Image from Orange for Chair.

DCDSC National Committeeman Vincent Orange, a presumptive leader in the race to fill Kwame Brown’s to-be-vacated at-large council seat, is drawing battle lines around any proposals to amend the Home Rule Act or convince the DSDSC to appoint a caretaker.

In an e-mail to committee members, Orange suggests that the Democratic party is being targeted unfairly. He suggests Greater Greater Washington’s criticism of the appointment process is actually a masked effort to add an Independent or Republican to the Council.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s Orange’s email:

There is a movement to manipulate the DCDSC out of its power granted to us by the Home Rule Act. There is a desire to weaken the DCDSC by placing an Independent or Republican on the DC Council through the Special Election process. We must stay focus[sic] on the mission granted to us by the Home Rule Act. If this was a Republican At Large vacancy or Independent At-Large vacancy, there would not be an editorial entitled “Getting a leg up on D.C. Council”. We cannot let the Washington Post or Greater Greater Washington divide the DCDSC or manipulate the intent of the Home Rule Act.

See below the latest twist on the election process. Remember, no one contacted the DCDSC for comment on trying to amend the Home Rule Act.

Together we stand with the Home Rule Act, divided, we fall.

First, Orange is mistaken about the DCDSC being singled out. The argument against allowing a partisan state committee to appoint at-large councilmembers applies equally to Democrats, Republicans, DC Statehood Greens, or any other party. Any amendment to the Home Rule Act should address all parties equally.

We can’t speak for the Washington Post, but we certainly would call for the same thing if this were a Republican vacancy. If it were an Independent at-large vacancy, the Home Rule Act would not give any party committee the power to appoint a successor. Instead, the full DC Council would fill the seat until the special election.

While still a flawed process, it is marginally better than an appointment by a political party. As we previously argued, however, at-large vacancies should be treated no differently than ward vacancies, and should be left vacant until filled by special election.

Second, in stating, “We must stay focused on the mission granted to us by the Home Rule Act,” Orange focuses on the authority currently delegated to political parties as if it carries some moral authority. But as the history of the U.S. constitution and individual state constitutions makes clear, mere inclusion in a constitution (or Home Rule Act) is not synonymous with either justice or good governance, which is why have amendment processes. And the Home Rule Act is far from a perfect document, such as giving Congress too much authority over the District’s affairs. Why revere its pecularities?

Finally, there is no effort to “weaken the DCDSC by placing an Independent or Republican on the DC Council through the special election process.” To the contrary, there is only an effort to ensure a fair special election process, unencumbered by the current undemocratic process.

This is consistent with an argument Orange himself made in an October 22 e-mail to the DCDSC, in which he wrote that “[t]he beauty about democracy is that it boils down to the one person, one vote theory. The majority prevails.”

There are over 440,000 registered voters in the District as of August 2010. Fifty percent plus 1 votes from an 81-member body does not represent a majority prevailing in the election of an at-large councilmember. The seat should be filled only after all registered voters have an opportunity to weigh in on the decision.

Orange himself has served as an elected ward member in the past, has run twice for at-large positions, and certainly would make a credible run at the at-large vacancy in next year’s special election. If he wants to strengthen the Democratic party as he says he does, he should forgo the temporary appointment process and win the seat in a fair contest.