Evening star., 1946-02-20
Letters to The Star
Readers Reply to Opponent
of District Franchise
To the Editor of The Star:

of District Franchise
To the Editor of The Star:
The communication OF Mrs. r. G. Nav
published in The Star on February 1a
reiterates some threadbare protests
against suffrage for the residents of
the District of Columbia Although
these arguments have been more than
competently answered for years in local
newspaper communications and con-
gressional hearings, their repetition calls
for further elucidation.
Mrs. May implies that voting for a
President and members of Congress
from the District Of Columbia would
be determined largely by the party
workers imported to the District by
whichever party happened to have con-
troll Of the executive branch of the
Government. The longer the continuous
occupancy of the White House by a
particular party, the greater the danger
of the political control is a concomitant
assumption.
But Mrs. May evidently fails to recog-
nize that higher Government positions
60 to men whose political prestige in
their home States is, at least in part,
q determining factor in their appoint
ment. This type of Government en-
ploye would gain nothing by surrender
ing his vote back home for one in the
District. Federal Government employees
in the lower grades and appointed under
civil service on the basis of the pro-
portional quota system would be ex-
pected to retain a voting residence back
home in order to keep their Govern
ment positions. A change of voting
residence from their home States to
the District would place a serious cloud
upon their right to claim to be part
of the quota of departmental workers
their original States are entitled to.
Out of a population OF 663, ,0s1 at the
1910 census, the District of Columbia
had raw potential voting strength of
474,793 citizens over 81 years of age.
Estimates vary as to how many of these
are spotential voters in the District of
Columbia, but figures run from zoe, 900
to 100000. Representative Jennings
Randolph Of West Virginia said on
April %, l941: II think it is safe to
say that 100000 such persons exist in
Washington today, men and women of
voting age, who cannot adequately or
rightly establish privileges In any other
jurisdictions, and yet are denied voting
privileges here"
These are native-born Washingto-
mans, persons Who have moved here for
various reasons and who have lost their
votes at home by so doing, and grown
children Of families retaining votes back
home for which the adult children can
not qualify.
AS far as living in nearby Virginia
or Maryland is concerned, there are
many reasons why Washingtonians have
not all moved there. These include the
natural attachment to their native
home, the location Of their personal
business, the cost in time, money and
energy in committing from the suburbs,
the political exclusiveness of "old fam
lies in surrounding areas, the blight
OF one-party government. the lower
grade of public services roads, water,
sewerage, schools, police and fire pro-
tection). the impending inevitable rails
ing OF taxes to meet heavy bonded in
deptedness in some areas, and the dis
tance from stores, churches and other
social and cultural centers.
These nonvoting residents furnish
the services that make it possible for
the Federal Government and its en-
ployes to function. Mrs. May apparent
ly feels that these Washingtonians
should leave the city bag and baggage.
Is her solution completely sociaized
city In Washington with hotels, stores,
restaurants, rooming houses, theaters,
transportation and utilities being run
by Federal employees hired especially for
that purpose? Certainly novel thought,
especially for country which prides
itself in fostering individual initiative.
We let the Germans in Berlin vote;
we let the Japs in Tokyo vote: is 1t ask
ing too much for the Americans in
Washington to do as much?
RALPH w. DoNNELLY.
To the Editor of The Star:
The letter of Mrs F. c. May opposing
District suffrage certainly Is open to
challenge. Obviously, she must be a
Republican, to worry about "chaos for
the Republicans" and likewise she over
eStfr foe fbn ir,,povt eo,a 80 49, ri.
tricts vote in deciding a national elec-
ton. Obviously. too, she knows little
about bona fide rank-and-file civil serv-
ice employees, who make up the ma
jority Of Government employees, II she
thinks that they are chosen according
to political beliefs or change their con-
victions in accord with the party in
power.
AS to having balanced vote" what
on earth is there that requires it? Does
she imply that votes are balanced" in
the States? Or that civil service em-
ployes are all Democrats? Or that en-
ployes Of local non-Government estab-
lishments are likewise Democrats, to
keep the vote "unbalanced?"
Working for the Government for
more than three years, 1937-1941, I no.
ticed that Republicans were far in the
majority in the branch where worked,
and none Of them hesitated to show his
partisanship. In no instance was any
political pressure brought to bear on
me, nor has there been any on my
husband during his IL years service
here; no one ever has questioned our