Statehood for DC?

[Peremensoe]

@ftg

1. Giving such a small population it’s own 2 Senators and ensuing increase in electoral votes (as the statehood case of the OP) is unfair, IMO.

FTR, statehood would have no effect on DC’s electoral votes.

[DCnDC]

@madmonk28

I also would still like to know who in MD said they did not want DC.

Why would they? The benefits are all on the DC side. Thanks to the large Federal workforce living in the suburbs, Maryland already enjoys all of the benefits of DC without having to deal with any of the headaches.

[madmonk28]

@Blaster_Master

…So, in looking at that, it seems to me that they can get appropriate representation in congress without even having to address the issue of whether or not they should or should not be a state. So why not just leave it as it is and give their rep voting rights. And if it’s such a big deal that it would give us 436 votes instead of 435, take that into consideration with the next adjustment after the 2020 census.

A great read on the subject of DC voting rights is Prof. Viet Dinh’s statement to Congress on the issue. He argues (persuasively in my opinion) that Congress has the power now to provide DC with representation in Congress. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Dinh090127.pdf

The District of Columbia as the national seat of the federal government is explicitly created by Article I, § 8, clause 17 (the “District Clause”). This provision authorizes Congress
“[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”
This clause, which has been described as “majestic in its scope,” gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is “sweeping and inclusive in character” and gives Congress “extraordinary and plenary power” over the District. It allows Congress to legislate within the District for “every proper purpose of government.” Congress therefore possesses “full and unlimited jurisdiction to provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end,” subject, of course, to the negative prohibitions of the Constitution.

In my opinion there are many compelling reasons to give DC residents their voting rights and no compelling reasons to continue their disenfranchisement. There also seems to be clear authority given to Congress by the constitution to establish House seats for DC without drafting an amendment.

I don’t understand the reason to slice and dice DC so that most of it goes to Maryland. Even if this was done, there would still undoubtedly be some residents who would fall on the wrong side of the line and be disenfranchised. Proponents of these plans seem to be jumping through unnecessary hoops to pursue a plan that still would end up with some citizens not having representation in Congress. I think a better plan is the one presented by Prof. Dinh, the ABA and Kenn Starr which is to use Congress’ current authority to grant DC representation in the House.

[Peremensoe]

@madmonk28

There also seems to be clear authority given to Congress by the constitution to establish House seats for DC without drafting an amendment.

No. Congress is there given the authority to make law “for” and “over” and “within” the District. Giving District residents voting representation in Congress (without statehood or a Constitutional amendment) would be letting the District, in part, make law for the rest of the country–over the States, and outside District boundaries–an entirely different proposition.

I agree with you that District residents should be fully enfranchised, but it will require either statehood or amendment.

[Leaffan]

@Diceman

On one hand, it seems absurd that the residents of our nation’s capitol don’t have representation in congress, but can you really say that DC deserves to be a state? I have to say no, for 2 reasons.

Just clearing up a pet peeve. You have a capitol building on capitol hill, in your nation’s capital.

[Tom_Tildrum]

The most obvious problem with Prof. Dinh’s analysis is that he’s picking and choosing. If Congress’s plenary authority over the District is limited by the negative prohibitions of the Constitution, then why isn’t it also limited by Art. I, sec. 2 (i.e., “the people of the several states”) and sec. 3 (“two Senators from each state”)?

Further, what would prevent Congress from assigning the District more than one Representative, or more than two Senators?

There are other, more outre objections that can be raised as well. For instance, Congress also has plenary authority over immigration. His analysis suggests that Congress could, by statute, empower resident immigrants to elect their own at-large member of Congress or Senators.

@ftg

The fly in this ointment that I have heard is that Maryland doesn’t want Washington. It’s sort of a basket-case city. Plus the Republicans in Maryland don’t want a surge of Democratic voters for state-wide offices.

It’s not that. Republicans have no influence in Maryland (indeed, the state just gerrymandered its last GOP congressman out of office). It’s that the political power structure in Maryland has always been heavily Baltimore-centric. Dropping in another large, wealthy city creates a huge competing power center.

[Diceman]

@TriPolar

I’m not really convinced, but in the thread on the recent Puerto Rican referendum it’s mentioned that this could be the time for statehood. The Republicans may not fight too hard against it to avoid further alienation of Hispanics as a voting bloc. I don’t think the referendum is clear, but maybe it’s the time for Puerto Rico to go for statehood.

One proposed solution has been to give back the parts of DC outside of the central federal zone to Maryland and Virginia. I think DC residents don’t like this idea because they feel it will dilute their voting strength, but it would free them from the dependence on the federal government that won’t go away with statehood.

It was a non-binding referendum, and given the confusing way it was arranged, I think it’s appropriate that we require the Puerto Ricans to vote on a simple, unambiguous, “Do you want Puerto Rico to apply for statehood?” question before any action is taken.

Getting back to DC, the more I think about, the more I wonder if we really even need a federal district. Why not just give it back to Maryland, and give them 1 extra Representative in Congress who will cover the former-DC area? The federal government isn’t going to grind to a halt if Capitol Hill is located within the boundaries of a state. You could give Maryland a regular subsidy to offset whatever costs it incurrs by hosting the national capitol.

[Ravenman]

I can’t find any cite for Maryland not wanting DC, but it just seems to make common sense. Adding DC to Maryland would have the same political effect of adding another Baltimore, which would be good for the Democratic Party but bad for individual legislators who would see their districts/power diluted. More importantly, DC taxes account for just less than two-thirds of the DC budget, meaning that somebody has to cough up $3 billion each year to close the DC budget gap. Right now, that’s the Feds.

Also, what makes anyone think that DC residents want to be Marylanders just because of this one issue? I think having the DC political identity subsumed into that state the stole the Redskins wouldn’t be very popular here.