Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, the bill which would make a new state out of most of Washington, D.C. Even prior to that vote, there were people proposing the following design for a new flag with 51 stars:
Finally Projected
“Taxation
and Representation” was the title of a blog article I posted back in June
2016. It was partly about Washington, D.C., where, I wrote, “there is taxation
but no representation on the federal level.” I also said, “Statehood for the
District is one possible solution to the problem.”
At that time, I really didn’t think there was
much chance of that coming about, even though most of the D.C. license plates since
2000 have complained, “Taxation without Representation.”
Here is an image of the D.C. license plates issued since August 2017:
The issue is even more than that of taxation,
of course. The citizens of D.C. are denied most of their (small “d”) democratic
rights and privileges. They have no Senators and no voting member of the House
of Representatives.
But, finally, on April 22 the Washington, D.C.
Admission Act (H.R. 51) was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of
216-208. Every voting Democrat voted Yea; every voting Republican voted Nay.
The House vote was in harmony with the results
of the November 2016 D.C. referendum on statehood for the District of Columbia.
Nearly 86% of those who voted approved the appeal for statehood.
Flimsily Rejected
Republicans almost unanimously have rejected
the idea of statehood for the District of Columbia. (Are there any prominent
Republicans who favor statehood for D.C.? I couldn’t come up with any.)
One objection is that D.C. is too small to be
a state. Even George Will began his anti-statehood 4/21 opinion
article by pointing out that the land area of the proposed state of
Washington, D.C., would be only 1/18 the size of Rhode Island.
But why in the world should land area have
anything to do with statehood? It is population that is important, and currently,
D.C. has around 715,000 residents, considerably more than Wyoming (at around
570,000) and Vermont (approximately 625,000).
Will does suggest that D.C. be made a part of
the state of Maryland, which would create the 18th largest state
with a population of more than 6,780,000. But would that be fair to the
citizens of D.C.—or of Maryland?
The size of D.C. measured by population (or
area) is obviously not the reason for the Republican opposition. The main issue
is that fewer than 38% of D.C. residents are non-Hispanic Whites and the 62% of
the population who are PoC vote primarily for the Party that is for greater racial
equality.
Firmly Supported
Last week,
my FB Friend Rob Marus posted this on Facebook: “I have
been, for nearly 20 years now, a citizen of the District of Columbia. . . . However,
nearly 250 years after the Revolutionary War, I am still denied voting
representation in Congress.”
Ben Jealous, who was the president and CEO of
the NAACP from 2008 to 2013, wrote an
April 28 article titled “D.C. Statehood is a Voting Rights Issue—and Racial
Justice Issue.” That is probably a correct assessment of the situation.
That same day, the Montgomery County Council
(in the Maryland county adjacent to D.C.) again passed a resolution
in support of D.C. statehood. The Council president said, “The indefensible
disenfranchisement of 700,000 residents is one of the remaining civil rights injustices
of our time.”
These reasons, and many more, are clearly
delineated on the statehood (dc.gov) website, and I encourage
you to click on and read the content on this webpage: “Why Statehood for D.C.”
If you are in
favor of democracy and the civil rights of all U.S. citizens, as I definitely
am, then you have good reason to be a firm supporter of statehood for D.C.
Of course, one of our problems is that tens of millions of Americans are not in favor of democracy if it also includes rights for minorities.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid you are right, Anton. In his speech Wednesday evening, President Biden repeatedly mentioned democracy--but it seems quite clear that is something his Party is much more interested in than the opposing Party. And, as you suggest, and in spite of what Sen. Scott said, in the Republican Party there seems, sadly, to be a racist reason for not supporting full democracy.
DeleteAnd here are lengthier comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about statehood for the District of Columbia.
"I certainly favor extending full representation to the residents of the District, but there may be some constitutional issues. Article One, section 8, has a provision for establishing a separate district for the seat of the federal government. It does not provide for such a district to be a state, although I do not know if it prohibits it. The other provision is the 23rd Amendment, which gives the District three electoral votes, but no votes in Congress. Will it be necessary to amend or rescind the 23rd Amendment? If so, statehood is unlikely since there are enough Republican-controlled state legislatures to prevent rescission of the 23rd Amendment. If statehood is approved by statute, the statute would undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court, and given its current political complexion, the Court would be likely to require a constitutional amendment. (Please note that I have not read any scholarly opinions regarding this issue, so I may be misinformed.)
"A better candidate for statehood would be Puerto Rico, although statehood may not be in the best interests of Puerto Rico (i.e., residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from federal income taxes). Republicans would also oppose statehood for Puerto Rico since it would give the Democrats two additional Senate seats and about three or four House seats.
"I'm with both the people of the District, who want statehood, in whatever manner that may be achieved, and with the people of Puerto Rico, who should be granted whatever relationship they prefer with the U S."
Thanks for your comments and raising important questions about this issue, Eric. Yes, you are correct that Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution provides Congress the power to establish a federal district to serve as the national capital and gives Congress the exclusive power to administer that district.
DeleteBut that federal district would remain under the Admissions Act passed by the House. H.R. 51 included these words: The new state "shall consist of all District territory, with specified exclusions for federal buildings and monuments, including the principal federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, and the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building."
The Constitution grants general state-creation powers to Congress in Article IV, Section 3, so there would certainly be nothing unconstitutional in making Washington, D.C., a state.
What about Amendment 23? It would become irrelevant and would need to be repealed. As a summary of H.R. 51 states: "The bill provides for expedited consideration of a joint resolution repealing the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution."
As for Puerto Rico, in the 2020 referendum, only 52.5% voted in favor of statehood--a majority, but not nearly the overwhelming majority as in the last referendum in D.C.
Yes, D.C. should be a state! Either that or Wyoming and Vermont should have their statehood revoked!
ReplyDeleteThere is a deep irony in George Will's suggestion that DC be returned to Maryland. Originally DC was a square covering parts of both Maryland and Virginia. Then, for a variety of reasons, in 1846 and 1847 a series of steps completed the retrocession of Arlington County to Virginia. Any time since then, a similar process could have returned the Maryland side to Maryland, as Will suggests. Except now it is a huge political football.
ReplyDeleteWhile being a separate territory made sense at the beginning, the Federal government has long since learned how to work cooperatively with states all across the country to manage Federal facilities in those states. In Arlington, Virginia itself, those Federal facilities include the Pentagon, Reagan Airport, and Arlington National Cemetery. None of that has caused any significant problems. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_County,_Virginia
The current crisis is caused by two overlapping problems, the colonial status of the citizens of Washington, and the horribly anti-democratic status of the US Senate. Since both problems exist, I prefer to make Washington DC a state (although labeled so as not cause confusion with the existing Washington State). I assume if done correctly, the Constitutional Amendment concerning Washington DC would be moot if DC no longer existed. If not, Will's suggestion is better than nothing. It would grant self-determination to the colonial subjects of Washington DC, and it should let Maryland have an extra voting member of Congress. The Senate is a big problem, and it may have to be solved on its own someday.
Thanks, as always, Craig, for your helpful comments.
DeleteConcerning the name, what has not been mentioned yet is that the proposed name for the new state is "State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth." I assume that it would still be popularly called Washington, D.C., although I don't know what the "federal district" that would not be a part of the new state would be called.
To be honest, I hadn't given it much thought, and my immediate reaction when reading the headline was no, they're too small and most of the people there are actually part of the government. I was surprised to learn DC's population is higher than Montana and Wyoming and now can't think of a logical reason why they shouldn't be a State (well other than the illogical political ones you raise). Sad how partisan our political system has become where even democracy is voted on along party lines.
ReplyDeleteLocal Thinking Friend Jim Koger, who posted comments here for the first time, sent me an email saying, "Not sure why it didn't tag my email/name on my post, but just wanted to say I enjoyed your post on DC. Hadn't given it much thought and learned something. Thank you!"
DeleteI appreciate Jim's comments and his email saying that they were from him. At least he was able to post; from time to time some have tried to post and what they wrote just disappeared. I wish there were some way I could make the blogsite work better, but there seems to be nothing I can do in that regard.
Yesterday afternoon, local Thinking Friend Ken Grenz made these brief, pertinent comments:
ReplyDelete"Residents of DC deserve votes and representation. There are ways to accomplish that. Given political groups skills at drawing boundaries, perhaps a new state is the best answer!"
And then yesterday evening I received the following comments from local Thinking Friend Will Adams, who is a retired professor of political science.
ReplyDelete"Of course you are correct that DC residents should be represented in Congress, and the simplest way to do that would be to grant DC statehood. But such decisions are rarely made on the basis of logic and moral considerations. They are made on the basis of narrow political self interest.
"It is unlikely that Alaska and Hawaii would have been granted statehood but for the fact that Hawaii would probably send Democrats to Congress and Alaska would send Republicans. DC is likely to send one Democratic Congressman and two Democratic Senators. So obviously Democrats support statehood, and Republicans oppose it. If the situation were reversed, the stands taken by the two parties would be reversed.
"I agree with your arguments, and I favor statehood for DC. (And I'm a Democrat.) But the arguments you cite are going to have very little with the decision. Relative size of the two parties' Congressional delegations will determine the outcome."
Dr. Adams, certainly the Republican opposition is primarily a political one, and while there likely would not be as much support of statehood for D.C. if that would mean two more Republican Senators, for decades now the Democratic Party has supported and been supported by African-Americans and other People of Color. For that reason, I think the Democrats would largely support statehood for D.C. even if it did not mean a political advantage for them.
DeleteBut this is not a hypothetical situation. Currently, a large majority of D.C. citizens are People of Color and their voting and civil rights need to be expanded and issues of racial justice need to be addressed. And also currently, Democratic senators represent nearly 40 million more voters than Republican senators – but the Senate is split 50-50. Even if two more Democrats were added to the Senate, the 50 Republican Senators would still be from states with a far smaller composite population than the Democratic Senators.
Three Thinking Friends (one local, one from southwest Missouri, and one from Arizona) have "voted" Yes, but gave no reason, which is fine. But here are comments from Thinking Friend Les Hill, who identified himself as living in the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"I vote yes.
"My yes vote does not stand for a party, but simply people. Happily, I would add Puerto Rico making 52 states. But I don't know how to design the flag."
Yesterday evening, another local Thinking Friend responded with two words: "Definitely YES!"
Delete