Protests and Court Cases

Interference with DC’s Budget sparked numerous protests

During the Control Board period (1995-2001), advocacy for self-determination involved both protests against heavy-handed Congressional interference and federal court cases. The grassroots organization, Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition, grew out of a meeting to protest the transfer of authority over the District government’s largest agencies to the Control Board in 1997. The group met weekly at the National Council of Negro Women where Dr. Dorothy Height gave her blessing and support to the Coalition and its activities. Stand Up! also organized protest rallies at the Capitol and the offices of the Control Board.

In 1999, Ben Armfield, Anise Jenkins, and Karen Szulgit were arrested and charged with “Disruption of Congress” for protesting in the gallery of the House of Representatives against Congressional prohibitions on how DC tax dollars could be spent. Two of the many prohibitions or riders passed by the House that year prevented DC from implementing a medical marijuana initiative that had been approved by DC voters in 1998 and reinstating a needle exchange program to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Armfield, Jenkins and Szulgit were all tried and acquitted. The next year, seven activists, who became known as the DC Democracy 7, were also arrested for protesting against Congressional interference with DC’s budget. After two trials in DC Superior Court for “Disruption of Congress,” the members of the DC Democracy 7 were found not guilty.

Two federal lawsuits seeking justice for DC residents were brought in 1998. Attorney George LaRoche, who shared the perspective of the Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition, filed Adams v. Clinton. The plaintiffs included Lois Adams, Sam Smith, Reverend Graylan Hagler, Anise Jenkins, and other Stand Up! for Democracy in DC activists. Claims made in this suit on behalf of the “20 DC Citizens” included the rights of these citizens to be represented by duly elected Representatives and Senators in Congress and to participate through duly elected representatives in a state government insulated from Congressional interference.¹

A law review article drafted in 1996 by Jamie Raskin, who was then a professor at The American University Washington College of Law, became the impetus for the other lawsuit. His article, widely circulated in the legal and civil rights communities, forcefully argued that DC residents have a Constitutional right to be represented in Congress. And it inspired John Ferren, DC Corporation Counsel, and Walter Smith, Special Deputy Corporation Counsel, to urge the federal court to end the unconstitutional disenfranchisement of DC residents in Alexander v. Daley. (In 2004, the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia became the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia.) The plaintiffs included Clifford Alexander, former secretary of the Army, former Mayor Walter Washington, and prominent business leader John Hechinger, as well as a dentist, a plumber, and small business owners. Because a Congressional budget rider prevented the DC government from spending city funds on voting rights litigation, the involvement of the law firm of Covington & Burling as co-counsel was particularly valuable.

The two cases were consolidated by the DC District Court and assigned to a three-judge panel—with two federal district court judges and one court of appeals judge.

While the oral arguments in the Alexander v. Daley case were being prepared, an organizational effort, spearheaded by Daniel Solomon, Joe Sternlieb, and Arthur Schultz was underway. This effort brought together veterans of the self-determination coalition from the seventies and new residents to form the Coalition for DC Representation in Congress which soon came to be known as DC Vote.²

In 1999, the DC Statehood Party affiliated with the national Green Party and changed its name to the DC Statehood Green Party. The renamed party’s agenda expanded to include Green Party issues that had traditionally been important to many active in the DC Statehood Party.³

In early 2000, the DC Court of Appeals panel ruled that because the District is not a state, its citizens are not entitled to a vote in Congress. The ruling also implied that Congress does have the authority to grant DC citizens voting representation. Several months later, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. The plaintiffs in Adams v. Clinton complained that because the cases were consolidated around the question of Congressional voting rights, not all of their issues were addressed. The Court, for example, was silent on their claim that DC residents have the right to participate through duly elected representatives in a state government insulated from Congressional interference.

The city’s leadership, DC Vote, and many residents were surprised and disappointed by the court’s rejection of DC’s right to Congressional representation. They were also defiant. Mayor Tony Williams agreed with activists that DC automobile tags would proclaim “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.” Delegate Norton, along with DC Vote and its supporters, voiced their determination to persuade Congress to exercise its authority to grant voting rights to DC residents.⁴

¹ “Breaking the Silence on Home Rule,” Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2000; “D.C. Activists Join to Demand Congressional Voting Rights,” Washington Post, Apr. 19, 2001; “Judge Declares Mistrial in Case of 6 Protesters,” New York Times, Nov. 1, 2000; “Crime and Justice,” Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2000; Anise Jenkins, Founder of Stand-Up for Democracy and DC Statehood advocate, phone interview with Elinor Hart, May 1, 2020. The Democracy 7 included Steve Donkin, Debby Hanrahan, Bette Hoover, Queen Mother ShemaYah, Tanya Snyder, Karen Szulgit, and Martin Thomas.

² Jamie Raskin is currently a Democratic Congressman who represents suburban Maryland; https://www.dcvote.org/support-dc-equality/america; Walter Smith, former Deputy DC Corporation Counsel, phone interview with Elinor Hart, March 16, 2020; Daniel Solomon, founder of DC Vote, phone interview with Elinor Hart. March 21, 2020; Recollection of the author, Elinor Hart, who helped recruit plaintiffs; “Activists Vow to Continue Fight for D.C. Vote in Congress,” Washington Post, Mar 22, 2000.

³ “Statehood is Far More Difficult,” Washington History, Fall 2017.

⁴ Walter Smith, phone interview with Elinor Hart, March 16, 2020; “D.C. Lacks Right to Vote in Congress,” Washington Post, Mar 21, 2000; “D.C. Loses Bid for Vote in Congress,” Washington Post, Oct 17, 2000; “D.C. Activists Join to Demand Congressional Voting Rights, “ Washington Post, Apr 19, ,2001.