Dear Editor,

Once merely a pipe dream among local activists, the cause of statehood for the District of Columbia currently enjoys near universal support within the Democratic Party.

This idea, like arguments in favor of ‘packing’ the Supreme Court, is part of an urgent desire among Democrats to eliminate, before mid-term elections in 2022, what they see as unjust Republican structural advantages. In the Senate and Electoral College, members from conservative, rural states wield what many Democrats view as disproportionate influence over legislation, federal courts and presidential nominations. D.C. votes heavily Democratic - 93% of voters backed Biden in 2020. Liberal activists see D.C. statehood as a way to deliver just representation to a (mostly black) group of disenfranchised voters and remedy the GOP’s ‘unfair advantage’ at the same time; critics call it a cynical attempt to create an ‘unfair advantage’ by tilting the electoral landscape toward Democrats.

D.C. was originally created by an act of Congress in 1790, on 100 square miles of land donated by Virginia and Maryland. In 1801 the District of Columbia Organic Act added more conditions to the District’s charter and placed the entire territory under the exclusive control of the federal government. After the passage of this Act, citizens living in the district were no longer considered residents of Maryland or Virginia, which therefore ended their representation in Congress. 

There are principled arguments for D.C. statehood that have nothing to do with tribal politics. Chief among those is the revolutionary battle cry, “no taxation without representation”. Today D.C.’s population is estimated to exceed 712,000, which is more than Vermont or Wyoming and almost tied with Alaska. (Even more egregious is the case of Puerto Rico which, with a population of 3.2 million, would be the 31st most populous state in the union if granted the charter.) In 2012, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.7 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 other states and the single greatest rate of federal taxes per capita. D.C. residents are only accorded a single non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Supporters also present statehood for the District, where over 50% of residents are black, 9% are Hispanic or Latino and 3% are Asian, as a crucial to the broader racial justice movement. Like the Electoral College, which Democrats perceive as biased toward mostly white, rural voters, the disenfranchisement of D.C. ‘s mostly minority population is seen as further undermining ‘the will of the people’ as expressed by the national popular vote. Most ideas for modifying or eliminating the Electoral College require amending the constitution. Statehood, on the other hand, can be granted by Congress, which last happened in 1959 with the addition of Hawaii.

Statehood advocates still face major obstacles. They don’t yet have 51 votes in the Senate, and as long as that body’s filibuster rule requiring a supermajority remains intact, it will take 60 votes to guarantee victory. The comparison between a statehood bill and the 51-vote passage of the American Recovery Plan is confusing. The difference is that the ARP was a budget bill, and a simple Senate majority, under what are called ‘reconciliation’ procedures, can pass budget appropriations initiated by the House. Statehood can’t be passed as a reconciliation bill.

It would be manifestly unfair for one party to create - by a simple majority vote in both chambers - a durable swing in the balance of power by changing electoral structures that have been in place for generations. The very idea is antithetical to democracy. On the other hand, there is a strong case for full D.C. electoral representation as a matter of justice and fairness.

Which brings us to possible alternatives. One option I favor would be to grant D.C. statehood while simultaneously creating another state with presumptively Republican political affiliations. My recommendation would be to split Texas. With a population of 29 million and the second largest landmass in the U.S. (268 thousand square miles), bifurcation would benefit Texas in numerous ways.  In the tradition of King Solomon, this solution would provide appropriate representation to the citizens of D.C. without altering the balance of power in the Senate or the Electoral College. 

As far as those goals are concerned, my advice to Democrats would be: find a way to attract more rural voters to your tent instead of trying to rig the system. 

Derek Ridgley
Nederland