congress, it would technically survive review. But it's unclear what would happen then, given the Harris budget rider.

The councilman says districts residents can help.

"But for Congress we would have marijuana stores opening by the end of the year," he says. "Some person from middle-of-nowhere Maryland can come and tell us what's best for us, it's ridiculous. … Congress will give us our rights when 10,000 people a week show up on their doorstep and scream at them, but people aren't doing that yet."

Comment

Comment

Pre-K Student Discipline Amendment Act of 2015

A bill to prohibit the suspension or expulsion of a student of pre-kindergarten age from any publicly funded pre-kindergarten program; and to establish annual reporting requirements for each local education agency on suspensions and expulsions data.

Comment