I think all resident citizens* should (so, expatriates excluded). I mean, of course; what kind of democratic republic is it where this is not the case?
We know that Puetro Rico has consistently voted for the status quo when ballots have been taken. But the local sentiment for statehood in DC is overwhelming.
Plus, it’s my understanding that residents of those territories don’t pay Federal income taxes. Not true for DC.
I certainly got my absentee ballot when I lived abroad. If I’m still on the hook for income tax, at the very least I want a vote!
So which congressman do they call when they have a problem?
Plus, the present set-up of DC home rule (which includes the provisions you mention) exists entirely at the whim of Congress. Congress could, at any time, revoke home rule altogether and take over direct control over the District.
In my view, the raison d’être of DC is quite obsolete. The initial idea was that the federal government should be free from pressure that a state government could try to put on it if it were located in a state; it should have its own area controlled by the federal government itself. That makes sense in a highly centralised system such as the early U.S. where the federal level is weak compared to the states, but as of today the risk is not there. Other federalist systems either have their federal capital located in a subnational entity comparable to a state (like Canada, Germany, or Switzerland), or have a federal district with more far-reaching powers of administration than DC (such as Australia, Brazil, or Mexico), without encountering the problems that were the motivation behind the establishment of DC.
The main reason why DC still exists is that it is required by the Constitution itself and that it is therefore awfully difficult to abolish.
That, and Anacostia. I remember about 20 years ago a Maryland official saying he would happily take NW.
I don’t think it would be that difficult TBH. The Constitution doesn’t dictate the parameters of the federal district, so that could be trimmed back to cover only the parts of it that actually are federal properties while the residential areas become (part of) a state. It might be a little geographically messy, but I don’t see why it would be unworkably so.
IMHO (having grown up in PG county) the reasons DC still exists in its present format are, in no particular order:
[ol]
[li]Republicans not wanting to create more Democratic seats in Congress[/li][li]Maryland/Virginia politicians oppose statehood because of the possibility of a commuter tax[/li][li]Racism.[/li][/ol]
The 23rd Amendment doesn’t require that the district’s electors be elected, though. Congress could, in the act ceding most of the district back to Maryland, require that three electors be selected based on the national popular vote. Or something else that doesn’t involve an election in the district.
For those who are interested, here is a paper from a Department of Justice attorney (writing in his private capacity) arguing that the retrocession of the southern part of DC to Virginia in 1846 was unconstitutional because it violated a multilateral contract between Virginia, Maryland, the federal government and private landowners stipulating that the ceded land would permanently serve as the seat of government. It’s quite a harsh conclusion to arrive at after 170 years.
Imagine what that would do to rents and property values. On the bright side, no more poor people!
This has always been my solution. I lived in and around DC for 25 years - and still miss it a bit - but it’s always been in an odd position vis-a-vis representation. I seem to recall there was a kerfluffle about those plates when they were proposed but it blew over.
So yeah, Maryland doesn’t want it and no one wants to give DC full representation in Congress so eliminating all federal taxes inside the District strikes me as a good solution. And holy hell would that bring more jobs in. DC would gentrify overnight.
The whole idea of a capital territory is anachronism, past its used by date, old fashioned… not valid any more…
Just hand it back to the state …
The methods for electing congress and President and so on could do with review too.
Maybe the federal court could rule that the constitution was written before better methods of voting were invented, and before the reasons to make a better system became so important (eg the large 3 states gets 12 , or something, votes for president, but all 12 go to one party or the other ? Its never 7 to 5… its not prorata … ) and so that the old fashioned voting system is merely a result of history, and was not meant to be permanently entrenched… ie if there is a better system, use it… The spirit of the constitution is to be fair… That the amendment won’t pass because the people don’t understand voting systems… (better the devil you know ?)
There’s a political reason, bluntly put that it would just be seen as a blatant punching-down petty “dick move” on their part. Meanwhile letting DC print it and then saying “it is important to hear all points of view” while simply ignoring it as just another part of the landscape, is a more refined way of communicating how much they don’t care.
When the DC locally-elected administration was running the place into the ground in the 90s, Congress did not hesitate to override their fiscal functions through a Financial Control Board. Compared to that, sass on a license plate is a trifling matter that can pass.
Really? Stay away from New Hampshire, then…
And anyway it would be deliciously ironic if that’s your reaction since DC Statehood (or at least representation) is very much an Urban Progressive/Democrat cause.
This is an excellent reason why Wyoming should cease to be a state. We in California could absorb it without a problem.
I also think that California & Texas should be broken up into 2-3 smaller states each, but that’s another debate.
Wyoming has a small population, but is phyically a big state, roughly the same size as Colorado.
Let’s look at this another way: Imagine that today (the year 2015), Rhode Island applied for statehood. I don’t think I’m going very far out on a limb to say that the general consensus would be “Heck No! You’re way too small! Merge with Massachusetts instead!” Connecticut would probably get the same response, and Delaware would probably be annexed into Maryland.
So, why should DC, which is something like 1/20 the size of Rhode Island, and is literally just a city (and not a particularly big one, at that) be considered for statehood? It would be like making Detroit its own state. Ceding the land back to Maryland makes more sense. I do like the idea that the Federal District could be limited to just a few non-residential areas.
If they really do need to dodge the federal electors issue, maybe congress could pass a law requiring that the electors must vote “Present”, or abstain from casting any votes. That would do as a workaround until the 23rd ammendment was repealed.
I wouldn’t have a problem with 2-3 voting DC House members, but there’s no way on earth they should get 2 senators.
DC’s population is 658,000, Vermont’s is 626,000, and Wyoming’s is 584,000. Vermont has one representative. Wyoming has one representative. They both have two Senators. Why would it make sense for D.C. to have two or three representatives and no Senators?
It doesn’t. It also doesn’t make sense to give a medium-sized city 2 senators. Which is why they should just give it back to Maryland, and provide for a representative.
What does being or not being a city have to do with anything? Presumably the amount of representation depends on the number of people. Members of Congress represent people, not sidewalks or fields of wheat or mountains.
Representatives represent people. Senators represent the state as a whole. Which leads directly back to the debate on whether or not DC could be taken seriously as a state. My position is that we don’t need to admit an American version of San Marino or Liechtenstein. DC exists at the convenience of the federal government (unlike a state), and IMHO the most appropriate solution to its lack of representation is to dissolve it.
