Linda Dunn: Addressing security in the capital

0
427
Linda Dunn

There has been renewed interest in statehood for our nation’s capital lately — partly because this is seen as the easiest way to fix a number of security issues that smacked us up the side of the head and got our attention Jan. 6.

Unfortunately, this proposed fix would just open another can of worms since the 23rd Amendment would need to be revised by another Amendment at a time when I sometimes suspect that it would be impossible to persuade my liberal and conservative friends to agree on whether or not water is wet. Whichever opinion the first one voiced, the other would surely have to oppose.

Statehood for Washington, D.C., has been urged by many since the early 19th century. We have a representative, democratic constitution that denies voting representation in the national legislature to citizens of the capital. Additionally, all local legislation — including DC’s local budget — must go before Congress for approval.

For a country that’s grown this large and this divisive, that’s nuttier than a squirrel’s nest.

With over 5 million people crammed into about 10 square miles, D.C.’s population is larger than at least two states but is constitutionally defined as a “district,” to which the 23rd Amendment granted three electoral votes. Granting D.C. statehood could lead to the need for another amendment, although some contend this could be resolved with “appropriate legislation.”

Can anyone imagine any “appropriate legislation” to resolve this that Democrats and Republicans in today’s Congress could agree upon?

A bill passed last month in a party-line vote attempted to work around the 23rd Amendment by keeping the National Mall as a district while establishing the remaining area — composed of an overwhelmingly Democratic majority of voters — as a 51st state.

As bad as that is, another you’ve-got-to-be-kidding problem with this bill is that it does not address what happens to the three electoral votes committed to a “district” populated only by residents of the White House. This could, of course, be resolved by a properly written bill that addresses that concern; however, if my conservative and liberal friends could not agree that water is wet, I suggest that our elected representatives could not even agree upon water’s existence.

Granting statehood to solve D.C.’s problem sounds a little too much like using a sledge hammer to drive a nail into the wall for the purpose of hanging a framed copy of the Constitution. Still, we need to do something to assist those charged with ensuring public safety in D.C. Perhaps we should address this immediate concern with solutions to that specific problem.

The Metropolitan Police Department has jurisdiction on city streets; the U.S. Park Police on the Ellipse (where Trump’s rally took place); the U.S. Secret Service covers the White House; and the U.S. Capitol Police are those who protect our Capitol complex. In states and Puerto Rico, the National Guard can be called up by their governor. In D.C., the Guard is technically under the command of the president, while orders to deploy come from the Secretary of the Army at the request of the mayor.

What those seeking protection have as a result of this is best summarized by the military acronym: SNAFU.

Two days before Trump’s planned rally, the permit was adjusted from a projected attendance of 5,000 to 30,000. That alone should have been enough to justify additional security measures.

Unfortunately, what Mayor Muriel Bowser got in response to her request for National Guard troops for crowd control was 340 unarmed soldiers to help with traffic.

I have often wondered since then if Mayor Bowser, like many others in government, has a framed copy of a famous quote on her wall: “We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.”

If she doesn’t have this, someone should gift her a copy so she can quote it repeatedly until our elected officials create a sane method of addressing public safety in D.C. Perhaps the solution could be as “simple” as legislation giving D.C.’s mayor the ability to call upon the National Guard and granting other states the ability to cross “district” lines to assist when a crisis develops.

Maybe someday we can address the obvious need for 5 million plus U.S. citizens to have the representation they deserve in Congress. For now, however, we have a more urgent and immediate need to fix the security problems we watched endanger lives on Jan. 6.

A lifelong resident of Hancock County, Linda Dunn is an author and retired Department of Defense employee. Send comments to [email protected].