DC Statehood
Many DC license plates are emblazoned with the slogan “taxation without representation” and it seems the DC Council wants president Obama to put those plates on his car.
I’d like to see that, too. What I’d like even better is for congress to use its power to admit new states to admit the State of Columbia as the fifty-first state. You would, of course, need to carve out a portion of the existing city to continue serving as the “federal district” and capital of the country. But that could easily be made a compact area around the Mall where nobody (except the President and the First Family) lives and thus nobody is denied voting rights.
It would look something like this:
UPDATE: Initially, I posted the wrong map. My proposal is for a Federal District that would look like this:
For Democrats, this would mean two new Senators and one new Representative. It would also uphold the basic America idea that citizens should be allowed to vote and should be represented in congress. It would be totally constitutional. And though Columbia would be a small state, it would have a larger population than several current states.
Republicans, obviously, wouldn’t like the idea. But I don’t think there are serious arguments of principle against it. Strangely, though, Democratic leaders don’t seem interested either.
191 Responses to “DC Statehood”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The fact that 50 is such a pleasing, even, round, factor-of-ten number makes any new states very difficult to imagine. As stupid as that is.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
And how would you fit 51 stars in a field?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Stupid question allowed?
Why do you need a “federal district” at all? And why no voting there?
Every European capital functions as a capital with a federal government and still people living there can vote. Just what is the problem?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
It would also uphold the basic America idea that citizens should be allowed to vote and should be represented in congress. It would be totally constitutional. And though Columbia would be a small state, it would have a larger population than several current states.
It would also still somehow have 3 electoral votes, unless you managed to amend the constitution while you were at it.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
And how would you fit 51 stars in a field?
Fit 50 stars inside another star!!
December 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I wonder what this would mean for the 23rd ammendment? Would the president and first family alone be allowed to chose 3 presidential electors in each election? This is a somewhat serious question. Because of the 23rd ammendment, DC statehood might actually require a constitutional ammendment ot make sense.
That question aside, conservatives like to argue that DC should be returned to Maryland, though it has been a separate entity for much longer than many states have even existed–almost for the entire history of the country. Statehood is the only resonable course. If a popular politician put some weight behind it, this might actually happen.
But personally, as long as we’re dreaming of electoral reform, can we please have popular election of presidents and maybe a shorter lame duck period?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You would, of course, need to carve out a portion of the existing city to continue serving as the “federal district” and capital of the country.
I see Detlef beat me to the punch. What would be the problem if a number of Very Important Federal Buildings happen to occupy some of the territory of the nation’s 51st state? All states are home to buildings and properties owned by the federal government.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
What I’d like even better is for congress to use its power to admit new states to admit the State of Columbia as the fifty-first state. You would, of course, need to carve out a portion of the existing city to continue serving as the “federal district” and capital of the country.
If you are going to go down this path, why not just annex it to Maryland? They did the same thing with Alexandria 160 years ago.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
And how would you fit 51 stars in a field?
with an asymmetrical layout, just like we’ve done it with all kinds of other ugly numbers.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
And though Columbia would be a small state, it would have a larger population than several current states.
As a DC resident, I wish that were true, but it’s not. DC’s population is only larger than that of Wyoming.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
@jasper
The US constituation requires a federal district of some sort.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“And how would you fit 51 stars in a field?”
Three rows of nine stars and three rows of eight stars. The aspect ratio of the blue field changes, however.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Six rows alternating 9 and 8 in each row–i.e. the 45 star flag with an extra star on each row.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Actually, the 51-star flag problem has been solved.
If the image doesn’t imbed, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_flag_51_stars.svg
December 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
DC
PR
Guam
Samoa
Great Britain
Iceland
all are ripe for statehood
December 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, but this isn’t just about Congress. If DC is going to be its own state, then it needs to have a republican form of government. It will have a governor and a legislature and a judiciary and all the usual executive departments of a state, all of whom will presumably need purpose-built facilities and revenue sources.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m in favor, so long as Arlington/Alexandria get added into the new state and taken away from Virginia. (So it’s the original Federal District, not the current one, that gets statehood.)
And as long as we get an amendment that no one getting a government check that represents more than half their income may vote.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
notchris, you forgot Iraq!
December 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just cede most of D.C. back to Virginia?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
By the way, what is our opinion of the constitutionality of the apparently impending action to grant DC a fully-empowered House member?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It will have a governor and a legislature and a judiciary and all the usual executive departments of a state, all of whom will presumably need purpose-built facilities and revenue sources.
It already has a judiciary and a legislature, and a mayor who would be the equivalent of a governor. Why do they need purpose-built facilities? Why not just turn the DC City Council into the DC State Legislature, the mayor into the governor, and so forth?
The biggest problem, I think, is the stupid 23rd Amendment issue, which is indeed annoying. But if nobody lives in the new federal district, then nobody votes, and the electoral votes aren’t allocated, no?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
This was actually going to be my question - if it’s that easy to carve out a “Federal District” that has no one living in it (and therefore no one disenfranchised), why not just do it, and put the rest of the city into Maryland or Virginia? Then everyone in the city has representation and there’s no fight in Congress over statehood (because, honestly, unless the Democrats were to get to something like 70 Senators, or the Republican Party transforms into something very different from what it is now, I don’t see it happening).
Of course, it may be that neither Maryland nor Virginia want to incorporate “Columbia” into their state. But I never see that idea floated and I’ve wondered for a while now why that is.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
And as long as we get an amendment that no one getting a government check that represents more than half their income may vote.
Wow, seriously? So, er, government employees, poor people, and the elderly shouldn’t be able to vote? Seriously?
December 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
What about Puerto Rico? It has more American citizens than 23 US states, and just as many more Puerto Ricans living in the present 50 states.
8 million US citizens, without a state.
.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
And as long as we get an amendment that no one getting a government check that represents more than half their income may vote.
Heck, why not have literacy tests delivered by the local government? Using Chinese newspapers at their discretion.
You fucking asshole, every eligible U.S. citizen deserves the vote, no matter whether or not you approve of their city of residence or source of income. If you don’t like democracy move to China.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Why do you want to disenfranchise every elected representative and every Federal employee in the country?
That’s kind of sick.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
@Rob Mac
No, the Constitution doesn’t. It allows for it, but doesn’t require it:
Article I, Section 8 states that Congress shall have authority to “[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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”
Creating a small federal district covering the White Hourse, Capitol Hill, and the Supreme Court Building is permissible, but not necessary.
As for the 23rd Amendment, it would be moot if there was no District, but it can also be rendered moot by simple legislation stating that the President (and family) shall be considered a resident of the state where he/she resided immediately prior to being elected/sworn in as President.
Nuff said.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I think that Virginia should cede more of the Potomac counties to West Virginia, which could then also absorb DC. Having DC politicians serving in the West Virginia state legislature in Charleston would shake up the status quo quite nicely. And it would be a surefire way to turn West Virginia blue.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Virginia is irrelevant (except for those talking about bringing Arlington/Alexandria back into DC). There’s no “going back” to Virginia, because all the Virginia land already went back in 1846. That’s why there’s a bite taken out of the District’s 10-mile square. All the current territory was given by Maryland, so retrocession would involve Maryland alone — no Virginia.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Grand Moff Texan,
I am no fan of the colonial “commonwealth” arrangement with Puerto Rico–I’d be much happier with either statehood or independance–but you can’t say we haven’t given them the chance to choose their own destiny. Three popular votes in P.R., and every time, they’ve chosen to reaffirm the commonwealth. I guess we’re about due for another one, but I don’t really doubt what the result would be. Do you?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
the best part of this proposal is bringing better balance to the urban/rural factor. We would then have 4 senators (R.I and new Columbia) that are strictly or almost totally urban to provide some balance to the Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho etc nonsense.
A better solution - not that DC statehood is that bad an idea - would be to bring democracy to the Senate. The SC ruled 40+ years ago on one man, one vote for the states but we still have the Senate where California has the same representation as Wyoming. What’s wrong with this picture.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I think that DC, PR, Guam, USVI, Samoa should be one state.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Presumably the repeal of the 23rd Amendment would sail through once DC became a state. Who exactly would be opposing it?
And the president doesn’t vote in DC currently, so there’s no reason to consider him a resident.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
This one is very nice, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_51-star_alternate_flag.svg
but 3of 8 and 3 of 9 is simple and hardly discernible from the 50-star flag.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
A problem with PR statehood is that it’s an essentially irreversible step, so it would be bad to do it after 52% voted for it only to find that the majority opposed it a few years later.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Think of the electoral implications if the US had made states out of all of the captured Spanish posessions from the Spanish-American War. The Philippines would have something like 100 electoral votes.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
No problem. Just let Alaska secede and the flag stays the same.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The name New Columbia has been proposed for the state, but (1) the abbreviation “NC” is already taken, (2) what’s “new” about it? — it wouldn’t be like other “New ___” states that were settled by people from ___, and (3) people don’t like naming things after Columbus nowadays, what with the colonialism and abuse of natives. I think we’d need something else.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Be realistic. Republicans will block DC statehood because they don’t want Democrats to pick up two lock seats in the Senate.
The compromise is to find a way to create a 52nd state at the same time which will lean Republican. Northern California?
Plus, with 52 states, you can alternate rows of seven and six stars on the flag.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Potentially stupid question: Why not do the same thing, just make the non-federal parts of DC parts of Virginia or Maryland, depending on the side of the Potomac? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable, and less controversial?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
We should really just scrap the whole idea of “states.” It’s an inefficient, outdated idea that does much more harm than good.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It would require the unanimous consent of every state.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Grand Moff Texan,
Huh? 4 million of those Puerto Ricans live in the mainland US, and have the right to vote in the states which they live. It’s only the other 4 million that are denied representation.
A plurality of the Puerto Rican people has rejected statehood in several plebiscites. I’ve heard it said though that statehood might be able to get a slim majority if the US Congress agreed to allow Spanish to be the official language. Many Puerto Ricans are fiercely proud of their heritage and, especially, their language, and I don’t think they want to be forced to give it up.
KCinDC has a great point as well.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I get the feeling that Puerto Rico would already be a state if there wasn’t such an anti-hispanic sentiment in the US. Remember the English as official language movement? And the English only folks? They tend to forget that Puerto Ricans were born in America and largely speak Spanish. So as much as it makes sense for PR to become state #51, it won’t happen anytime soon. If PR became a state it would get a lot of federal money since it is twice as poor as the poorest US state.
Not that this is relevant to the current discussion on D.C. Maybe we should move the US capital back to its original home in NYC? Wouldn’t that solve everything?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The fact that 50 is such a pleasing, even, round, factor-of-ten number makes any new states very difficult to imagine. As stupid as that is.
Indeed. Just merge the fucking Dakotas already and we can move on. Although going to 51 states/stars, as horribly messy as that is, would create jobs.
The other way to go would be to add another state (DC), and not change the flag at all. It’s not without precedent. How many football teams make up the Big 10?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Puerto Rico would make 52
December 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
the founding fathers envisaged the Senate as being a more deliberative body which represented the states. That’s why each state is represented equally with no regard to the population figure. It’s also why, up until about 100 years ago, senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. It’s the US equivalent of the House of Lords.
The House of Representatives is intended to represent the interests of the people themselves.
I have no problem whatsoever with Wyoming or Alaska having as many votes in the Senate as does California. I just wish we could get rid of the Electoral College. It is as useless as tits on a bull.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Benny, the Puerto Ricans themselves have repeatedly rejected statehood. I think (someone correct me if I am wrong) it’s partly because they don’t want to be subsumed into Anglo culture and be forced to give up Spanish. I think also they enjoy a lot of benefits from Uncle Sam without taxation - I don’t think they pay income tax there.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“DC
PR
Guam
Samoa
Great Britain
Iceland
all are ripe for statehood”
Notchris,
I’m sure you’re just joking, but as a Briton and a European, I have to say that I felt a bit sick with what you wrote there. The UK is a member of the EU. I am proud of that. We will not ever be applying for statehood of the US. Please don’t write that kind of thing.
*exhales*
That said, if the UK was a state, with a population of 60 million, wouldn’t it have about 90 electoral votes or something? Considering that the UK is generally quite a lot further to the left of the US politically, I’m not sure what that would do to US politics.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Let’s get rid of Alaska, merge North and South Dakota, and add the State of Columbia and Puerto Rico. That would be awesome.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Puerto Rico is so poor that any extra taxes from statehood would more than be offset by federal spending in PR. Economically statehood would be a win for PR. As we discussed earlier, but for the Spanish language culture it would be a state.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Could some of y’all (john most recently) look at a map before rambling on about giving DC “back” to Virginia? It’s pretty obvious where the MD-VA border was.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
11. And I’ll do you one better in the examples arena; how many stripes are on the Star Spangled Banner flag?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I am not in favor of the United States adopting the policies and practices of the Big 10. That’s a recipe for decline, man.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
SamChevre says:
And as long as we get an amendment that no one getting a government check that represents more than half their income may vote.
Why should that be just for the new state? Do you think we should disenfranchise civil servants, poor people, your grandmother, congress, and the entire military in other states?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
An extra state would have a comparatively small impact on the balance of power at the federal level, but the Maryland power structure would be seriously altered by the absorption of a District-sized city. Why would anyone who currently holds elective office in Maryland go for that?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
nah. they should just make it part of maryland. really, why not?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Hector:
I didn’t mean to suggest that the other 4 million were disenfranchised, I just meant they have no state identity as Puerto Ricans.
.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
December 4th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Many Puerto Ricans are fiercely proud of their heritage and, especially, their language, and I don’t think they want to be forced to give it up.
Why be proud of the language of their former colonial masters? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Ronato,
It’s definitely debatable whether Puerto Rico has economically benefited from association with the US. They do receive US transfer payments, that’s true, but the close association has also seriously distorted the economy. Puerto Rico might be a little worse of in a purely financial sense if it was to be a self-sufficient, largely agricultural republic, but almost certainly it would have less of the crime, unemployment, import-dependence, and drug/alcohol problems that plague it today.
Of course independence is a pipe dream, so I’m not proposing it as a realistic idea….but it would not be without its advantages.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I don’t see why statehood is the only reasonable course for such a small area. I think retrocession to Maryland is the best solution, and I’m no conservative.
If taxation without representation really is the problem and not some sort of city level nationalism, then I don’t see what being part of Maryland matters. Of course you give up power in the electoral college to get some in the Congress.
I think Guam and the Marianas together should either be given statehood or become a county in Hawaii as weird as that sounds. Or put all of the pacific territories into the state of “Pacifica” and let the state delegate powers heavily to its counties.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
There is a fact-filled discussion of the relative benefits of commonwealth v. statehood for Puerto Rico here.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I couldn’t help but think of this. Lord help me.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Jon, I don’t see why area is relevant. We shouldn’t be assigning votes on the basis of acreage.
That said, I’m fine with almost any solution that gives me the ability to vote for a House member and two senators. I just don’t think here are many people in Maryland or in DC who favor retrocession.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
As someone who grew up in DC, it has always been frustrating to me that DC has lacked real representation in Congress. Unfortunately something that seems fairly obvious to anyone (that if you pay taxes you should be allowed representation) is as a practical matter more difficult than it should be. It would require changing the Constitution one way or another. The other more practical difficulty is unfortunately barely anyone outside of the DC area is even cognizant of the issue, they have just never thought about it or heard about it. President Bush was once asked by a reporter about how he felt about DC having representation and he said he had never even heard of the issue. This is fairly common, and if most people are unaware of the issue its really difficult to push for this kind of legislation even if most people probably think its the right thing to do.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I thought Israel was our 51st state.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“I don’t see why statehood is the only reasonable course for such a small area. I think retrocession to Maryland is the best solution, and I’m no conservative.
If taxation without representation really is the problem and not some sort of city level nationalism, then I don’t see what being part of Maryland matters.”
Because taxation without representation isn’t really the problem. Not that it doesn’t bother DC residents, but retrocession to Maryland would obviously solve the problem much easier than fighting with the entire national GOP on admitting 2 Dem Sens and a Dem Rep to Congress.
Mike
December 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So “Taxation Without Representation” isn’t a reference to the District’s longstanding desire to impose a commuter tax?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
onceler, Jon, you haven’t answered my question. If increasing the total votes in the US Senate by 2%, or the total electoral votes by .3%, would be so disruptive at the national level, then what makes you think elected officials in Maryland would stand by while their own votes were diluted by the addition of an extra Baltimore-sized city?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Why not split it into 25 different states? Or 100? Think of the electoral advantage you could lock in for the Democratic party!
I think we see how Matt’s mind works.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Democrats tried to establish voting members for D.C. in Congress recently. It wasn’t an attempt to make D.C. a state, but it was attempt to give them representation.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Apart from the obvious partisan gains in Congress, what exactly does the “statehood for DC” argument offer that the “absorption into Maryland” argument doesn’t, especially if you’re walling off the Mall as a federal zone anyway? It seems painfully obvious that the likelihood of passing a law giving Democrats 2 new senators is infinitesimally small, even with 58/9 senators. Wouldn’t absorption into Maryland solve the same problem with far less work and “political capital” (not to mention without it looking as much like a naked power grab) while being far more likely to pass?
It’s the fixation on DC statehood as the only answer that makes it look like Democrats are merely exploiting this issue for political gain.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This can be solved without creating new states, though a constitutional amendment might be in order. For the purposes of federal elections and representation, D.C. votes with and is represented by Maryland. P.R. and the Virgin Islands with and by Florida, Guam and Samoa with and by Hawaii.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Mark, DC already has 3 electoral votes, so we’re not talking about any electoral vote changes.
El Ranchero, Congress passed a constitutional amendment giving DC two senators in 1978. It just wasn’t ratified by enough states. So I wouldn’t consider legislation impossible. I’m not convinced that retrocession to Maryland is politically easier, considering that it’s opposed by large majorities in both Maryland and DC.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Let the people of Washington vote as part of Maryland. We retroceded part of the District to Va many decades ago, let’s do the same with Md.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Why be proud of the language of their former colonial masters? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
It makes as much sense as most Americans (myself included) being proud of the language of our former colonial masters!
December 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
To everyone replying to the “government check more than half your income = no vote” comment:
I think we all know what he/she intended was anyone receiving gov’t assistance, and not a paycheck in exchange for work. That’s a good idea - why let people who give nothing to society decide how it will operate? There are no responses to this beyond “You must hate your grandma!”
Side note - a lot of retirees would still qualify to vote.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I think we all know what he/she intended was anyone receiving gov’t assistance, and not a paycheck in exchange for work.
Actually, I very exactly didn’t intend that. That’s why I’m tying it to the DC statehood issue, since it has a greater proportion of government employees than any current state.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
People use the phrase “taxation without representation” because it rhymes and because it’s a throwback to the Revolutionary War (why did it become adopted back then? It’s not like residents of London had voting rights, did they?), but it’s not actually important. Taxation isn’t the important criterion for voting. A New Hampshire resident (no sales tax) who lives in an apartment or with his parents (no property tax) and works at a crappy job or is a student (no income tax) might not pay any taxes at all in a given year, and yet mysteriously, he still gets to vote. The important thing is citizenship, or more generally having a stake in society. DC residents have just as much of that as anyone else.
President Bush was once asked by a reporter about how he felt about DC having representation and he said he had never even heard of the issue.
I think you shouldn’t use this as evidence of unpopularity of representation for DC, because it proves wayyyyyy too much.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The whole concept of an independent capital city was so that no one state would be the capital of the other states. Let DC have 1 voting member in the House (get rid of the shadow representative), and let them share/vote for one of MD’s senators, and one of VA’s senators. You get congressional voting rights, we still have an independent capital, and keep the nice round number 50! Plus we can get rid of those stupid license plates…
December 4th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
If we are getting rid of a state, I want to nominate Alabama. The only good thing about Alabama is that it keeps Mississippi from actually touching Georgia.
To the morons suggesting not being allowed to vote if receiving a government assistance check, I suggest you look up “poll tax” and report back to us once you understand the concept. Voting is a right given us in the Constitution. Maybe you all should look that up as well.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Someone said:
I think Barryland is the obvious answer.
The problems with retrogression are: a) Baltimore politicians would never allow it. Bringing DC into Maryland would guarantee that no one north of the Patuxent River ever sets foot int he governors office again. b) Democrats would lose two electoral votes. One of DC’s current three would transfer to MD, but the others would be lost. We can’t have that.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
An extra state would have a comparatively small impact on the balance of power at the federal level, but the Maryland power structure would be seriously altered by the absorption of a District-sized city. Why would anyone who currently holds elective office in Maryland go for that?
The Feds would certainly have to bribe Maryland somehow to get their agreement, but it could be done.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
DCWorker, please try to pay attention: VIRGINIA IS IRRELEVANT. It already got its land back more than 150 years ago. And the point of carving out the federal district is that that would be the capital. The new state wouldn’t be the capital any more than Virginia and Maryland are simply because so many government officials live in the DC suburbs.
Potomac Guy, DC has changed a lot in recent years. Only Ward 8 is Barryland now. He’s not making a comeback citywide.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Sorry. Losing your ability to be a state and the benefits that come from that is the price you pay for living next door to the corridors of power. Having a national capital that is distinct from the rest of the country is desirable to me.
I can never support DC Statehood.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Re: Why do you need a “federal district” at all? And why no voting there?
Every European capital functions as a capital with a federal government and still people living there can vote. Just what is the problem?
I think the rationale was that European capitals often dominated their countries so that the parochial interests of London or Paris trumped the interests of everyone else.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
If the land mass of Columbia was going to be smaller than Rhode Island, and I’m pretty sure it would be, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse would be iffy votes. Just saying.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Just checked Wikipedia and it’s not even close. R.I. is 1,500 sq. miles, D.C. 60 sq. miles. Biggest little state in the union, baby!
December 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I wonder what benefit you think DC residents get from “living next door to the corridors of power.” Are you aware that there is no area of District government into which the Congress cannot intrude, and that we have no elected representative in Congress? For an excellent example of how this plays out, google “Barr Amendment Initiative 59″.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Maryland can be bought off with a “retrocesion” aid package and an extra seat in the house in 2010. The Republicans would be tickled pink to not have to deal with two new Democratic senators, so there is room for a compromise.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Also, if DC residents are “living next door to the corridors of power”, aren’t the people living in the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia? Should they be disenfranchised too?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The 23rd Amendment isn’t too complicated:
“Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Statehood of the population areas makes Section 1 moot, and should be too hard to bend Section 2 with legislation to “waive” the rights under Amendment 23 when there is no population in the District.
PR statehood can happen pretty simply. Congress passes a law that gives PR two simple options:
(a) Statehood
(b) Independence
No third option. Let them make up their mind. If it’s Independence, spin them off. If it’s Statehood, get it done. But it’s really past time.
John
December 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
A plurality of the Puerto Rican people has rejected statehood in several plebiscites. I’ve heard it said though that statehood might be able to get a slim majority if the US Congress agreed to allow Spanish to be the official language. Many Puerto Ricans are fiercely proud of their heritage and, especially, their language, and I don’t think they want to be forced to give it up.
In New Mexico, English and Spanish are both de facto “official” languages. If the Canadians can have an officially bilingual province, why can’t the U.S. have an officially bilingual state?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
51 stars on a flag is easy: 3 rows of 9 and 3 rows of 8. 27 plus 24 equals 51.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Of course Yglesias ignores the 3,999,000 people who live in Puerto Rico, because there tend to be a lot less of the snobby trust fund types there so he doesn’t think they should get a vote too.
I guess its more important to include the 600,000 people of DC who already get tremendous economic benefits from all the government activities located there.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
i’ve always felt that the ideal solution, requiring a constitutional amendment of course, was to give DC one full rep and one (not 2) senator. that way they get representation at both levels, without full statehood. it also would help eliminate ties and the need for non-palin VPs to “preside” over the senate and cast tiebreakers.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Astro, what’s the justification for second-class status for DC residents? It would be stupid to go to all that trouble and then not solve the problem you’re supposed to be addressing.
Ties are not much of a problem, and would come up regardless of how many senators there are, because there are often vacant seats or absent senators (especially considering how old so many of them are).
December 4th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Why be proud of the language of their former colonial masters? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
(1) Then they’d better all learn Chinese–English and Spanish are both languages of their colonial masters
(2) Why do Americans speak English, then?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Presidents and their families traditionally continue to vote in their home states. The WH is not considered their ‘primary residence’ for voting purposes.
A redrawn Federal District that contained no residents except the White House would contain no residents, so nobody to choose the electors, so no electors to be certified… so, no problems.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
And how would you fit 51 stars in a field?
dude, it’s already done[via wikipedia].
or if you prefer something less ordinary.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
A redrawn Federal District that contained no residents except the White House would contain no residents, so nobody to choose the electors, so no electors to be certified… so, no problems.
How hard would it be for a homeless guy who sleeps on the Mall to register to vote in the new tiny DC and choose his two buddies who sleep 100 yards away to be the other electors?
No, if they ever did this, they’d have to repeal the 23rd Amendment.
I’m more in favor of retroceding DC back to Maryland, but I don’t know what the people in Maryland would have to say about that.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
As opposed to the language of their current colonial masters?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Think of the electoral implications if the US had made states out of all of the captured Spanish posessions from the Spanish-American War…
isn’t that one of the news stories from Our Dumb Century?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
btw, Columbia?
it should be called DC.com
December 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
er, make that DC.com 2.0 (beta)
December 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
There are several differences between DC and PR.
PR: US citizens in PR pay no federal income taxes, have no voting representation in Congress and no electoral votes. US citizens in PR have had the chance to vote on statehood, commonwealth status, or independence.
DC: US citizens in DC do pay federal income taxes, have no voting representation in Congress, but can vote for three electors in presidential elections. US citizens in DC do not have the right to vote on statehood.
So, DC residents get three electoral votes every four years in exchange for paying federal taxes, with no ability for a self-determination plebiscite. A steep price economically and politically for three electoral votes.
As for retrocession to MD - not a chance, MD pols would never go for it. Baltimore’s power would be severely diluted and Appalachian MD and the Eastern Shore would be even further marginalized vs. the rest of the state.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
But 50’s such a nice, round number. If you could get Puerto Rico in at the same time, then sure, but 51 states is just crazy talk.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
You can’t subdivide California, under Article IV s. 3 (”New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state;”).
Whether you’d need Maryland’s permission to retrocede DC depends on your definitions of “new state” and “parts of states” in the rest of the clause (”nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”).
December 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Proposed Amendment 28
1. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. Each territorial possession of the United States, and the District constituting the seat of Government, shall appoint, in such Manner as the Congress may direct, two electors of President and Vice President; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District or territory and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
3. Each territorial possession of the United States, and the District constituting the seat of Government, shall be apportioned one Member of the House of Representatives and one Senator.
4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Maureen,
Well, there are obvious differences between PR and Quebec. PR has about 1.5% of the population of the U.S., and Quebec (and New Brunswick, the other francophone province) have about 25% of the Canada population. Puerto Ricans (and hispanophone New Mexico residents) simply lack the demographic weight to get the U.S. to do for them what Canada has done for the Quebecois. While I think it would be right to let PR have Spanish as its official language, if it became a state, that simply isn’t going to happen.
Juanita de Talmas,
Spanish is the language in which Puerto Rican culture developed, and which has developed into a distinct and unique PR accent: it is, simply put, organically part of PR society in a way that English isn’t. What do you want the Puerto Ricans to start speaking- Taino?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
PR has about 1.5% of the population of the U.S., and Quebec (and New Brunswick, the other francophone province) have about 25% of the Canada population. Puerto Ricans (and hispanophone New Mexico residents) simply lack the demographic weight to get the U.S. to do for them what Canada has done for the Quebecois.
Huh? If you are counting all francophones in Canada, shouldn’t you compare to all Hispanics in the US? That would be 15% of the US population, not even counting Puerto Ricans. Seems like some substantial demographic weight.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
A couple of points. Some commenters above clearly get this, but a lot do not: The problem for the long-suffering, tax-paying residents of the capital city is not just representation in the House and Senate, but also the matter of local governance. The “limited home-rule” government that DC has actually has no power of its own. The city government cannot spend a single cent that it has raised by local taxation without a specific appropriation passed by Congress and signed by the President, and any law enacted by the city government can be changed or nullified by Congress.
And regarding the lack of residents in a newly pared-down federal district, and the implications for the 23rd Amendment:
While I don’t believe that the president and his family have ever been DC residents for purposes of voting in presidential elections, I think that quite a few members of the White House domestic staff live in the White House and vote in DC.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Congress actually passed an Amendment in 1978 (with bipartisan support) that provided DC with…
(1) Two senators
(2) Representation in the House proportional to its population
(3) Repealed the 23rd Amendment and pledged to grant DC electoral votes based on its population (the 23rd says DC can only have 3 electoral votes, so even if the population of the city were 2 million, it would still have as many votes as Wyoming)
(4) Permitted the DC City Council to act as a state legislature for the purposes of ratifying constitutional amendments.
The amendment failed due to lack of funding, the Reagan Revolution, and the short-sighted opposition from DC statehood advocates, who opposed it because it didn’t provide DC with unambiguous statehood. If ratified, it would still have left DC as technically just a “federal district,” not a state.
In the end, it was only ratified by 16 states and expired in ‘85 or so.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
And what about Puerto Rico?
They seem pretty evenly split between commonwealth/state but it’s worth a look. Leans progressive too.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Andrew: The DC Voting Rights Amendment, as I think it was called, did nothing to address what I discussed above, which is local governance. Congress would still have exercised exclusive legislative authority, albeit now with a bit of local input. The 23rd Amendment doesn’t limit DC to 3 electoral votes, it gives DC as many electoral votes as it would have if it were a state, but in no case more than the least populous state. That number is currently 3, but it could easily be changed by simple legislation, such as legislation enlarging the House of Representatives, which is long overdue.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hmmm…if Republicans were in a similar situation, I wonder what they would do? Ha, it’d be a state named after St. Ronny Reagan.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Instead of merging DC into MD, how about going the other direction? Northern Virginia has more in common with DC than it does with the rest of Virginia, and I’m sure the rest of VA would be happy to cut loose all us lefties. That gives Virginia back to the Republicans, at the expense of two more Democrats in Columbia. The West Virginia border isn’t that far west of the Beltway; extend DC west to it, with a line across from around Quantico. (Humm, I don’t want to lose the Inn at Little Washington, though.) Imagine a straight line from Fairview Beach (where the Potomac curves around to the east below DC) almost due west to where the WVa border hits the George Washington National Forest and then goes off to the WNW.
On the north, include Gaithersburg, Rockville in Columbia; draw the border over to the Chesapeake somewhere south of Annapolis (can’t really take their capitol) and include the entire western shore in the new state out of geographic necessity. College Park is a problem, though.
(Maybe do something to sort out that strange area where Maryland necks down and then widens out into what should be West Virginia, and parts of West Virginia are EAST of parts of Virginia. Give MD the chunk of WV closest to it and WV the chunk of MD closest to it. Nobody lives out there anyway.)
Viola, a nice little state, good balance of urban and rural, culturally united.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Matt,
Thanks for raising this issue as I hadn’t really considered it before. I thought I would agree with you (and as a Democrat I would certainly welcome the electoral benefits, if they would not be illgotten gains), but after reading the comments I think not. I think I would counter proposal should be to create a much smaller federal district, as you say, but returning DC to Maryland. Is there a “principled reason” against this counter?
I didn’t think so.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Boy, talk about opening a can of worms. Texas is the only state with the right to split itself into 5 states. In retaliation for the DC statehood, I could see my fellow Texans voting to split the state into five states, and then gerrymandering it so every state has a Republican majority. Viola, 8 new Republican senators. I’ve been wondering for a long time when Delay, Bush and Rove would think of this and start the process.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I’ve been trying to get them ratified as their own country, like Africa.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
As a former resident of DC I’ve always believed we deserved either statehood, quasi-statehood (two Senators and a voting member of Congress), or freedom from paying all income taxes at the Federal level.
I still feel that way.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I thought Israel was our 51st state.
No, we are Israel’s 2nd through 51st states.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Sorry if this has been suggested before (don’t feel like slogging through the previous comments)
You don’t need to create a 51st state. All you would need to do is return the portions of DC that were taken from the states they originally were part of. Some DC residents would become residents of Virginia, some of Maryland. Matt’s unpopulated mall vicinity could remain as it is.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I thought that Republicans had already confirmed a 51-star flag.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loudshroom/2829018715/
December 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
NO, NO, NO, you unconstitutionalists.
If D.C. voters want to vote for Congress, the Constitution provides the answer already – retrocession to Maryland.
This left-liberal thinks DC statehood is asinine.
Also, the stupidity level of “editors” at opinion journals amazes me more by the day.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Matt Weiner writes:
[Quoting Sam Chevre]And as long as we get an amendment that no one getting a government check that represents more than half their income may vote.
Heck, why not have literacy tests delivered by the local government? Using Chinese newspapers at their discretion.
You fucking asshole, every eligible U.S. citizen deserves the vote, no matter whether or not you approve of their city of residence or source of income. If you don’t like democracy move to China.
Right you are, Matt! Parasites have as much write to vote as anyone else. And if they vote to take the money away from the productive people and give it to themselves, well, that’s democracy. If people vote to take other people’s money an give it to themselves, why should anyone other than a bigot object?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Glaivester: We understand your point of view, that the untrammeled enjoyment of property should trump every other value, such as hospitals, roads, schools, and the prohibition of slavery, but there are a number of good reasons that modern societies do not organize themselves along the lines you favor. But you have a “write” to your idiotic views. You fucking asshole.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Jeebus H. Christ, there is currently no part of DC that was ever part of Virginia. The Commonwealth got their parts (present day Arlington County and the city of Alexandria) back before the Civil War. \
As for those arguing for retrocession to Maryland, I find it telling that none of you are from DC or Maryland. These places haven’t been one entity since the 18th Century, and they are very different culturally and politically. Unless you think NYC and Philly are similar enough to share a jurisdiction, STFU.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
As for those arguing for retrocession to Maryland, I find it telling that none of you are from DC or Maryland. These places haven’t been one entity since the 18th Century, and they are very different culturally and politically. Unless you think NYC and Philly are similar enough to share a jurisdiction, STFU.
Well . . . yes, Philly and NYC could both be part of the same state if New Jersey were not in between. Why not? NYC and Albany are in the same jurisdiction . . . Philly and Pittsburgh . . . San Francisco and Fresno . . . Austin and Dallas? All of them are, of course, part of the United States, all have McDonald’s franchises, drive Toyotas, and their congresspeople work pretty well together. They don’t sit and stare at each other like Martians and Venusians.
Are you sure you thought this through before you wrote it? Since you are swearing at the other commenters, I’m sure you must have something strongly in mind. What are the differences that would make it impossible for a the city and county of Columbia to not be part of Maryland?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Anyone else notice the proposed federal district resembles a hog’s head. Seems like it just screams what this is: pork.
D.C. does not deserve statehood. It’s one city. And one that would likely be unable to support itself without the immense federal funding it currently receives. I wouldn’t favor giving statehood to individual cities (i.e. NYC, L.A., etc), nor should we do it for D.C.
For people living in D.C. that don’t like this, we live in a democracy so do what other people do in a democracy: vote with your feet and move to somewhere that gives you congressional representation. Stop complaining and just move somewhere else.
And for people making the argument that Puerto Rico deserves statehood as well: get real. The residents largely don’t support it. To discuss Quebec being part of Canada despite the difference in official language is just sheer idiocy. Quebec remains part of Canada for one simple reason: economics. Quebec province holds nearly 1/4 of Canada’s wealth.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
BEHOLD! The 51 Star flag.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Guess the link didn’t work. let me try that again. Ahem… BEHOLD! The 51 Star flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_flag_51_stars.svg
December 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I agree with Anthony - you need to find a 52nd state, a la Missouri Compromise of 1620. Fortunately, there is such a proposal- Jefferson State, which is in fact in the far north part of California and Southern oregon. Seemed loony when the SF Chron talked about it in october, but in this context, almost makes sense…
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
December 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Glaivester: We understand your point of view, that the untrammeled enjoyment of property should trump every other value, such as hospitals, roads, schools, and the prohibition of slavery, but there are a number of good reasons that modern societies do not organize themselves along the lines you favor.
But the point is that to the extent a society is collectivist, it can only survive as long as there are not too many moochers. I’m not against taxes to pay for roads, police, defense, schools at the state and local level, etc.
But we can’t get to the point where more than half of the population is mooching off of the other (less than) half, or else suddenly the politics is all about extracting as much wealth from the productive half to give to the unproductive as possible.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am
People talking about retrocession to Maryland act as though the only problem is that Maryland may be opposed. Certainly that’s true, but historically, the political elite of THE DISTRICT has opposed this. It’s interesting that no one’s even mentioned that or thought about it from their standpoint.
You might say, well isn’t retrocession an improvement? Yet the District has been for decades a majority Black jurisdiction. The Black share of the electorate has been dropping, but historically a big part of the resistance to retrocession was I think the Black community feeling that they would be losing control of an entity that could potentially be a state and even in the current objectionable situation has more autonomy than a county in Maryland would.
Even leaving aside the racial aspect it’s not so hard to understand a local political class not wanting their bailiwick to be subsumed into a larger entity in a way that would diminish their power, although this shift might promise benefits. Such examples are not exactly scarce in history.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am
phil Said:
You can’t subdivide California, under Article IV s. 3 (”New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state;”).
Phil, you most certainly can, the three states, off the top of my head, formed from parts of other states are Vermont, Maine and West Virginia. Everybody concerned has to consent.
The full text of the clause is:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
California wants to slice itself up into ten parts it can. Whether or not those ten parts would be admitted to the Union is another question. New York wants to cut itself free of New York City and Pennsylvania let Philadelphia wander off it can. New Jersey could cut itself in two and the northern half join New York City and the southern half Philadelphia. Or all the parts could become one state……
December 5th, 2008 at 1:14 am
What about Puerto Rico? Are they just a colony?
December 5th, 2008 at 1:18 am
All you would need to do is return the portions of DC that were taken from the states they originally were part of. Some DC residents would become residents of Virginia,
How many times do we have to point out that the Virginia part of this already happened 162 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_(District_of_Columbia)
That is why it is no longer a perfect 10 x 10-mile square.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:19 am
The United States does not, in fact, have an offical language. We use English out of habit and majority rule. If there are enough people in the future that speak a language other than English, it is quite possible that that language will become the common one. So there is no language impediment for Puerto Rico to become a state. But I think they should be forced to choose statehood or independence and nothing in between. DC should be retroceded to Maryland, and let the federal district shrink. I am not positive, but I do not believe that any service, security or government staff (other than the President and family) actually live in the White House.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:22 am
What about Puerto Rico? Are they just a colony?
1. Unlike DC residents, they don’t pay federal income tax.
2. It’s up to the Puerto Ricans. They voted on in in 1967, 1993, and 1998, and each time the status quo was preferred to independence or statehood.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:23 am
As another alternative to placate Republicans:
How about adding DC as a state but expelling California from the union?
Actually, though, I guess Democrats wouldn’t go for that- they’d give up a lot more than they would gain. They would gain a small east coast Democratic state and give up the biggest bloated dysfunctional (and Democratic) state in the union.
I guess it’s back to the drawing board.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am
And then the Northern half of California could be merged with Oregon to form the new state of “But then I got High”
December 5th, 2008 at 1:36 am
It seems like there are two viable options: Retrocession to Maryland and DC Statehood (perhaps excluding some core buildings). Why not let DC vote on it? The point of this is about democracy for DC, so seriously, why shouldn’t the residents of DC get a choice?
I suppose Maryland might have to agree to accept retrocession if it passed. If they don’t approve of that, then DC could vote on statehood vs special district with representatives vs no change.
But how can this discussion have gone on so long without the idea of letting the residents of DC decide their voting/statehood status by voting?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:05 am
MikeD, there has been a vote on it, in the ’80s: DC residents overwhelmingly voted to seek statehood, and approved a constitution.
The only hurdle is Congress. Congressional liberals tried in the late ’80s and in ‘93, the issue actually came up for a vote, but lost in the House by a huge margin.
The biggest issue with retrocession is simply that neither DC nor Maryland want it.
As for the idea that it makes no sense to have a “city-state,” I think that’s a red herring. What, exactly, would the problem be? Lots of countries have “city states” — most national capitals are “city-states” (i.e. Mexico City, Berlin, Brasilia, Delhi,… Canberra is a “national capital territory” but has representation in both Houses of Parliament…). And there’s no reason why we couldn’t have a city-state. We have entirely rural states, like North Dakota or Wyoming. How is that any less “balanced”?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Also, a couple ideas: firstly, about creating a new Republican state to balance out DC, how about Eastern Washington? There was actually a bill in the Washington Legislature a few years back to split the state in two (although admittedly, I doubt there’s much public support for it).
Washington State already has two Democratic senators and is already D-leaning. Eastern Washington would almost certainly vote Republican. It also wouldn’t create an absurdly small state — it’d have about 1.5 million people.
And there’d be some sense to it; there have historically been lots of issues and conflicts between Eastern and Western Washington, which really don’t belong in the same state. You can even draw a really clean dividing line — if you look at a county map of Washington State, the counties very clearly divide at the Cascades.
My second proposal, if full DC statehood (which I favor) fails would be this: retrocession to Maryland for purposes of Senate representation and presidential voting ONLY.
DC could be declared a “federal district” that is associated with Maryland, but remains separate. Congress could give DC residents the right to vote as extraterritorial residents of Maryland (as early DC residents were) for purposes of the Senate and presidential elections.
DC could still be retained as a separate entity. It could have home-rule (which could be assured by Congress making a rule change requiring a supermajority to overturn DC laws), its own administration, and, as a “community of interest,” elect its own representative to the House.
However, it would be considered part of Maryland’s Senate delegation. As a sop to the GOP, have Congress, using Section II of the 23rd Amendment, declare the amendment inoperative, and simply consider Maryland+DC one delegation for electoral college purposes: that reduces the number of Democratic Electoral Votes by 2 (Maryland would go from 10 to 11; DC would go from 3 to 0).
December 5th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Given that such ‘moochers’ represent only a few percent of the population and rarely vote anyways, you have nothing to fear.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:35 am
The African nation of LIBERIA should consider seeking statehood as well. It was founded by African-Americans. Now that slavery, Jim Crow, etc. are gone and we have an African-American President Elect, it could claim its past justifies its inclusion in the union.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:02 am
One reason not to push for the idea is that our agreement to bring Texas into the union gave it the right to split into several states.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:42 am
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Statehood now!
December 5th, 2008 at 5:48 am
* * * * * * * * *
_* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
_* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
_* * * * * * * *
3 rows of 9, interleaved with 3 rows of 8.
_This page is eating the leading spaces.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:07 am
The Google Maps Copy is copyrighted I think you just violated their terms of service.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Frankly, people knew when they first moved into DC at its creation that they would not be represented. Tough luck.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am
If they are made a state, they should pay reparations to the other 50 states for all the money we have pumped into that cesspool.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:09 am
As for the idea that it makes no sense to have a “city-state,” I think that’s a red herring. What, exactly, would the problem be? Lots of countries have “city states” — most national capitals are “city-states” (i.e. Mexico City, Berlin, Brasilia, Delhi,… Canberra is a “national capital territory” but has representation in both Houses of Parliament…). And there’s no reason why we couldn’t have a city-state. We have entirely rural states, like North Dakota or Wyoming. How is that any less “balanced”?
I’m not sure how those other “city states” maintain themselves, but DC has no industry to speak of. I think they maintain themselves by taking in each other’s laundry. Wyoming and North Dakota are close to vacuum, population wise, but they have functioning economies. Alaska is the closest thing to a “welfare queen” among the states, but that’s only because they prefer being a parasite on the rest of the country to paying adequate state taxes.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Ideally I would prefer a binding referendum- Congress could authorize the referendum and bind itself to accepting the outcome. Congress could also choose the options available (seems like Statehood vs Full Representation Without Statehood are the viable proposals) and the method of voting (plurality wins, instant runoff, actual runoff, etc).
As for money, DC will need to get a good share of federal money to run operations that facilitate the operation of the government. The new state would also get property tax from K Street, and could establish a “lobbyist permit” system to make some more money. Also, I think we’re a big enough country with enough other centers of power that we don’t have to worry about the domination by the capital city like Argentina or France.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
OK, a couple of thoughts…
-To the guy who thinks anyone drawing a government paycheck should be disqualified from voting–what the hell are you talking about? Would you like to disenfranchise the entire military as well? Why don’t we disenfranchise anyone who’s work in the private sector benefits from federal help as well: that would include all farmers, ranchers and oilmen drilling on public lands, anyone in the banking and automotive industry, anyone who builds infrastructure for the public good, and all teachers, too. Who’s left?
-On the “benefits” that DC obtains from being proximate to the corridors of power: are you people serious? The District has a higher poverty rate than any state in the union except for Mississippi, an HIV infection rate that rivals many African countries, and the highest infant mortality rate in the country.
-On DC’s population: this is to some extent a chicken and egg question. If DC received full voting rights, many of its current residents would stop claiming residency in other states (a HUGE pet peeve of mine), and the population would increase.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Or… solve the problem by not levying federal income taxes on the people anymore.
Seriously, which do you think people would choose?
I would move there myself.
Screw the vote.
Heartless? Perhaps.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Even the most cursory perusal of the sentiments of the Foundering Farters tells us, loud and clear, the Flounders intended to have a prime number of states. How else can we maintain the indivisibility they were so hot on? Huh?
December 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Congress is given plenary power to allow new states into the union and to administer the federal District, therefore I think it stands to reason that it may provide hybrid structures as it so sees fit.
Congress should pass legislation giving DC residents one of the 435 Representatives. Then, allow DC residents to vote for and be represented by Maryland Senators. This does not affect Maryland state politics, nor the 23rd Amendment issue (keeping DC’s 3 EVs).
I would not admit DC as a state; rather, I would use the possibility as a means to get this legislation passed. I do believe this legislation fixes the ‘taxation without representation’ problem, and is consistent with our constitutional structures.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Then, allow DC residents to vote for and be represented by Maryland Senators. This does not affect Maryland state politics,
These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Plus, I doubt such a plan would pass Constitutional muster.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What I find surprising is how you didn’t include the third branch of federal government in your federal district. The line you drew cuts off at the grounds of the Capitol.
What do you have against our most senior un-elected officials?
As an aside (in case the rest of this wasn’t) Google Street view has a lovely picture of a WMATA Bus instead of a direct shot of the front of the Supreme Court building.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The District of Columbia originally contained three cities (Georgetown, Washington, and Alexandria) and two counties (Washington and Alexandria (now Arlington)). We could go back to that if it would make you feel better about the whole thing.
So your solution is to depopulate 8 square miles of territory rather extend the franchise? You’re a real hero of democracy.
Or you could, you know, just let us tax federal property. The inability to do so is what necessitates the federal payment. I’m sure denigrating entire cities will solve the problem, though.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
the immense federal funding it currently receives
The inability to do so is what necessitates the federal payment.
There is no federal payment. The District hasn’t received a federal payment in ten years.
So your solution is to depopulate 8 square miles of territory
Um, that’s 67 square miles.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The District of Columbia originally contained three cities (Georgetown, Washington, and Alexandria)
At some point, a portion of Anacostia was a separate incorporated city, too, if memory serves me correctly.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:39 am
To say DC has not received any federal money is nuts. Our tax dollars (now fed. money) keeps the city running.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Puerto Rico should become a state , If they vote for it. Guam and CNMI should become if they vote for it; counties of Hawaii with home rule charters including the right to deal with FAA and DOD. When American Samoa wishes to apply to become a county of HI they may petition and referendum.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
They already have a flag design for 51 states. six rows, top row nine stars, 2nd row 8 stars, 3rd row 9 stars, 4th row 8 stars, 5th row 9 stars and bottom row 8 stars. the stars are staggared like the current 50 star flag and would look al lot like the old 49 star flag tha twas in use for one year.
As for the territories, let Puerto Rico become independent. Merge Guam with the Northern Marianas and enter it as one state, the Virgin Islands would have to come in as a single state or perhaps become a county of Florida. American Samoa could either become a county of Hawaii or perhaps merge it back to the independent country of Samoa. I am not keen on DC statehood, but do understand their grievance about “Taxation without Representation” - my solution would be to retrocede most of the district back to Maryland but retain an separate Federal Core and zone it so no one could live in it, except the first family. The new states of Guam/Marianas and the Virgin Islands would be called states and each would get a star to symbolize them on the flag (and yes, there is a flag design for 52 states, so don’t worry). However due to their small populations, these states should have limitiations placed upon them. Perhaps they only should have one senator and one representative, and this will remain in place until the respective population for either reaches 500,000 permanent inhabitants. Once that happens, then the second senator would become a reality.
December 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
It’s great to dream about DC with no Federal taxes, but anyone with even a bit of understanding will recall that the bedrock principle of legitimate government is that “just power derives from the consent of the governed” and the unforgettable bit about inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights. So all the logistical plusses and minuses aside, exempting DC from taxation would still leave a gaping hole in the nation’s longstanding efforts to create “a more perfect Union” based on frequent reference to fundamantal principles, as recommended by the Founders (Madison, Mason, et al.)
Leaving DC without the opportunity to grant or withold Consent over the laws under which we all must live (as all other citizens in the fifty states enjoy) solves nothing, and leaves the power exerted by Congress over the District just as illegitimate and tyrannical as it is now (arbitrary, anachonistic, and artificial provision of the Constitution notwithstanding). Recall that our Constitution as originally written denied these same fundamantal rights to blacks and women, too. We have corrected that over time as we strive for “a more perfect Union.” The task is not yet complete.
December 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Frankly, people knew when they first moved into DC at its creation that they would not be represented. Tough luck.
Oh, that’s right - no one has EVER been BORN in DC….
January 15th, 2009 at 3:07 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
January 28th, 2009 at 10:12 am
DC is not likely to become a state for 3 reasons. 1) DC becoming a state would require an amendment. 2) DC would likely go Democratic year in and year out year after year. 3) You would need a good deal of republican support to pass the amendment.
It really has nothing to do with fairness. And the king-pins that could block the amendment dont believe in fairness anyway. The best chance of DC getting any representation is to do 2 things. 1) Lower the request. Maybe DC could become some sort of ‘federal disctrict’ recieving one senator and one representative. Or allowing DC to vote with maryland on senate races and allowing dc a represenative. Still Republicans are not going to jump up and down to pass this. So it is time to bargain. You might be able to get enough support from Republicans if you put it with an amendment that Reps are likely to vote for. Here are some options: defining marriage as between a man and women, removing the seperation of church and state from the constitution, doing away with the civil rights act, taking away a womens right to vote, making abortion illegal, or relegalizing slavery.
If you’re a Democrat your probably not going to go for any of those options. So most likely DC will not recieve any representation in the near future.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 5:08 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra