With the recent push to the forefront of the issue of DC’s (lack of) Congressional representation, I was thinking about the matter of retrocession. Retrocession is the idea that Congress would reduce the size of the Federal District to only a few federal buildings and give back the residential areas of the city to Maryland. However, it is often said that such a move would require Maryland’s consent and that the state may not want to have the DC residents.
However, in looking at the Constitution, I’m wondering if Maryland’s consent is really required. The Constitution states (Article IV)
The section here discusses the creation of new states. It says nothing on the idea of adding territory to a state. It seems to me that Congress could (if it were so inclined) just add the Virgin Islands onto Alaska (to use a ludicrous example).
Even if you maintain that this section would apply to the addition of territory to states, it seems to me that Congress still has the power to retrocede territory to Maryland unilaterally. There are three limitations mentioned in the section:
New States cannot be created within the jurisdiction of existing states. Well, we’re not carving a piece of a state away since DC isn’t a state.
New States cannot be created by the junction of two or more states… Since “Greater Maryland” would not be created by the junction of two or more states (since DC isn’t a state) this shouldn’t be an issue either.
… or parts of states. Same reasoning as above.
So, it seems to be that Congress can unilaterally retrocede most of the district to Maryland (or any other state). So, why is Maryland’s consent needed?
We have precedent for this. Back in 1846, the southwestern part of DC went back to Virginia, and at the time, it was done by both Act of Congress and a bill in the VA General Assembly.
I suspect the answer to this lies not in the language of the Constitution (no prohibition there), but in the fact that Maryland is a sovereign state. Without having expressly tendered to the federal government the right to mess with its borders, the federal government cannot alter the jurisdiction (boundaries) of the state. It would be a bit like Denmark handing Greenland off to Canada and saying, “Tag, you’re it!”
I agree that Art. IV, Sec. 3 is not, on its face, applicable to this situation, but it’s the most closely-applicable constitutional provision. D.C. is already treated as a state for some purposes (the Federal income tax, National Guard, voting for President and Vice President under the 23rd Amendment, etc.), and if Congress tried to jam D.C. down its throat, Maryland could reasonably argue in court that, by analogy, its consent is necessary. The U.S. also couldn’t - or shouldn’t - unilaterally do this because Maryland might then refuse to accept jurisdiction, leaving the citizenry of “Dubyaville, Maryland” (or whatever they decide to call it) in legal limbo.
And the contemporary political reality, from all I’ve read, is that Maryland really does not want to be saddled with the urban mess that is Washington, D.C.
One could say with even greater confidence that the consent of DC residents would not be needed in order to make us Marylanders. But do you think that proceeding without the support of us Washingtonians is a good idea?
If Congress reduced the size of the federal district to just a small area containing some federal buildings (like the Capitol, White House, etc) wouldn’t that give a handfull of people (or even just the First Family) 3 electoral votes of their very own? :eek:
I was going to note (but was forestalled by Captain Amazing) that there is precedent – the retrocession of what is now Arlington from D.C. to Virginia.
However, let me further note, in reference to Zev’s OP, that Maryland is in fact one of the thirteen original states. While there is no other legal distinction between new states created by act of Congress and the thirteen which together created the U.S. in the first place, the references Zev produces in the second half of his OP relate to Federal acts relative to new states.
One issue would be with “…and parts of states.” Maryland has had specific land boundaries since the creation of D.C., which have essentially remained unchanged (“essentially” to rule out the settlement of any boundary disputes that may have been taken to court). In one sense, this would be the creation of a larger Maryland out of the state of Maryland as it has existed since 1790, plus the retrocession of D.C. adding to it – making the pre-retrocession state a part of (the newly enlarged) state. Against this, of course, is the idea that Maryland has residual sovereignty, having ceded a part of itself to the Union for use as the seat of government.
The basic premise, to me, though, is the idea that while states may be created out of non-state lands (or out of other states either by their consent or out of loyal areas within them while they are in rebellion, using the West Virginia precedent), a state once created may not be altered without its consent – which is given only in the specific instances defined in the Constitution: when it itself consents to the change by legislative act, or when it submits a dispute with another state over boundaries to SCOTUS for settlement.
Can’t we just state the obvious and say that thrusting D.C. on any state is just not a nice thing to do. D.C. is nice in the federal and touristy parts nice but much of the rest of it is a real crime-ridden, politically dysfunctional, shithole and any given body that takes it is going to need a plan to handle everything from crime to a significant increase in law enforcement and social services. DC is a model for what happens to a city (it could be a great city as a whole) when there isn’t a state under its care. Maryland would take on a significant burden if it were forced to take on the undesirable parts of D.C. that were thrust out to it. The integration costs would also be huge and someone would have to pay for that. You just can’t hand that to some body and tell them to deal with it.
It is. That isn’t all bad. My home state of Louisiana has New Orleans. I went to college there and it is a beloved adopted home. It has (had. it is more serious now) an incredible, world-class, chemistry even though the majority of the city was the urban black poor. DC is similar except that the urban black poor are hidden and never developed a culture other than abject urban poverty.
DC is an awe-inspiring city for any national or world traveller as long as they stay in the right areas. It has some great residential neighborhoods as well. However, the under-belly of that city displays most everything that is bad about the U.S. I would say that Mississippi has done a much better job of integrating the poor black population than D.C. has ever done. It just stews there.
It would be terrible to just hand D.C. to any state. They would almost need to assume National Guard presence to get it under control. Otherwise, it would just be a giant money suck-hole for whoever got it.
I don’t know why any state would want it as is and forcing it open anyone would be the same as forcing open the pockets of people lucky enough to get it and humping their legs for a shakedown.
DC should be in the top 3 cities in the world but it isn’t because of monumental corruption and incompetence. Assuming control is too much of a task for any government.
It would not become an adjoining state. It would become a county. The Proposed name is Columbia County. In terms of population, it would be on the small side. Then the people in DC would get the vote and have representation.
Of course, that is not really what the political elites of DC want. They want their own private congressional delegation.
I meant it doesn’t have to become a county in an adjoining state. For political purposes it could be part of any state. Since it’s nothing but a burden it might be more fair to put all 50 in a hat and pull one out.
If Congress invokes retrocession, why should the parts of D.C. given up by the Federal government necessarily become part of an existing state? ISTM that if Maryland doesn’t want D.C. back, it could just become a state unto itself.
Or maybe it could be a territory for awhile first.
Without looking for cites, the population of DC is quite small. The “DC-Baltimore Metroplex” is a healthy-sized burg, but the District itself is tiny in terms of population. It does not come close to being in the same league as a state.
As a Maryland county it would be none-too-important.