front page - editorial archives  - search - community

Commentary
	It wasn't easy for Alaska, either (Published June 28, 2004) By BILL MOSLEY

Citizens vote by a wide margin for statehood, but Congress ignores their petition. Self-interested opponents of statehood claim the citizens aren’t "ready" for full democracy. The non-voting delegate to Congress and the "shadow" statehood delegation knock on Capitol Hill doors only to be met with indifference.

The above paragraph could describe the District of Columbia’s struggle for full democratic rights. But just now I’m thinking about the campaign for statehood waged by the people of Alaska. On a recent trip to our northernmost state, I came upon a book that caught my eye – The Battle for Alaska Statehood by Ernest Gruening, a native New Yorker who was appointed governor of the Alaska territory in 1939.

Gruening could have served his time and returned home, but instead he remained in Alaska, became engaged in the statehood struggle and carried the fight forward as "shadow" U.S. senator. When Alaska became the 49th state in 1959, Gruening became one of the state’s first U.S. senators.

Gruening’s account, published in 1967, doesn’t directly address the District’s disenfranchisement, but local readers will recognize many parallels with our own fight for full democracy.

In many respects Alaska, which spreads over 586,412 mostly lightly populated square miles, is the mirror opposite of the densely populated, 68-square-mile District. Yet the reaction to Alaska’s 1946 referendum in favor of statehood initially received a response similar to that of the District’s 1980 statehood vote: kind words from a few members of Congress but not much action.

Year after year, Gruening and other statehood supporters made the long trek to Washington to plead their cause, only to come home empty-handed – until, after 13 years, they achieved their goal.

Just as excuses are offered for why the District should not be a state – too urban, can’t afford to support itself, too small in area, etc. – Alaskans were given plenty of reasons why they didn’t deserve full American citizenship. Many communities are too isolated, it was said; there isn’t enough development or infrastructure; there aren’t enough sources of revenue for a state budget; the federal government owns most of the land.

While some reservations about Alaska statehood were sincere, much of the opposition stemmed from interest groups which had a stake in maintaining Alaska’s colonial status. Fishing and mining interests, most of whose investors lived in the lower 48 states, were accustomed to plundering Alaska’s resources without the watchful eye of an empowered state government. Ship operators arranged for legislation from friendly members of Congress to obtain monopoly contracts to haul supplies to Alaska at exorbitant rates.

Likewise, the stated reasons for denying full democracy to the District mask the hidden agendas of those who utter them. Suburban interests block statehood for fear of a commuter tax. Conservative members of Congress score points with voters (and campaign donors) by banning needle exchange programs, forcing the District to adopt a school voucher program and imposing other policies opposed by most District residents. Members of Congress also enjoy being able to divert D.C. police from patrolling the city’s neighborhoods in favor of protecting Capitol Hill and its favored international institutions.

How did Alaskans prevail? Through hard work, alliance-building and persistence. Gruening and other statehood advocates cultivated their supporters and worked to convert their opponents. They engaged Alaska’s citizens – known for being independent and difficult to organize – in the struggle. They set out the moral and economic case for statehood and carried their message to Congress, the media and anyone else who would listen. They refused to become discouraged by temporary setbacks.

As for those who maintained that Alaska wasn’t ready for statehood, Gruening’s response could be used to reply to those who make the same claim of the District: "I say to you that we will never be ‘readier’ for statehood until we get statehood. . .This government by remote control . . .this government by changing personnel in Congress . . .makes us daily less fit for statehood. We shall never be any more ready for statehood than we are now."

As both D.C. residents and Alaskans have come to realize, democracy doesn’t come easily, not even in the United States. Hawaii first sought statehood in 1919, only to achieve it 40 years later. New Mexico, the last of the contiguous states to be admitted, first petitioned for statehood in 1850 and didn’t obtain it until 1912. The District, having been in the statehood quest for 24 years, is practically just getting started.

In politics, the race goes not to the swift, but to the stubbornly committed. D.C. statehood advocates must continue to argue – as did Alaskans, Hawaiians and residents of all the states admitted after the original 13 – that in a democracy there is no justification for denying full democratic rights to any citizen. Alaskans kept up the fight and won. Do residents of the District have the same tenacity?

UPDATE: And here in the District, another chapter in the struggle for full democracy continues on July 6 with the twice-rescheduled trial of the "Budget Autonomy for the District Day 7." On Oct. 1, 2003, seven activists, including myself, were arrested while petitioning the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert to free D.C.’s budget from congressional control. We each face a potential six months in jail and $300 in fines for exercising our right to petition the government. In a new development, on June 10 Judge Craig Iscoe barred us from referring to our political motivations, causes or beliefs while in the courtroom – a ruling that denies us our constitutional right to a fair trial. The trial will begin July 6 in D.C. Superior Court, 500 Indiana Ave. NW, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 212. A pre-trial rally outside the courthouse will begin at 8 a.m. If you want D.C. residents to join Alaskans and citizens of the rest of the states as fully vested Americans, make your feelings known by showing up at the rally and packing the courtroom.

CORRECTION: In my last column I referred to the voting-rights plan of Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., as proposing to give the District a vote in Congress as part of the Maryland delegation, combined with an additional congressional district in Utah. Prior to the time the article was written, Davis had dropped the Maryland provision from his plan. There is a separate D.C. voting-rights bill before the House, sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., which includes voting through Maryland. The resolution adopted by D.C. City Council did not endorse a specific bill.

***

Bill Mosley is a member of the Stand Up! For Democracy in D.C. Coalition. Contact him at billmosley@verizon.net.

Copyright 2004, The Common Denominator