Or the other scenario is that when the democrats no longer see a guaranteed democrat representative and two democratic senators they would drop statehood for DC like a sack of potatoes.
Shortly after the Revolution, the Continental Congress was run out of Philadelphia by a mob of Continenal Army veterans demanding their back pay. The governor of Pennsylvania did not send in the state militia to protect Congress. That is what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were thinking of when they decided the federal capital should be under exclusively federal jurisdiction. This is understandable, but I suggest that thinking no longer applies in an age when the federal government independently controls more armed forces than all the states combined. There is no obvious reason why DC needs to be under federal control. It is hard to imagine the governor of the state of Columbia, or whatever would be called, defying Congress on any point.
Is DC too small for a state? What do we mean by “small”? Area or population? I think it is population, not area, that determines whether a given community is complicated enough to require the management of a full state government with general police powers. According to the 2000 census, the population of DC is 571,822, which is only slightly below that of the state of Alaska, 634,892.
Having said that, I still argue that DC is too small for a state – not because its area or population fall below some arbitrary cutoff point, but because it happens to be only a part – the central and most important part, to be sure, but only a part – of a major metropolitan area. Every metropolitan area is a single community, in a lot of ways; the economy of any suburb is tied to the central city, and to its other suburbs. What happens on one neighborhood affects the others. In his book Cities Without Suburbs (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1995), David Rusk presented a compelling case that allowing a city’s suburbs to be politically independent of the city is a really bad idea. The suburbanites are exempt from paying taxes to the city government, but still enjoy its cultural amenities and economic energy. Some states have laws providing that a city’s boundaries will be expanded automatically to include neighboring areas whenever they reach a given population density.
I propose two obvious, commonsensical general principles to frame this discussion; you all are invited to challenge either of them:
1. Every metropolitan area should have a single consolidated government. This does not preclude the existence of smaller subsidiary governments,.
2. A metropolitan area should be defined to include the urban core, all adjacent areas above a certain population density, and all areas with close economic ties to either of the preceding. E.g., southern Connecticut should be considered part of the New York City metropolitan area because so many of its residents either commute into the city for work, or work at jobs that would vanish if the city went away.
And I also propose a far less obvious, but defensible, principle: When the population of a metropolitan area exceeds a certain (indeterminate) number, its metropolitan government should be a state government, with all the constitutional status, powers, and functions of a state. For instance, there should be a state of New York City, encompassing not only the five boroughs, but all the adjacent counties of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. This would help to satisfy the demand of the Staten Islanders for independence from NYC: Richmond County would still be politically linked to NYC, but the “five boroughs” would no longer exist as a political entity, and Richmond County would have exactly as much autonomy from the state government as would Westchester County. In such a metro government, Manhattan would still be in all ways the center, but its political predominance over the other parts would be much reduced.
Applying this to the OP: Making a single state of the entire Washington metropolitan area – DC plus the adjacent counties of Maryland and Virginia – would make a whole lot of sense! It would establish a state government with the authority to govern, plan and manage the whole region, city and suburbs. It would also create a single taxing authority.
Of course, this state – let’s call it Columbia – still could be divided into cities and counties, just like other states are. If we kept existing divisions in place, the state would consist of Washington City; Montgomery County and Prince George’s County (Maryland side); and Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Arlington County, and Alexandria City (Virginia side).
But the state of Columbia would be unique among American states in that its state government would also function as a metropolitan government; it could be our first experiment along these lines, and if it works out, every metro area with a population equal to or greater than Columbia’s might also be made a separate state.
Columbia would also be unique in that its general population would include a higher proportion than any other state’s of persons whose careers are in or somehow connected with government or politics. These federal bureaucrats, lobbyists, attorneys, journalists, academics, think-tank researchers, etc., etc., some of whom live in the city and some in the 'burbs, would be voters of Columbia, and also the talent base from which the new state would build its own state bureaucracy. This, perhaps, gives Columbia the potential to have either the best state government in the Union, or the worst; it would be interesting to see how it plays out.
This would be an ideal solution to the problem of D.C.'s anomalous political status. However, there are a couple of obvious political obstacles:
-
No state can be deprived of territory without its consent. The Maryland and Virginia legislatures would have to approve giving up their suburban-Washington counties – which means giving up the tax revenue those counties provide, but also means washing their hands of responsibility for those counties’ problems, and cutting expenditures relating thereto out of their state budgets. Oh, and of course, giving up those counties would eliminate their delegates from the Maryland and Virginia state legislatures, thus changing the balance of power, but it would take some research to predict the precise effects.
-
(I’m gonna get flamed for this, I just know it.) I am not acquainted with any contemporary advocates of D.C. statehood, but I did attend Georgetown University, I went to law school at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, I know something of the regional politics, and it seems to me the statehood advocates’ agenda is as much racial as partisan. D.C. is a predominantly African-American city, that is not likely to change in the next few decades, therefore it would be the only overwhelmingly black-majority state in the Union. (I say “overwhelmingly” because I know there are some Southern states such as Mississippi that are roughly half-black and might be black-majority.) This would almost certainly guarantee the election of two black U.S. senators and one black representative in every Congressional election for the foreseeable future. They would be black Democrats to start with, perhaps in the future they could be black Republicans, but always they would be black. And I can easily understand why that should be so important to political aware African-Americans, even if they don’t live anywhere near Washington. The solution I am proposing would not guarantee such a result because the Washington metro area, as I have defined it, does not have a black majority although its black population is substantial.
P.S.: As to the name, I have heard DC state advocates want to call the state “New Columbia” but I object to this because there is, after all, no “Old Columbia.” Let’s keep it simple and call it “Columbia.”
I know this sounds trite, but I think the DC voting rights issue is hurt by the fact that we have 50 states. 50 is such a nice round number, resulting in 100 senators, allowing for easily calculated percentages.
If I recall correctly, the Americans at that time wanted neither British government money (which seemed to come in nothing but the pockets of soldiers) nor their taxes.
One solution which has been proposed from time to time is to give the vast majority of the city back to Maryland, leaving only the Mall and a couple of surround blocks as the District.
The biggest problem with this plan is that Maryland doesn’t want the District back…
Seriously, the District is a shithole. Now I’m not saying that places that are shithole shouldn’t be allowed to vote… I mean that would disenfranchise large portions of Pennsylvania, possibly the whole state of New Jersey… But the District has time and time and time and time again shown that the “home rule” government is irresponsible and inadequate to handle their responsibilities.
I live in Arlington because the thought of living in the District scares me. Most people visiting our nation’s capital see the nice and touristy parts, I wish they would get a chance to take a tour of SE or NE and see the really beautiful parts of DC.
I don’t think making the state of Columbia will solve the problem. Even though Maryland may be willing to lop off PG County and cede it to DC, I reckon that Virginia would have a fit if it had to give up Arlington (and National airport) and Alexandria.
Tramp I am going to be kind and assume you haven’t been to the District in a looooooong time. Most of the neighborhoods that were once shit holes have improved enough to make them unaffordable to professional types like my wife and myself. Crime in my neighborhood of NE compares favorably with much of the higher density Metro neighborhoods, Arlington included.
The one thing I will grant is that Anacostia remains frightening. That is only a small part of the city. Even the H street corridor has been cleaned up. The red light district that once existed along 14th st. is now peopled by fancy restaurants. I think your perceptions of what the District is like are seriously out of date. I cordially invite you to stroll through the vast majority of NE and tell me what parts you find so scary.
Actually, I am sitting in the District right now at this moment. I got to law school at Catholic at night. At orientation last year, campus security warned us about walking alone at night because it is not the best of areas. This year, two evening law students were held up at gun point at the Metro. The Metro is right across the street. And the robbery/murder of a student at Colonel Brooks Tavern… Not to mention the at least 15 car theft/ break ins that happened all within the span of one school year… All very scary. Brookland is NOT a nice area. I invite you to stroll through that section of NE at night.
To quote a friend of mine whenever we’d do the 295 S-to-N, Howard Rd. turn-around: [head in knees, rocking back and forth] Please don’t let me die. Please don’t let me die.
She did tend to exaggerate a bit, though. 
As for DC statehood, I don’t see it happening and I don’t see anyone claiming it. (Not to hijack, but imho the only way NoVa would actually get a MLB team is if VA annexed DC…) Just get the Dems back in power and restore Eleanor Holmes Norton’s previous voting privileges.
I very strongly disagree.
Blacks like Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, and JC Watts are loved by republicans, the color of their skin has nothing to do with it.
It is all political, and NONE of it is racial.
If the entire population of DC thought, and voted conservatively, as Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, and JC Watts, then the republicans would be falling over themselves trying to find a way to give them the vote.
The people of DC are not treated differently because of their color, but solely because of their political beliefs and voting patterns.
One thing that no one has mentioned on this thread yet: The D.C. branch of the Green Party is committed to statehood for D.C. In fact, it merged with a Statehood Party and is now known as the D.C. Statehood Green Party. You can link to it at http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/index.php. D.C. statehood is not strictly speaking an environmental issue, but “decentralization” is one of the Greens’ Ten Key Values, so endorsing statehood (as opposed to the current system under which D.C. has only limited autonomy under Congressional oversight) is quite consistent with their platform.
I have also done this exact thing on many occasions. WTF isn’t there just an exit to 295?
The simplest solution I’ve come up with is just a slight elevation of status. Make DC’s Shadow Senator a non-voting member of the Senate, with a permanent (voting) seat on the Senate’s Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Make DC’s delegate in the House a regular voting Representative with a permanent seat on the House’s District subcommittee.
To keep the number of Members of Congress at the required 535, just kill one traditionally Democrat seat in California. Politics being what they are, Norton would be somewhat beholden to the former California district which she superceded, and we can expect her to keep her debt of honor to that district for years to come, so in effect the CA voters who are victims of redistricting actually have two Representatives in Congress for awhile.
Simple as that.
I believe you answered the question a while back:
But I loved it just the same.
I went to GW, right smack in Foggy Bottom. Nice area.
But the fun was in exploring.
There is one other way that DC will become a state- and that is to do what Alaska and Hawaii did: come in as part of a pair. Hawaii was seen as extremely Democratic, and the assumption was that Alaska would be just as Republican (both assumptions being well founded, as it turned out).
At some point, if a 52nd possible state is created- say, plans to subdivide California, Texas, Michigan, or perhaps we annex Cuba following Castro’s spontaneous combustion in the 75th hour of a speech- in which it is obvious that the state will send Republican Senators and Representatives to Congress, then D.C. will see voting rights. 90% of what it comes down to is that the Republican Party has no interest in seeing a guaranteed two extra Democratic Senators each session.
As for the idea of ‘greater Columbia’- that’ll never happen without armed revolt, and Montgomery County will never rise up unless Starbuck’s shuts down. As far as Richmond and Annapolis are concerned, the D.C. suburbs are barrels of tax income that can be spread around the rest of the state- I’m pretty sure Fairfax County doesn’t get nearly what it puts in to the tax coffers, and P.G. and Montgomery County have never gotten equality out of Annapolis.
Well, now, actually, let me amend that- there may come a time in the future where both Maryland and Virginia have Republican governors, and both realize that jettisoning the suburb counties increases the net power of the Republican Party in those two states. But a Republican governor in Maryland is still enough of a fluke that it’d likely hurt more than help, and the Republicans have enough strength in Virginia that such straits are unlikely to come to be passed.
Ha- it was only two posts before someone pulled out the exact argument that I already said drives me batty. I have, in fact, just gone batty reading this.
Let’s say, for example, that Rhode Island decided to ban free speech, guns, and deny women the vote. Would you tell the people of Rhode Island to bite the bullet and move to Massachusetts or Connecticut? What a fucking crock. A right is a right is a right, and all rights – from free speech to having voting representation in one’s own government – should apply to every goddamn square inch of this country.
Land of the free, my ass. I can’t believe the lengths to which people will go to to justify keeping the people of one particular city from having even one single vote among 535 elected representatives.
And while I’m going batty, someone explain to me why a law-abiding person can’t drink a beer in a public park on the 4th of July. It’s fucking shameful. Spend more than five minutes in a decent place like London and you’ll find perfectly fine people minding their own business having a beer on the street, in a park, on on the Tube. But a goddamned freedom loving American can’t have a beer on the goddamned 4th of July in a public fucking park!
(No, I did not get busted for drinking a beer in a public park on the 4th of July. I just wish that I could have had one because it was damn hot here.)
Alright, enough of that. (Pfew)
I have no problem paying federal taxes. I just think it would be fairer if the people of DC had just one single vote in Congress.
Since some folks like to play chicken little with giving real representation to a measly 700,000 people, talking about the need for constitutional amendments and so forth to remedy the situation, we have to make due with what tools are at hand.
And before someone jumps on my about the constitutional amendment thing, I think jklann’s interpretation of the law in this area is right on. But the situation still sucks.
If they want to live in this shitty weather long enough to maintain their residency here, I could care less. There’s enough high-priced condos going up around Chinatown to house a bunch of them.
And as far as pricing everyone else out, you probably haven’t taken a look at DC laws lately. Tearing down houses to build supermansions in any but the worst areas of the city is about as easy as getting the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle.
On the other hand, if folks like Bono and Richard Gene moved here, they’d probably raise the profile of the whole voting rights thing. It might be a great idea, after all.
And here’s a link.
Posted by Susanann:
Look, Susanann, about ten years ago, someone proposed ceding the District back to Maryland as an alternative to statehood. And Jesse Jackson, who was campaiging for DC statehood, called that proposal a form of “apartheid” – far and away the silliest thing I ever heard him say. Translation: “That solution is unacceptable because it would not guarantee the election of two African-Americans, one of whom would be me, to the U.S. Senate.” So yes, it is racial, at least partly. If D.C. were ceded to Maryland, what would be in any way unreasonable about that? Washingtonians would then have the exact same political status as the residents of any major American city: They would have a local city government, representation in the (Maryland) state legislature, and representation in Congress. They just wouldn’t have their own two senators; but what city does?
And of course I do not deny the existence of black conservatives and black Republicans such as Clarence Thomas, etc. But I bet those guys might well be attracted to the prospect of D.C. statehood for the same reason Jackson was, even if their politics are nothing like his, and even if D.C. statehood would harm the Republican Party in the short run. That’s what I meant when I called this a racial issue – one that, to a limited extent, might cut across party lines.
Don’t you get it? Bono and Richard won’t be trying to get DC voting rights. They will try to prevent DC from ever getting the vote and losing it’s tax exempt status. I really don’t think that you understand how much money we are talking about. There are people who will save millions of dollars by simply moving from New York to DC. It is a no brainier and they will do it in a heart beat even if it means they have to fix up a slum to live in.
Tax exempt is about the stupidest idea for the current residents of DC that I have ever heard of if what they really want is to be able have representation. They will never get representation if they become tax exempt. DC instead will become the place where the wealthiest 1/2% of our population lives. They will not care if they don’t have a vote. And, trust me, in time they will have their mansions but they aren’t going to wait for them before they move there. You can even be priced out of a slum if a millionaire wants to live there bad enough.
You link isn’t loading right now. I will try to find that info somewhere else and read it later.