District of Columbia statehood movement

The U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry has designed this 51-star version of the national flag for use in the event that a 51st State is admitted into the Union.

The District of Columbia statehood movement is a political movement that advocates making the District of Columbia a U.S. state. Statehood would give the citizens of Washington, D.C., full representation in the United States Congress and full control over their own local affairs.

Full statehood for D.C. could arguably be achieved by an act of Congress by exercising the powers granted by Article Four, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, although there is some debate about whether the consent of Maryland would be required.

Advocates

The D.C. Statehood Green Party (formed as the D.C. Statehood Party in 1971 by Julius Hobson) and Stand Up! for Democracy in DC Coalition (Stand UP!), founded in 1997, have been the primary institutional advocates for statehood.

History

Some aspects of the D.C. statehood agenda were achieved with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, passed in 1973 (home rule granted the city an elected mayor and city council). Still more were encompassed in the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which passed Congress in 1978 but failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states to become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The deadline for ratification of the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment passed on August 22, 1985.

Two years later, in 1980, local citizens passed the District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention of 1979 law, calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state. Since that time, legislation to enact this proposed state constitution has routinely been introduced in Congress, but has never been passed.

"New Columbia" is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of the District of Columbia into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses. The Congressional legislation was triggered by the provisional D.C. Statehood constitution that Washington, D.C., voters adopted in November 1982.

The campaign for statehood stalled after the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed in 1985 because it did not receive the required ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states within the required seven years of the amendment's submission by the 95th Congress. In 1987, another constitution was drafted, which again referred to the proposed state as New Columbia - the name is still closely associated with the movement today. The last serious debate on the issue in Congress took place in November 1993, when D.C. statehood was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 277 to 153.

Arguments against

Prior to the District's founding, James Madison argued in Federalist No. 43 that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. He wrote, "but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy."

More recently, opponents of D.C. statehood have expressed objections to statehood on the grounds that the federal government would be dependent on a single state for its security and operations. The new state might enact policies inconsistent with operating the federal government for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The District would be far smaller than any other state by area and the city's population is smaller than many others, granting Washington an unfair advantage.

The newly formed state would also be unique in that interests would be dominated by those of the federal government, which would be the state's largest employer. It would also be the only state to have no rural residents and thus no need to consider the interests of non-urban areas, making the proposal unpopular in states with large rural populations. Some have expressed concern that the newly formed state might enact a commuter tax on non-residents that work in the city; such a tax is currently illegal under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

Finally, the Republican Party would not favor the addition of D.C. as a new state because it would likely mean the addition of two new Democratic senators and one Democratic representative (with full voting rights). D.C. has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election by large margins since 1964, when they gained the right to vote in presidential elections. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party candidate, received over 92% of the vote, and in 2012 he received over 91%.

DC, Puerto Rico, and the Current Debate

With both major U.S. parties in 2012 as well as the Puerto Rican people supporting Puerto Rican statehood, a new political frontier has emerged for DC Statehood. As a practical and political matter, the landscape has not changed much, with neither the Republican-controlled House of Representatitives nor the conservative state legislatures likely to support statehood for DC. However, the situation poses a sort of constitutional conundrum, with conservatives generally voicing opposition on the basis of constitutional issues rather than political ones.

As a matter for constitutional debate, the question of whether Congress can approve DC statehood without a constitutional amendment is far from resolved. Legal arguments on both sides are often championed by organizations that lean left (such as the Statehood Green Party) or right (such as the Heritage Foundation). As noted above, James Madison, in Federalist #43, justified DC's special status by pointing out the need for federal authority over the seat of government. However, the same paragraph of Federalist #43 goes on to explain that the "consent of the inhabitants" would be obtained by virtue of their participation in the government that ceded the District, which occurred in 1790. Further complicating this matter is the fact that the Pentagon, army bases, and numerous other extremely important federal facilities operate within states with full congressional representation, some of them in areas that were once part of the District of Columbia and are now part of Virginia.

Even if Madison's intent were the linchpin of the constitutional matter of whether DC Statehood can be legislated by Congress, this issue is muddied by the fact that the Constitution has already been amended to give DC voters the right to choose electors for president. On the one hand, this amendment seems to supersede the Founders' original concept that DC residents permanently abrogated their rights by participation in electoral processes prior to 1790. On the other hand, the 23rd Amendment complicates the matter of Statehood, because it provides for a fixed number of electors for the District. Current proposals for a "New Columbia" state generally advocate a reduced "seat of government" comprising the capital contemplated under the Constitution (a "seat" quite possibly without voters of its own) along with a new state of over 600,000 residents formed from what was once part of the District. Since the new state would have its own electors, the 23rd Amendment would lose its purpose, thus many say it would have to be repealed or overriden, which could ironically impose a separate barrier to statehood.

The legal and constitutional impediments to separately-legislated autonomy and/or voting rights for DC are at least as severe as those for statehood; in fact, the constitutional path to statehood for DC may be clearer than that of any other bill for voting representation in Congress because of numerous constitutional provisions and precedents regarding states and territories. Thus, although the constitutional issues are unclear, DC residents may be left with the same status, "taxation without representation", even as Puerto Rico moves toward full statehood.

Alternatives

Many alternatives to outright statehood have been proposed. It is possible that the state of Maryland could take back the land it ceded for the District, as Virginia took back the land it ceded in 1847 (present-day Arlington County and part of Alexandria). Such an action would require an act of Congress and approval from the state of Maryland. This would make residents of the District residents of a state without granting the District statehood per se.

Other suggestions include allowing voting rights in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate, to reflect what some view as the uniquely non-state status of the District. This proposal for a District of Columbia vote in the House of Representatives has been passed in the House, but has yet to be put to a vote on the floor of the Senate. This proposal has been cited for constitutional problems because the Constitution dictates that representation must come "from the several states," and since the District of Columbia is not a state the bill would be disputed in court.

A more recent suggestion is the creation of a government district around the National Mall in downtown Washington including the Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court. This government district would be under the direct control of Congress, as the Constitution intends. Because this more compact district would have virtually no permanent residents, the debate about their full participation in the federal government would be moot. The remainder of the District of Columbia could become a city within Maryland or a new state.

License plates

Main article: Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C.

In November 2000, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation". President Bill Clinton had these plates placed on the presidential limousines; however President George W. Bush, in one of his first official acts as president, had the plates removed.

See also

• Washington, D.C.
• District of Columbia voting rights
• District of Columbia home rule
• Puerto Rico statehood movement
• Australian Capital Territory statehood movement