The folks down in Washington have been complaining that they don’t get any real congressional representation, because the District of Columbia is not a state. Now, the District is a fairly sizable chunk of people, so I think they deserve something. I propose that they get however many Represenatives they would get if they were a state, but zero Senators.
How’s that for a compromise?
I think it’s fair.
Tawk amongst yahselves.
Why not simply have the District revert to Maryland (assuming, for argument’s sake, that they’ll take it)? There’s certainly precedent for this; having the Congress make it so (a majority of each house, and a presidential signature) would be easier than a Constitutional amendment (two-thirds of each house, and a majority of each house in three-quarters of state legislatures); and the net effect would be the same.
Actually, I can make an argument that you can’t just let Maryland annex D.C. without a constitutional amendment. After all, that amendment that gave D.C. a voice in presidential elections presupposes that D.C. exists as a separate entity.
Of course they should have representation in Congress. The people that reside there should decide what the best solution is.
Well, I’ll disagree with that.
The 23[sup]th[/sup] Amendment states:
and Article I, Section 8 states:
(emphasis added)
Now, there’s no mention of D.C. per se, so it does not seem that D.C. is privileged by the 23[sup]th[/sup] (other than by being “the District constituting the Seat of Government of the United States”). If Congress were to trade D.C., say, to Colorado for Boulder, then D.C. would be folded into Colorado’s Congressional and electoral representation, whilst the new District of Idiot Faux Luddites Who Teach Feminist Dance Therapy[sup]1[/sup] would immediately be entitled to three electoral votes and no Congressional representation. Indeed, if Congress (and some state) were to act in such a manner as to abolish a separate “Seat of Government”, then the 23[sup]th[/sup] would cease to be operative (whilst remaining “on the books” if a separate “Seat of Government” were formed in the futurre).
[sup]1[/sup][sub]This is, course, my own opinion of the residents of Boulder. You may have a different one.[/sub]
Yeah, except this isn’t about fair play, it’s about getting two more democratic senators in congress. DC statehood is a terrible idea. If they want to re-attach themselves to Maryland, fine. Statehood, no.
And no, it shouldn’t just be up to the people who live there. If so, why can’t I declare my town a new state, with two senators, etc? Statehood must be ratified by the rest of the country, that’s the way all the other states joined. No geographic area has the power to unilaterally declare statehood.
True enough, Akatsukami. Congress could declare Podunk, Arkansas to be the new seat of government, then vote to let D.C. merge into Maryland. But all in all, fat chance of that ever happening, and you’d still have the identical problem of congressional representation for the fine citizens of Podunk.
But it still looks to me like the 23rd amendment presupposes that there must be a “District constituting the seat of Government of the United States.” And a later amendment trumps an earlier constitutional provision whenever they conflict, so the “may” language in I, 8 may not be controlling.
Just an argument here, but one that throws a wrench into the OP’s merge-with-Maryland theory. Of course, that may still work–just have Congress vote to cede everything except the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court grounds to Maryland. Then you’ve still got a (real small) seat of government, and nobody gets disenfranchised.
Not that there’s a prayer of anything changing for the foreseeable future.
The Constitution demands a seat of government. It doesn’t say how big it has to be. Therefore, the District of Columbia can be shrunk down to encompass only Capitol Hill, the White House, the Suupreme Court building, etc. Very few, if any, people live there. The rest of Washington reverts to Maryland.
It’s cheap, it’s simple, and best of all, it has a precedent. D.C. used to be a full square, encompassing land over the Potomac in what is now Virginia. That area reverted back to Virginia sometime in the 1800’s through a simple act of Congress.
At this point, we’d have to rescind the 23rd Amendment, which would be a procedural pain, but not too difficult - it wouldn’t be controversial.
Gotta do better than that. The same argument applies to Wyoming - less people, always two republican senators. If you want to talk about fair play, we should take away their two senators.
And no one is arguing that. Of course D.C. can’t unilaterally declare itself a state. Every state except the thirteen original colonies had to be admitted to the Union by Congress.
And D.C. isn’t comparable to your hometown. You are already represented by two senators. D.C. residents are not.
I’m not a big fan of D.C. statehood, but I don’t think your arguments hold water.
Sua
Puerto Rico?
Guam?
American Samoa?
What about those folks? Why don’t they get senators?
[Democrat]
For the same reasons folks in D.C. don’t get senators: they’re colored and they vote for democrats.
[/Democrat]
Come on, Rick, you can do better than that for a rhetorical question, can’t you? 
Because they don’t have to pay federal taxes. DCers do. So, until Puerto Ricans are throwing 40% of their income to Washington, I say screw 'em.
Uh, you’d prefer oligarchic or monarchist senators?
Granted that as matters stand, the likelihood that the two senators that D.C. elect would belong to the party of Jackson, Cleveland, FDR, and JFK is quite high. But the GOP might work on getting support for its candidates there. After all, they managed to turn the Solid (Democratic) South into the nearly Solid (Republican) South within my lifetime. The Senior Senator from South Carolina didn’t run as a Dixiepublican in 1948; he bolted from Truman’s renomination, and changed over sometime around 1970 IIRC. (Of course, he’s probably the only living politician to have ever met a Federalist.)
[politically polemic remark]
It might do the Republicans good to take a look at why two of the men on Mount Rushmore belonged to their party, and where they’ve changed since.
[/PPR]
My reading of the Constitution, as amended, would indicate that Congress has the right but not the duty to create a district not more than 10 miles square for the seat of government. (They could take Arlington back into D.C. by simple act of Congress, by the way.) If they create such a district, then it’s entitled to (at least) three electoral votes (but no more than the least populous state).
And a country founded on the slogan “No taxation without representation” certainly ought to be looking at what it’s doing to close to a million of its citizens. Of course, exempting D.C. citizens from the income tax and federal excise taxes would be another alternative that meets the idea of justice there.
However, it’s been my experience since I turned Democrat that trying to convince a Republican to do something because it’s just when it has no immediate political benefit to his party is generally a futile exercise. There are, of course, exceptions. But as a generality, I’ve found it to be true. And those of you who take umbrage at that because you’re a Republican to whom it does not apply, consider dispassionately whether it’s true of some of your co-partisans. And then do what you feel to be right about it.
I always arrive to these things late. There was a Q&A held on Washington Post.com about voting rights, featuring the group DC VOTE.
Anyway, the big difficulty with retrocession of DC back into Maryland (or Virginia, or Wyoming) is that they don’t want the city. Imagine the administrative nightmare of having to support a city that has, for all intent and purposes, materialized overnight. A city that still has some structural problems. Congress can probably unilaterally just throw the place back to Maryland, but would you want to piss off a wealthy state unnecessarily.
That darned pesky constitution may get in the way again, Sterling. Article IV, section 3:
Yes, D.C. is not a state, but I think Maryland could make a good argument that the effect of this provision is to prevent it from being forced to accept territory it doesn’t want.
True enough, minty green. That’s how I’d read the article in question. Washington, DC is the teenage orphan that nobody wants, or acknowledges.
DC residents generally want full statehood and no less. The rest of the US Congress, for whatever reason, doesn’t. (Corrupt city. A democratic ploy to gain power. The fear of a state losing a rep [The House is locked 435, right?]. Don’t like the idea of a majority black state. Don’t like the idea of an majority urban state. Loss of that much sought after seat on the committee that handles DC affairs :rolleyes: )
Maryland (or Virginia) has let it known time and time again they don’t want the land.
AND THE REST OF THE NATION DOESN’T KNOW, NOR CARE ABOUT THIS, IT APPEARS.
I agree that the current situation is unjust; we need to find some way for DC residents to have representation in both houses of Congress. But as Sterling points out, most Americans just don’t care about this issue. In the absence of any pressure from the general public, it seems unlikely that anything will be done.
What’s wrong with us? Apearantly, most of us don’t care that a whole city full of people are not represented in Congress. Most don’t care how badly Florida (or any other state) botched its election. Most don’t care if the candidate who is inauguated as President got the most votes or not. And among those who do care, many are quite happy with these situations.
I think they’d have to amend the Constitution in order to get representatives. As you said they’re not a state.
Marc
And?
So you have to convince 38 of the current states to ratify it. Since any power given to DC will dilute their own, it is not in any state’s best interest.
With DC statehood, you would only have to convince 50% of both houses and the President. But that is not likely to happen anytime soon (for at least 2 years, if the Dems get a veto-proof majority, and all vote for it).
Yeah, and what about the considerably larger number of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico who are denied representation in both Congress and the Electoral College?!! Let’s get out on the streets supporting them!! Huh? They don’t want it? Oops.
For about six years, I lived in D.C. I knew going down there that I wasn’t going to have any representation - it’s in the Constitution, after all. People in D.C. can vote - with their feet.
Personally, I’m (slightly) in favor of D.C. statehood, or some other arrangement to give them Congressional representation (especially since I plan to move back there in about 6 months :)). But I don’t see this as a human rights issue. The residents of D.C. choose to live without representation, when it’s available less than 2 miles away from anywhere in the city.
Sua