Supplemental Testimony of Jabari Zakiya Empower DC DC Statehood Green Party on Bill 19-330 Access to Selective Service Registration Amendment Act of 2011 before Committee on the Environment, Public Works and Transportation Council of the District of Columbia Tuesday, November 29, 2011 This is my written testimony given pursuant to my oral testimony made on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 before the Committee Chair Mary Cheh, and Councilmember Yvette Alexander, present. I am testifying in opposition to Bill 19-330, put forward by Councilmember Yvette Alexander of Ward 7, which would amend D.C. Code 50-1401.01(a)(5A), by replacing the word may with shall in the current language, which states: Men between 18 and 25 years of age, may register with the Selective Service when they obtain or renew their driver's license. This Bill would change registering for federal Selective Service, by males only, from being voluntary to mandatory as a condition of obtaining a local DC driver's license (DL), failure to do so resulting in a denial of a DC DL (until the age of 26). Therefore, at a minimum, for the reasons provided herein, the DC Council should reject this Bill. Unconsitutional Issues Surrounding Selective Service Federal Selective Service registration of males only, to enforce a non-existing military Draft, is a lingering anachronistic legacy of the Vietnam War era. On it's face it's unconstitutional as a form of gender discrimination, a point well raised not only by the ACLU in its testimony, but also Chair Cheh in her questioning of proponents of the Bill. The fact that males only Selective Service registration was upheld to be nondiscriminatory by the Supreme Court in 1981 (see ACLU written testimony) does not eliminate the fact that many people think it is, in a (hopefully) more enlightened new century. After all, DC is barely a half-century past legally mandated and enforced racial segregation, and gender (against women) discrimination. But things can change for the better. It is with the knowledge of these kinds of past, and existing, wrongs, that the Council should take heed and not rush to voluntarily codify into DC law enforcement of such a problematic and resented federal law and policy. The Council should remain neutral on this issues, and show its independence from federal government policies and laws which many DC residents don't agree with, as it has around issues pertaining to immigration enforcement, abortion funding, and medical marijuana. 1

Unfunded Federal Mandate Upon questioning by Chair Cheh, DMV Director Lucinda Babers stated it would cost at least $50,000 to just reprint (3 years amount of) the DMV forms to make the changes mandated by the Bill. She was clear this was not an additional budget item they could easily eat. There would also have to be other administrative costs associated with the transition to enforcing the Bill. Thus, passage of this act would amount to an unfunded federal mandate that the residents of DC will have to pay for, many of who would oppose it not only on a political or ideological basis, but many just because DC has better uses of its scarce financial resources that should go directly to help residents, and not punish them. Opt-out provisions Proposed opt-out provisions being provided on the DL form is an unnecessary discussion. Either the form is going to be changed to mandate Selective Service registration, or it doesn't need to be changed, as it already currently allows for voluntarily registration. Why spend over $50,000 to change a form to provide for the same options that already exists? A more cost effective way to encourage higher voluntary registration is to put up signs and provide flyers and brochures (paid for and provided by Selective Service, of course) in the DMVs. Again, any change to the existing registration forms would result in an unfunded mandate on DC residents of at least $50,000. Legal Challenges As the ACLU's testimony made clear, it already is representing a conscientious objector to Selective Service registration, and surely DC would be subject to lawsuits based on that issue and also on clear and overt de jure gender discrimination. Add to that potential lawsuits by foreign nationals and the LGBT community. All of these would cost DC money and resources just to get a few extra 18-25 year old males to register for a draft that doesn't exist and the Military doesn't want. Is this worth it? Question, Issues and Unintended Consequences There are many unasked, and thus unanswered questions left hanging, that I can readily identify, that will lead to multiple socially and individually negative unintended consequences if this bill passes. Would affected males who are foreign citizens here for school, work; children of diplomats or foreign nationals on visas, etc, be subject to registering for the U.S. Selective Service in order to get a DC DL, or be denied if they don't? Does this possibly violate international law or diplomatic policy/protocol? Would transgender people who outwardly appear male, but state they are female, be denied a DL if their gender is challenged? What about any person who states they are female and not male? Are there going to be DNA tests and/or female hormone tests aka the Olympics to establish femalehood? Like during the Vietnam War era, there will be people claiming and acting in whatever manner they feel necessary not be subject to the draft, to get a DL. The most obvious and certain unintended consequence would be an increase in Black and Latino males not having valid, or fake, DLs, over going without. This will create higher unemployment within this already marginalized group by limiting there ability to travel to jobs, or take jobs that require a license. This will assuredly lead to a even lower economic status for this population, and will certainly drive a segment of them into criminal activity because of it. Is this what the DC Council wants? 2

Coercive and Anti-democratic Government The fact that the federal Selective Service has to get local governments to use their local administrative apparatus to coerce male citizens into doing something they would not voluntarily do otherwise shows the anti-democratic nature of this bill. This is reminiscent of the Runaway Slave Laws of the 1800's that tried to mandate Northern localities and governments honor Southern State Laws and return their property if they made it to non-slave territories. This was actually one of the burning issues for the South which fueled succession. So here we have the federal government apparently unable, and unwilling, to publicly and assertively enforce this out-of-date and mostly ignored law, trying to get DC and the States to do their dirty work, because Uncle Sam wants its males, whether the males want Uncle Sam or not. This should be particularly grating to us, as DC is continually treated as a third class entity by the federal government, restricting our effective Rights and Liberties, while mandating our compliance to its laws, policies, and expenditures of our money for them. And now they want the DC Council to act as their Slave Catchers, and trap and turn over our emerging adult males over the them. I say no. Would the DC Council require 18-25 year old males be required to register with the Selective Service as a condition of Voting? Oh no, that would be too obviously unconstitutional and politically too unsavory. So DMVs have become the preferred place for the Selective Service to lay its traps to get its prey, and compel local governments to do the dirty work for it. If the federal government can't, or won't, enforce its own laws, that's not this Council's problem. We have enough of our own made be the federal government, we don't need others imposed on us. Anti-democratic proceedings I note for the record, the hearings on this bill (and 4 others pertaining to DMV operations) were held on the same day hearings were taking place on DC redistricting upstairs in the main hearing room. From the Council, only Chair Cheh, and Ms Alexander were present at this hearing. Most of the DC residents in the Wilson Building were at the redistricting hearing, not this one. I note also, there was one panel, the first which I was on, that spoke in opposition to the bill, then 2 panels of people that spoke in favor of the bill, and then a panel of DMV personnel. However, none of these people were a member of the population this bill affected, i.e. 18-25 year old males. I find it very convenient that a middle school class was notified of the hearing and attended, and teachers and administrators from it spoke in favor of the bill, but not one of those males spoke on the bill, and not one male 18-25 years old was apparently notified or asked to attend to give their testimony regarding the bill. This conspicuous absence of any member of the affected group providing testimony totally delegitimizes that hearing as democratic. I could not conceive of a bill before the Council dealing with issues pertaining to the LGBT, or elderly, or immigrant, or taxi drivers communities, or any constituent group, and not have members of that group notified of the hearing, at the hearing, and testifying. But somehow, the feelings toward this bill from 18-25 year old males was never given, and deliberately not asked for. Democracy in DC at work? A great lesson for the middle schoolers present of what to look forward to.

3

Conclusion As the Council did last session when this Bill appeared, it should not pass it this session either. There is no compelling reason or urgency for the DC Council to use the apparatus and resources of our local government to become a surrogate policeman for the federal Selective Service agency resulting in the coercive discrimination and disenfranchisement of an already vulnerable segment of our (mostly Black and Latino) 18-25 year old male population. The negative consequences of this Bill will be enormous on its targeted class, who, conveniently for proponents, had absolutely no members present, or called to testify, at the November 29, 2011 hearing. This Bill is emblematic of why the Occupy movement, Tea Party, and other expressions of citizens dissatisfaction, have been organically springing up outside the institutionalized political structure. It seems on an increasingly shrinking time basis, little-by-little, all the things We The People took for granted as Constitutional and Common Rights and Liberties are steadily being taken from us, by people who neither ask for our opinion or consent before deciding to do so. Getting a driver's license to be able to legally drive in a local jurisdiction should not be controlled by federal policy or law. This is a State issue. This should be especially understood in DC where we are already treated as third class residents (not citizens) who have no authority to determine if, where, and when our residents go to War, nor how much (or if) we should pay for it. The DC Council should stand with the 18-25 year old males residents of the city, and not against them, and let the federal government figure out how to enforce its own laws with its own resources, and thus reject Bill 19-330.

4