On Tuesday, the Senate invoked cloture on the D.C. Voting Rights bill in a 62-34 vote. This afternoon, the bill passed, 61-37. The matter now moves to the House, which is expected to take it up next week.
Besides the number of Republicans Senators voting in favor of DC voting rights (Murkowski and Cochran voted for cloture but against the bill), a major change had been introduced to the text between Tuesday’s and Thursday’s vote: the Ensign Amendment, which strikes down much of Washington’s gun control laws.
After the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. was not respecting the 2nd Amendment last June, the D.C. voting council passed a new set of regulations, but gun control opponents are not satisfied with the changes. As is often the case when it comes to the District, Congress is choosing to take matters in its own hands through the Ensign Amendment, which eases restrictions on firearms, removes registration requirements and repeals the semiautomatic gun ban.
Senator Diane Feinstein, a fierce advocate of gun control, called the amendment a “first new step… to remove all commonsense gun regulations.” “How deep sunk in catering to these interests,” she continued. “For shame.” We also heard protests from the D.C. City Council and by Mayor Fenty. The problem is thus not only the amendment’s anti-gun control orientation, but also the fact that D.C. is not being allowed to set its own policies on such a vital issue.
It is tragically ironic that the Senate is attaching an amendment that overrules decisions made by the D.C. government to a bill that is meant to finally give Washington some representation. It is as ironic that Senators from across the country who have little commitment to urban constituencies get to decide what gun policies to implement in one of the country’s biggest - and poorest - cities. In short: The Amendment’s passage is just another reminder that D.C. (which has more inhabitants than Wyoming) deserves political representation and the autonomy to govern itself.
The Ensign Amendment also serves as a testament to the relative ease with which Republican pass their priorities. Getting a House member for D.C. caused headaches to the Democratic leadership, but the GOP doesn’t have to try very hard to get 62 votes on a controversial amendment when they only control 41 votes.(We will now see whether the House includes a similar amendment in its version of the bill. If it does not, the conference negotiations will be key to decide what happens.)
The long list of Democrats who voted for the Ensign Amendment is a who’s who of the Senate’s centrist caucus. One interesting fact: Of the seven Democrats who were just elected in November, only two voted to let D.C decide what gun laws to implement (Merkley and Shaheen). Five voted in favor of the Amendment: the two Udalls, Hagan, Warner and Begich. Also, Colorado’s Bennet voted “yea,” which is somewhat surprising given that he is a former Superintendent of Schools.
This leaves us with Kirsten Gillibrand, who voted… “nay!” That is right, the Empire State’s infamously anti-gun control Senator has evolved to such an extent in a few weeks that she is now opposed to a bill easing restrictions supported by more than a third of her own caucus. Is this just a reflection of Gillibrand’s worry about a primary challenge, is she actually evolving or was it during her House years that she had taken more conservative positions than what she actually believed?
What is quite extraordinaire is that Gillibrand made headlines for another gun-related issue today: Her change of mind over the Tiahrt Amendment, a controversial piece of legislation that limits the ability of government agencies to share gun trace data. Gillibrand had attracted a lot of criticism for co-sponsoring this amendment last spring while in the House; now, not only is she no longer supporting it, but she has attached her name to a letter of her state’s delegation asking the Obama Administration to roll-back the amendment’s provisions.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy seems pleased at Gillibrand’s change of heart. Will these moves be enough to keep a top-tier primary challenger away, or will they only embolden Gillibrand’s critics?
It is clear Gillibrands “evolution” on the gun control issue is due to political pressure caused by a primary threat (and the associated poor polling she has received).
How can she suddenly go from having guns under her bed to supporting DC gun control law AND campaign against her own house legislation! Naked opportunism.