The issue of the impact on political balance in the Senate would be easily addressed by simultaneously splitting Utah or Idaho into two states.
Yep.
Nope. A citizen’s basic right to full and proper representation in the national government should not be affected to such a significant degree by his or her choice of residence. It’s fundamentally different from the other “pros and cons” of living in a particular state.
If giving DC statehood (or carving off part of it to Maryland) is the right thing to do, then it’s the right thing to do. If it’s not the right thing to do, then it’s not the right thing to do. But “balance of power” in the Senate should be irrelevant to making that determination.
And even if it were relevant, cutting up an already-small state would be possibly the most ridiculous way to address the issue.
I’ve tried to link to these bills but it proved to be a headache… but anyway, Rep Louie Gohmert has twice introduced bills for retrocession of DC to Maryland. Neither bill gained a cosponsor. Del Eleanor Holmes-Norton has often introduced bills to provide for DC statehood. These bills are cosponsored by nearly all of Maryland’s congressional delegation.
It’s important to also note that most powerful Maryland politicians have their base in the Baltimore political structure. Retrocession would create a new political power center in Maryland, not benefiting these senior statesmen types. It’s sort of their own survival that is at stake.
What do you think about shutting down the DoJ’s Office of Civil Rights, and turning it into a booking office for U-Haul and Penske truck rentals?
“Hello, you’ve reached the Office of Civil Rights. If you have a complaint about discriminatory employment practices, press one to be connected to U-Haul. If you have a complaint about discriminatory local laws, press two to be connected to Two Hunks and a Truck Moving Company. If you have a complaint about discrimination perpetrated by the Federal government, press three to be connected to Lufthansa for the first flight off of this continent.”
Mexico DF (I think) and Madrid. Madrid is a funny one: Madrid province was made its own Autonomous Region, and the capital itself separated from it - the city of Madrid is not part of the Region of Madrid.
So every territory should be required to become a state so their residents can vote in national election and have representatives and senators?
Not a bad idea, but in all fairness to my position, Canada should be an option as well.
Are residents of these cities full political participants in elections in the same basis as any other citizen in another part of the country?
Simple. Remove all Federal taxes from DC residents and leave them unrepresented. I wonder how long it will take for all the rich people who swarm in to squeeze the poor people out?
Yes, I favor each of the extant territories being required to become a state, or join a state, or go their own way independently. I do not find it consistent with American democratic ideals to have different classes of citizens and nationals.
I would advocate a slower transition, perhaps giving the DC area her financial independence first, see how things work out. We may find a level of self-determination somewhere between here-and-now and full Statehood that serves the People the best. There is some (maybe not much) agitation in Puerto Rico, Guam, Canada and Samoa for full independence. Perhaps this is another direction for the District of Columbia, either “Imperial City” under Papal control or let Columbia have the territory back. It was kinda rude for us to take it in the first place.
Do you think Thomas Jefferson should have written,
That’s interesting. I guess I still question everyone’s motives, then. If nobody will sign on to a retrocession bill, is it because “Maryland doesn’t want DC” or is it because “Maryland Democrats want the US senate to get 2 DC senators?” And the same can be said of Maryland & DC (D) voters.
If statehood were somehow forcibly taken off the table, how much would everyone continue to object to retrocession?
Not for the city of Madrid. I’m not sure what the setup is for DF or for Brasilia, another one that’s a district and not a state.
Yes for DF, Brasilia and ACT – The city is under a special separate regime but the citizens elect a slate of voting members to their Congress and Parliament.
If it’s irrelevant to you, then it shouldn’t be a basis not to do the right thing. Obviously it is relevant to a lot of other people, and this is a way of overcoming those objections and making the right thing happen.
Certainly, retrocession avoids having to take this step, but as Ravenman has pointed out, that idea raises its own balance-of-power objections within Maryland.
From what I’ve looked up, voters in the city of Madrid do elect members of Congress, too.
Most of those territories are not subject to federal income tax. I suspect that DC would take that deal.
That argument works for every other territory; moving out of Guam or Puerto Rico or American Samoa is an onerous proposition. But people move from DC to MD or VA pretty frequently, usually for a job (Driving from DC to one of the surrounding jurisdictions is unironically called “countercommuting” and no one is a fan of higher rents paired with lower wages). Moving out of DC isn’t particularly burdensome. It’s also known as “moving down the road a few blocks.” I’ve done it myself more than once and helped others do it dozens of times.
Exactly. It would be pretty easy, really:
Fold everything in the Pacific into Greater Hawai’i (still known as Hawai’i).
Fold everthing in the Caribbean into Greater Puerto Rico (still known as Puerto Rico).
D.C. we are discussing.
PR would be a new state. If the powers that be can’t handle a new democratic state without a new Republican one, divide one of the other states. East California would be reliably Republican, and cut down the size of the most populous state. Not in a sensible way, but refusing to even think about a new state without the D/R balance in the Senate isn’t sensible, either. Taking eastern Oregon & Washington together would make a reliably Republican state, Desert Cascadia. (I suggest splitting the Western states because they are large and overall very Democratic).
But like the issues of the penny and the dollar bill, it seems like the US is stuck. We just can’t make big changes like new states anymore. It’s been 57 years since we added Alaska & Hawai’i. Compare that the prior admissions: here’s the list of periods without admitting a new state, longest to shortest:
47 years between admitting Arizona & Alaska (1959)
15 years between admitting Missouri & Arkansas (1836)
13 years between admitting Colorado & the Dakotas, Montana, & Washington (1889)
11 years between admitting Utah & Oklahoma (1906)
9 years between admitting Ohio & Louisiana (1812) and between Nebraska & CO (1886)
8 years between California & Minnesota (1858) and between Michigan & FL (1845)
7 years between Tennessee & Ohio (1803)
5 years between Arizona & New Mexico (1912)
All other gaps are 4 years or fewer, which is more or less the average (depending on how you count multiple-admission years).
It seems that, collectively, we just won’t move beyond 50 states, ever.