F e a t u r e s 

On May 10, 2000, The General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which meets only once every 4 years, voted 679 to 11 to declare that the "continuing disenfranchisement of the citizens of the District of Colurnbia is an egregious moral wrong, which must be rectified" and called for "the provision of full democratic rights to the people of the District of Columbia."The body declared its "full support" for District enfranchisement noting that "the Social Principles contained in the United Methodist Book of Discipline state that the 'form and the leaders of all governments should be determined by exercise of the right to vote guaranteed to all adult citizens,' and further, that the strength of a political system depends on the fuil and willing participation of its citizens.'" Read that Resolution here. (Full text of Press Release)

In June of 1998, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference adopted a resolution in favor of voting rights for the people of the District. That resolution is now paved the way for the General Conference resolution. To read the text of the resolution, click here.

L e t t e r W r i t i n g C a m p a i g n s 

Among the letter writing campaigns we have conducted, one was our letter to the United Methodist Members of Congress. Read that letter here.

On June 23, 2000, the Democracy Project coordinated a letter writing effort to Attorney General Janet Reno, asking her not to oppose the people of DC in seeking a hearing before the full Supreme Court in the voting rights cases (see below).  Signatories to the letter included the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, the Unitarian Universalist Association Washington Office for Faith in Action, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the DC Catholic Conference.  Read that letter here.

R e c e n t L i t i g a t i o n 

Recent litigation has been brought in two landmark cases Adams v. Clinton and Alexander v. Daley. The recent decision of the three judge panel can be read here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required). Judge Oberdorfer's dissenting opinion is avaiable here.