Connect with us

Opinions

Time to change city gov’t? You bet!

A few ideas, from tweaks to major renovation

Published

on

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.”

Back on Christmas Eve, 1973, the residents of the District of Columbia were granted limited self-determination under a bill entitled the D.C. Home Rule Act. It set up the structure under which the city government operates today: an elected mayor and 13-member City Council. Prior to this, the city was controlled in various fashions by both House and Senate D.C. Committees and then in 1967 by a mayor commissioner and nine-member Council appointed by the president of the United States.

All forms of local, state and federal governments constantly reform or adjust themselves to current conditions. We very seriously need to determine if our current form of city government is due for a major renovation or simply needs some minor tune ups. Either way, our LGBT community has both a right and an obligation to participate in the discussions that desperately need to take place. What follows are simply some ideas that have been proposed around town. You choose to agree/disagree and/or add your own voices to the future.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Our city now has more people than Wyoming and is close in population to Vermont.  The Wyoming bicameral legislature has 30 senators and 60 representatives. Vermont has 30 senators also and 150 representatives. Powers definitely spread out among many people. Ours are concentrated in only 13 elected legislators with our city budget exceeding the two states.

Should our eight Wards be represented by more than one person? Would two or three or four from each Ward be better for the city? Should the number of At-Large council members be increased to eight or 10 or even set up as an “upper house” making D.C. a bicameral legislature?

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Is there a need for an elected vice mayor who would become mayor if that office becomes vacant due to death or resignation? This creation would thus eliminate taking the Council chair as a replacement and the need for costly special elections and the musical chairs that we are now in the midst of. If there is to be a vice mayor, should this person run as a part of the mayor’s team or as an independently elected official?

JUDICIARY BRANCH

Right now, this all-important third leg of a democracy is for all practical purposes non-existent for the people of the District of Columbia although we will soon begin to elect our attorney general with limited local responsibilities. Each of our judges is named by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Presently, our own Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton does have some nominating privileges but this can be revoked in the blink of an eye. Some of the ideas being talked about include the president simply accepting judicial nominations from both the mayor and the City Council and submitted for Senate approval. Other recommendations have the president and the Senate removed from the process entirely. All judges would be nominated by the mayor and approved by a super majority of the Council. Others suggest that regardless of the nomination method, that every judge either serve for only seven or 10 years before being subject to a vote of confidence by the D.C. electorate and, if successful, continue for one additional term.

ADDITIONAL ELECTED OFFICES

One of the biggest complaints often heard is the lack of elected positions. Wyoming elects its secretary of state, state auditor and state superintendent. Vermont elects its secretary of state, state treasurer and state auditor also. So besides increasing the number of people on the D.C. City Council, should we also elect our own secretary of the District, city comptroller and members of various other boards?

INCREASED VOTING PARTICIPATION METHODS

Again, several ideas have been tossed about for years, foremost has been term limits for all Council members and the mayor. Should everyone be limited to two or three terms but allow them to run for different offices? For example, Ward One Council member serves no more than 12 years but is free to run for At-Large Council slots.

Regardless of the term limits, questions and proposals, should future Council members drop the facade of being part-time city employees and accept their elected jobs as full-time employees?  Right now, only the mayor and the City Council chair have this requirement.

Should there be primary runoffs of the top two winners instead of the current winner take all approach? Should voters self identified as independents be allowed to vote in all primary elections? Should non-D.C. citizens but residing here be able to vote in our elections? (In Rehoboth Beach, non-resident property owners can vote and run in city elections.)

Should the ANCs be abolished or given additional responsibilities or should individual towns be established within each of the eight Wards each having a small town council/town manager model?

FEDERAL ISSUES

It is still a national embarrassment that more than 600,000 citizens are denied a real voice in the national legislature. Certainly legal minds can create a way to end this disgrace and meet constitutional approval avoiding Scalian thunderbolts. In the meantime, should D.C. request two delegates to the U.S. House as well as one to the U.S. Senate? In the latter, he/she would be able to sit on a committee and vote as in the U.S. House.

Should the president and the mayor share control over the D.C. National Guard instead of the president’s sole control he has today?

Should Congress have simply 30 calendar days to review our legislation instead of the 30 days in session method?

Should all federal lands outside the monument core and the National Zoo be handed over to the District of Columbia?

Should our local budgets supported by locally collected taxes be spent freely without federal approval as is being proposed now within the U.S. House?

Should that sacred cow limiting the heights of our buildings be slaughtered?

If we are continued to be denied congressional representation, should we refuse to render verdicts if seated on federal juries since we had no say in passage of any federal laws?

We should not forget that the people of the District of Columbia also have no participation in the ratification of constitutional amendments. While it has been several years since one has been sent to the states, there must be consideration to our being recognized as part of the process.

How do we get together to discuss and recommend any changes to the current Home Rule Act? Ward meetings chaired by Eleanor Holmes Norton, Alice Rivlin and Tony Williams?  I do not have answers but implore my fellow citizens to demand changes. Better they come from us rather than imposed by any of the 535 pseudo-mayors that inhabit the U.S. Capitol.

John Klenert is a longtime D.C. resident, former member of DC Vote’s board of directors and part of the DC 41 arrested for DC voting rights advocacy.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America

Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor

Published

on

Members and supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America march in a 'No Kings' protest on Oct. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.

That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.

My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.

The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.

But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.

That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.


Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Now more than ever: the importance of LGBTQ activism

What would Jeffrey Montgomery do?

Published

on

Jeffery Montgomery in 'America You Kill Me.' (Screen capture via Gravitas Ventures/YouTube)

For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.

And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.

Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?

Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.

Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.

At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.

First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.

That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.

Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.

Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.

You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.

And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.

Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.

When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.

If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.

And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.

So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?

If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.


Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.

Continue Reading

Opinions

D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America

Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement

Published

on

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.

The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?  

Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.

Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election. 

I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.

As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important. 

In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice. 

So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular