Over time there have been several attempts to assimilate the District of Columbia status to the one of a U.S. territory. During the 2016 presidential election the
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser a Democrat up of re-election in November 2018 prepared a statehood package for the District of Columbia. Supposedly this is a new front in the Districts long-running fight for equal rights."
Traditionally
Republicans opine that this would be just more votes in the Democratic Party." This approach was seen by some as precarious vis--vis the almighty Taxation without Representation" slogan. As a presidential hopeful
Hillary Clinton grabbed the opportunity and promised to be a vocal champion for DC statehood.
Lets try to figure out if there is any elephant in the room. On the face value sure why would the DC residents not have their own representatives in the Congress since they dont we all know? pay (federal) taxes go to war and fulfill other citizenship duties. As a twenty-plus-year resident in the District I say: its not going to happen. Not anytime soon.
Here are
several reasons.
-The absence of political will at the top: Washington DC has been a city dominated by Democrats and a Republican-dominated Congress will never allow several Democratic congress people showing out of the blue. In addition Maryland and Virginia Democrat representatives (let alone their Republican colleagues) do not want a DC commuter tax imposed on their own residents;
-The lack of viability as a state: DC does not have the means nor resources to sustain a viable territory or economy in order to protect its residents within its borders; that aside if the new state would exclude a small federal enclave (as proposed in an attempt to avoid a constitutional amendment) this would reduce its territory to a new minimum;
-The inexistence of an independent budget: according to the Article I of the Constitution the Congress has the power to Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over the District. Although the DC representatives (including the current mayor) have threatened to pass budget autonomy laws federal judges have constantly stricken down such initiatives over the years (see in 2014 for that matter) ruling that only Congress can act;
-The absence of such an express provision in the US Constitution: according to the Article IV Section 3 Clause 1 the Constitution empowers the Congress to grant statehood while Clause 2 stipulates that The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting
the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States or of any particular State." (
emphasis added).
First the legislator uses the word territory" but not the word district." Second even if one claims that DC is other Property belonging to the United States" no state can be prejudiced. Originally the DC land was part of Virginia and Maryland. Virginia land has been already returned to this state and Maryland can soon have the same claim if DC pushes for statehood.
Historically the U.S. Congress has followed a standard procedure for granting statehood to territories. The territory holds a referendum to determine the local populations desire for or against statehood. If the majority vote is for statehood the territory addresses a statehood petition to the Congress. Then the two Congress chambers House and Senate pass a joint resolution by a simple majority vote accepting the territory as a state. Finally the U.S. President signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.
For this reason the five U.S. territories American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands have all a clear constitutional path toward statehood provided by the aforementioned Article IV Section 3. The Federal District of Columbia does not have one.
In turn what the DC mayor tries to do is to organize a DC referendum" in November not supported by the U.S. Constitution and to force the Congress to acknowledge it. If this attempt succeeds it will be quickly challenged in court.
The DC administration has tried in the past to promote lawsuits seeking to grant DC residents congressional voting rights (in 1998) or seeking permission to levy a commuter tax on non-District residents (in 2003) but they were all equally unsuccessful.
More recently the DC authorities enthusiasm has been curbed on May 26 2016 when the US Congress House of Representatives voted 240 to 179 to
nullify a DC ballot measure that allowed the city to spend local tax dollars without congressional approval. It is worth mentioning that several Democrat representatives sided with their Republican colleagues to pass the bill.
There is a good reason the District is not a state. The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the District is therefore not a part of any U.S. state. Which means that DC should remain a politically neutral entity. And since its not being forever dominated by Democrats there is no ground to become a state.
The future DC (state) Constitution that the Democrats envision in the future will certainly be a biased organic law with
provisions overtly against the current U.S. Constitution (like banning The Second Amendment legal gun carrying or banning discrimination over employees reproductive decision and targeting the antiabortion groups and other
standard progressive issues regarding legalization of drugs and equal marriage act" to name just a few).
Now the elephant (not the Republican but the Democrat one!) is more visible in the room. What reason might some Democrats have to reignite the discussion about the DC statehood now? That is to press the issue of DC having two senators and one representative for the new administration irrespective of who wins the elections? In such a context two senators and one representative all (perpetual) Democrats will be a major victory for the progressive Donkey fans.
However for those residents who still feel disenfranchised (myself included) there are
several alternative solutions.
-Territory relocation: to reincorporate the DC territory (except a small federal enclave) to Maryland and/or Virginia (as it was before) and increase to 1 (one) the number of U.S. representatives for these states; people would be represented in the Congress House of the Representatives but not in the Senate. Demographically this is a fair solution.
-Federal tax exemption: to declare the DC territory federal-tax free like the U.S. territories; this will give satisfaction for the residents non-represented in Congress plus it will create a boom in the number of new residents and businesses. Some may object that since Washington is a federal district" it should continue to pay federal tax but in arguing so we are back to square number one taxation without representation" dilemma; and for those still interested to recover retroactively the back federal taxes imposed unconstitutionally" they can challenge the issue in court. Fiscally this is a fair solution.
-Granting more electoral votes: according to the 23
rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1961) the District receives three electoral votes in presidential election which makes the District having an intermediate position (by having electoral votes both for party primaries and general elections and a non-voting Congress member) between the U.S. territories (with electoral votes in party primaries but not in general elections and no voting Congress members) and the U.S. states (with both electoral votes in primary and general elections and voting Congress members). Congress could grant DC three more electoral votes in presidential elections (corresponding so to speak to the required one voting representative and 2 senators) doubling therefore the current number from three to six. Electorally this may be considered by many as a fair solution.
NOTE - A version of the article was published previously in AMERICAN THINKER.
Tiberiu Dianu has published several books and a host of articles in law politics and post-communist societies. He currently lives and works in Washington DC and can be followed on MEDIUM.
*****
