Ironically, in the early 1950’s, it was the other way around. Hawaii was regarded as the ultra-Republican state, and Alaska as the ultra-Democratic state. Hawaii started to become one of the most Democratic states in the nation during the 1954 elections, completing the job in the late 1960’s, while Alaska started switching to the Reps at the start of the enviromental movement.
Since the link appeared to be down for a bit, I quote from Joe Lieberman, who was the Senate sponsor of the bill:
“Ever since the American Revolution, the power to tax and the right to vote have been inextricably linked. D.C. residents pay their taxes and still they are disenfranchised. The bill we introduce today would fully exempt D.C. residents from federal income tax as long as they are denied full representation on Capitol Hill. But let me be clear: I am not sponsoring this bill because I want D.C. residents to live tax-free. This bill is not a statement of tax policy. This bill is a statement of principle. D.C. residents should be fully enfranchised.”
I agree with those points. I think you were taking the tax exemption more seriously than I.
Are you sure? Hawaii was soldily Democratic in Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential elections from 1960 onwards, while Alaska’s ‘move’ to Republican stalwart happened well before the enivornmental movement began in the mid-60’s or achieved its heyday in the late '70’s.
Yes, I’m sure. I even have a copy of a political cartoon from the early 1950’s talking about statehood that talks about “Republican Hawaii” and “Democratic Alaska”.
I am sure too. Prior to 1960, Hawaii with its wealthy, was thought to become repubican, and Alaska with all of its blue collar workers was thought to go democrat.
Would granting Statehood to D.C. even be constitutional?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the District wherein lies the seat of U.S. government. You can’t be a State and have Congress wielding exclusive jurisdiction over you at the same time.
IIRC, talks of statehood without constitutional amendment would essentally redefine what DC is so that it only includes federal property. It would be like rezoning the whole city, and slicing it up into federal property under the jurisdiction of Congress and residential, commerical, and industrial areas that would constitute a new state.
I also think it’s a silly idea.
Heck, wouldn’t it be simpler just to move the borders of Maryland and/or Virginia so that they include the residential, commercial, and industrial areas of what is currently Washington, D.C.?
It’s funny how closely this thread mirrors the discussions DC residents have all the time about their status. There are a million possibilities by which the situation could be remedied. All solutions are fraught with difficulty and thus none are pursued.
I hope non DC folks can understand the frustration this entails. I would think that allowing us to become part of Maryland, if even just for voting purposes, would make the most sense.