AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE

You wouldn't think President Clinton would support a single thing Rep.
Robert L. Barr Jr. does, including breathe, given that the Georgia
Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee craves presidential
impeachment probably more than he craves waking up next to a $100
million winning Powerball ticket.

But in court papers filed three days ago, Clinton's Justice Department
not only rose to a complete defense of Barr's legislation that
mothballed an election in the capital last month, it suggested that
Congress acted "sensibly" in committing electoral homicide.

My guess is the presidential praise won't douse Barr's lust for
impeachment, but at least it lets Washingtonians know that Clinton,
who came to office gushy for statehood as a way to end two centuries
of congressional control of the city, is capable of saying anything.

Then again, we knew that.

How did Congress act?

"Sensibly," Clinton's team says in its court papers.

It is now sensible to strip some Americans of the right to an
election.

It is now sensible to get all misty about what a great country we are,
what a beacon of freedom, and simultaneously to tell residents of that
great country's capital that it shall be illegal to express their
feelings at the polls about an issue being debated nationwide.

The issue is marijuana, specifically Initiative 59, which asked
District residents whether doctors in the city should be allowed to
prescribe it legally to ease the pain of those with severe illness.
It's an idea that just passed in five states -- each of them blessed,
like the other 45, with self-rule -- but it's an idea that apparently
offends Barr, who warned in House debate about "these drug
legalization people."

Powerless to invade Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
state to stop their marijuana referenda and round up their drug
legalization people, at least Barr managed to pull the leash of the
District dog, proposing a successful amendment forbidding the city to
spend funds to supervise and count the Initiative 59 segment of the
Nov. 3 election.

Unfortunately, the city's ballots had been printed already, so
electors still got to vote yea or nay on marijuana on Election Day.
But the outcome isn't known, because the election board hasn't asked
its computer for the result. To release it, the board fears, might
represent spending and anger Congress, which probably wouldn't bother
to put the disobedient city officials on trial. It'd send them
straight to Leavenworth.

And so the outcome sits hostage in the dark, awaiting an effort by the
American Civil Liberties Union and others to convince the federal
courts -- the one branch of government that hasn't deserted
Jeffersonian ideals yet -- that the other two are guilty of
un-American activity.

In aiding and abetting Barr, Clinton's folks didn't have much choice.
Traditionally, the executive branch defends the laws of the
legislative. But it doesn't have to enjoy it. Clinton's brief, far
from expressing reluctant disgust, makes killing an election seem no
biggie: The Constitution says Congress, where no District resident has
a voting voice, has Mussolini-esque power over the capital. It can
block any local law any time, the brief said, and rather than waiting
until medical marijuana was legalized and nixing it, Congress saved
itself the trouble by simply stopping the election.

"It has sensibly prohibited the use of public funds to conduct an
election on Initiative 59," the Justice Department brief said.

Tossing residents a bone, Justice didn't object to releasing the
results, given that Congress acted too late to stop the vote. But it
made clear they would represent only information, not law. They'd
represent public opinion, not election results Congress has to
confront, and their release would stem merely from the quirky facts of
the situation. Generally, canceling a District election seems just
fine to Justice.

It's Not Fine. It's Censorship.

Not liking the topic, Congress engaged in prior restraint, taking from
residents of the city the right to express themselves, which is what
an election is, the collective speech of a community. The Constitution
may give Congress the power to overturn the results of that speech --
a law -- but it shouldn't be able to muzzle the speech itself. A
democracy functions only with free debate.

The real issue is not drug legalization.

The real issue is not whether Congress has constitutional power over
the city.

The real issue is how this democracy continues to justify depriving
several hundred thousand citizens of the same rights and status as all
other citizens, even as they pay the same taxes and fight the same
wars.

It is oft said that any District resident who doesn't like his or her
lot can move, that full representation on the floor of Congress and
freedom from congressional meddling in the minutiae of local life
await the disaffected just beyond the District's borders.

Let us leave aside whether relocation is a practical option for
thousands of people living on the margins who might not have the spare
cash to pick up and move. Let us, instead, pose the issue a different
way:

How can anyone -- Clinton, Barr, the rest -- defend on moral grounds
having an island of authoritarian rule from which residents must
escape like Third World refugees to taste the ideals of their own nation?

Checked-by: derek rea