To start, why has an organization aimed at getting a voting representative in Congress for the people of Washington DC spent so much time of late trying to grow Utah's congressional delegation?

Haven't you seen the mountains out there? Those folks deserve more representation! Seriously, the only way for Washington DC to get representation in a climate where Democrats don't have over 60 seats in the Senate and the White House is to seek a vote-neutral option. The Utah-DC deal allows us to attract some Republicans, especially in the Senate, to this cause.

We're talking about the DC Voting Rights Act of 2007. Can you explain its ins-and-outs?

The DC VRA (H.R. 1433) increases the size of the House of Representatives permanently by 2 seats, with one seat going to DC and the other to the next state eligible for another congressional seat because of its population, which currently is Utah. After the next census, DC would keep its seat and the rest of the country would divide up the remaining House seats.

On Thursday, the House was set to pass H.R. 1433 when Lamar Smith of Texas tied the bill to the repeal of DC's gun laws and attempted to send it back to committee. Democrats postponed the vote. Both of the bills champions -- DC Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton and Virginia Republican Tom Davis -- said that Smith's move would effectively kill the bill, but I can't quite figure out why that would be the case.

I'm still a little confused, too. But what I understand from them is that a Motion to Recommit 'forthwith' means that the new language is incorporated immediately into the bill, which is then passed. When the Motion to Recommit uses the word "promptly," that means the bill goes back to committee. So that wouldn't kill it immediately (unless the language is substituted for the original bill)...

For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that regardless of party Tom Davis is one of the cleverest, most strategically brilliant members of Congress.

He is. In 2003, we were struggling with how to "give" Republicans something in a bill. Davis came up with this approach, and we latched on to it.

The White House recently argued (.pdf) that the DC Voting Rights Act violates constitutional provisions governing the composition and election of Congress. Amazing, the White House's reverence for the Constitution. But seriously, why the remarkably strong opposition?

They are afraid that we'll be back for representation in the Senate once we win in the House. They're right. But the reality is that we'll need a bipartisan compromise there too -- unless Democrats control Congress with more than 60 votes in the Senate and also control the White House at the same time, which is very unlikely.

This piecemeal approach has its critics, no? And there are still other ways to get the District representation -- retrocession, or "giving DC back to Maryland" for example, or the "New Columbia" statehood movement. Where does DC Vote come down on what's the right way to make progress?

I get this question a lot. We believe that the best way to proceed now is to leave DC as the nation's capital -- so no new state or reunion with Maryland, because those options have very little support in Congress, Maryland and DC, respectively. As for House first -- there is now way we could make any progress getting Senate representation. Our current coalition of organizations, Democrats, and Republicans would fall apart immediately (unfortunately). One step at at time. Remember, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. And we haven't included sexual orientation under our civil rights laws!

So this is about more than voting rights, right? It's about home rule, about stopping the practice Congress using the District as its laboratory and playground.

Absolutely. Just look at what opponents offered in response to the DC Voting Rights Act -- a measure that would strip DC of its local gun laws. Washingtonians have had to live with congressional interference for centuries with virtually no way to stop that interference. No jurisdiction in the United States would stand for what Congress does in DC.

We're tired of it, we're organized, and we're not going to stop until we bring American democracy to America's capital.

As Executive Director of DC Vote, you must get asked: what's the big deal? So what if America's capital city has no representation in Congress? What do you say?

Who is willing to give up their vote? We'll take it. Representation in Congress is important because it gives people the possibility of shaping public policy -- over war, the environment, education, you name it. For DC it is even more important because the District's laws and budget are reviewed by Congress without residents having a vote in that process. DC needs power in Congress to stop congressional interference in the local affairs of the city. It is TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. It was wrong before the American Revolution and it is wrong now.

I'd imagine that many Americans don't know that "Taxation without Representation" is the official slogan on the District of Columbia license plate.

Yeah. America's revolutionary cry is on the DC license plates, thanks to our advocacy. That helps us spread the word among tourists. Like many of our projects, someone else suggested it (a volunteer who was on a radio program). DC's mayor at the time, Tony Williams, resisted, but we prevailed. Bill Clinton put it on the presidential limo. Bush took it off as his first act as president.

His very first act?

Yes!

I remember a few years back DC residents gathering on April 15th in Farragut Square on K Street to throw their 1040 tax return forms into a flaming barrel. Has DC Vote backed off of political street theater and focused on getting change through legislative action?

Yes. We are focused very much now on the Congress taking action. But, on April 16 -- both DC Emancipation Day and Tax Day -- we are holding a voting rights march. We need thousands of people to come out.

I want to talk about about an idea I've been thinking about lately, about using the global public space as a forum for agitating for domestic social change. DC Vote has approached international bodies about DC's lack of voting rights. Why go that route?

Actually, someone else -- Tim Cooper -- pursued that avenue. Three international organizations -- the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of American States -- all found the US in violation of international human rights law because of how the Congress treats DC. Indeed, the United States is the only democracy on the planet that denies voting representation to people who live in the capital. That alone ought to motivate the Congress to action.

It's important, but the impact on Capitol Hill is limited. Now, international media coverage -- if it were sustained -- would help a lot if other governments stepped up their calls for change here.

Your 2005 survey (.pdf) found that 82% of Americans and 77% of Republicans thought that DC residents should have equal congressional representation. But it also found that 8 in 10 Americans didn't know that they don't already have it. So you have low knowledge amongst potential supporters, while this a somewhat high-profile or high-priority issue for your opponents -- DC Republicans and the White House. Tough spot to be in?

Terrible place to be. I tell my son that if I had $100 million, this problem would be solved because we'd advertise all over the country non-stop for months. People are surprised when they learn about DC's status and quickly outraged. Our focus now is on reaching a targeted crowd-- mostly the members of our coalition partners and, now with you, the Internet/blog community. If you are reading this, help us!

How?

Sign up on our Web site -- www.dcvote.org -- to get our emails, send letters to Congress, and join us on April 16 in Washington, DC for the Voting Rights March. If people can't do some of those things, sign our petition.

[Jump to comments from this interview's original posting on MyDD.]