Conceptually, it does make sense for the seat of the nation to not be within any one state. However, the citizens of DC seem to be under-represented as a result. There are more citizens in DC than Wyoming or Vermont.
Can DC become a state, and if so what is the process?
Posted Dec 13, 2014, 4:09 AM UTC
Just a question from a Brit who's out of the loop on US political structures: Is statehood a necessary prerequisite to representation? Could an amendment grant DC the right to have those representatives without giving statehood? It seems that DC is already a special case in the US, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to make it one in this case too.
In fact, I'm slightly unsure on what a State can do that a non-State can't, in the US, other than the voting/representation...
Essentially, giving D.C. congressional representation would give it statehood. Like you said, there is still a weird technicality that Congress must approve of all D.C. laws and budgets. But lack of congressional representation is usually the main issue.
Now, theoretically, D.C. could get some representation in Congress without getting full state representation, i.e. they could elect a representative with no senators, or one representative and one senator. But this would still require a constitutional amendment and would likely never be passed since it essentially guarantees another Democratic seat.
Technically they do have representation, just not a voting representative. Like all of the US territories, they elect a non voting delegate to Congress who can stand and vote in committees, lobby their colleagues for the interests of their districts etc but not actually vote on legislation.
Congress could reduce the size of the Federal district to only include the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court building, their immediate offices, and maybe the National Mall, etc. Then allow the rest of the city to become a State.
Or the Constitution could be amended to give DC representation in the Congress and Electoral College as if it were a State.
Or amended to make DC a State.
DC has representation in the Electoral College.
But can't have more than the State with the fewest. So if DC technically grew in population to qualify for four votes, if Alaska still had only three, DC would still only get three.
People should never have been allowed to live there in the first place.
Or alternatively, they understand what living in the district will mean in terms of voting. DC is extremely small and I would argue the majority of people who work in DC choose to live in what's technically Maryland or Virginia. Growing up there, I figured we chose to live within the borders of the district and that's what it comes down to.
As u/SebayaKeto said it would take an amendment. As it currently stands the District of Columbia is basically federal property.
Article 1 section 8: "To 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
So in a sence it is owned like a military base is owned. However there have been provisions like the 23 Amendment which at the very least gives citizens of DC the ability to elect presidential electors "as if it were a state". I think there have also been some court cases which I can't remeber, that involved trying to give them the ability to elect congressmen, but I don't think they've had any success. In the end I don't think I'll ever live to see the day that DC enters fully into statehood, however it may gain more rights and good continue to be "as if it were a state".
Edit: mobile formatting
They can elect congressmen but they have no voting rights. There's a female rep from DC that's very vocal on the floor.
I believe the largest opposition to that will come from the very people currently in control of D.C.: Congress.
First, you're adding two very very safe Democratic senate seats and a safe Democratic house member. So you've already guaranteed the opposition of Republicans. Second by making DC a real boy a state the balance of power shifts dramatically toward the state thanks to our Constitution. Given that the state is also the seat of our federal government that would give the state outsized and undue influence over that government.
Could it be done? Sure. Through a simple act of Congress, although some scholars argue that because the Constitution requires a new state formed from an existing one receive permission from the legislature of that state that you would need the approval of Maryland (who donated the land DC now occupies in the first place).
Keep in mind they are not completely unrepresented, thanks to the 23rd amendment they have three electoral votes in Presidential elections.
Given that the state is also the seat of our federal government that would give the state outsized and undue influence over that government.
What would be an example of this?
[deleted]
Given that the state is also the seat of our federal government that would give the state outsized and undue influence over that government.
What would be an example of this?
Washington D.C. as a district is under direct control of Congress.
If it were an independent state, it could coerce congress (or for that matter, the Executive branch), by threatening to exert Eminent domain over the Capitol building, for example, or the White House, and knock them down to put up a shopping mall.
That's an extreme and silly example, of course - but as a state, it would have direct control over the seat of the Federal Government.
Then DC should only be those federal buildings.
Congress was never intended to be in the business of running something as large as the 47th state.
Then DC should only be those federal buildings.
Fine by me. Reduce the land area.
Congress was never intended to be in the business of running something as large as the 47th state.
It isn't. That said, on what do you base that assumption?
It should be a state, and it sucks that it's never going to become one.
I think the solution would be to let DC residents elect a house representative and choose whether they want to vote in Maryland or Virginia Senate elections (which makes a lot of sense if you've ever lived there and see how closely intertwined with the two states DC is).
As for the undue influence Congress has on city laws, development, and urban planning, that unfortunately I can't imagine a good compromise.
[deleted]
Fine, split the population up into 50 groups, proportional to the populations of each state, and add them to the largest metropolitan area in each state for representation. Done.
It would take a constitutional amendment, so technically yes, but realistically no. DC is extremely blue, and the Republicans would never allow it for obvious reasons.
DC was established as the seat of government and NOT a state long before it was blue.
As a district, it gets special benefits from the government.
Yes, but why would the republicans allow it to become a state when you're essentially guaranteeing more Democrat seats in congress? They'd fight tooth and nail against it.
It should not be a state. It's a district. The reason it's not a state is that they did not want any state to have an advantage over any other state by being the seat of the federal government. It doesn't matter if it's a Republican area or a Democrat area. It's about what was intended when it was set up.
Why is this district so large when the feds occupy just a handful of buildings?
[deleted]
Uh...what are those?
Well, off the top of my head one is that HS graduates are entitled to in state tuition to any college in the USA.
I believe they receive substantial monies from the federal government.
They benefit from tourist dollars.
It'd be nice if they, you know, had a State college.
DC doesn't receive more than many other states. Mississippi takes the cake actually, for the highest percentage of federal dollars that make up their state budget.
So does New York City. So do most big cities.
Would it? I don't recall reading any constitutional provision that explicitly forbids the federal district from becoming a state.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
Adams v. Clinton (2000) also established that under the constitution the citizens of Washington DC do not have the right to vote on representatives in Congress.
You would also have to deal with the fact that this would be the exact opposite of what the founders intended for various reasons, something which would strike a chord with many Americans
I'm not opining on the quality of any given proposal, but wouldn't that only require Congress to simply give the land up? After all, the southwestern portions of the district were returned to Virginia without any Constitutional amendments.
I suppose that could work, but the question was about DC becoming a state in and of itself, not joining another
Most DC residents see the idea of becoming a part of Virginia or Maryland as out of the question. They've developed a distinct "state" identity. They don't want to give it up.
Most DC residents see the idea of becoming a part of Virginia or Maryland as out of the question. They've developed a distinct "state" identity. They don't want to give it up.
Is that why the Democrats in the House voted it down last time time DC statehood was brought up? This is a year after DC voted overwhelmingly for President Clinton with 85% of residents voting blue. Only 53% of voters in Arkansas, Clinton's home state, voted for him, which was the next highest percentage of any electoral block. Probably could have pushed it through with the 2009 supermajority too. Or we blame it on Republicans with no base because fuck it.
Edit:Oops
Clinton is from Arkansas, not Kentucky.
Oops, I was reading an article about Sen McConnell while writing this post. You'll find that the 53% figure is the correct figure for Arkansas.
It takes more than a super-majority in congress, you need the states to ratify it too, a process which can take years.