Washington, D.C. Statehood is the Wrong Solution for America’s Federal District

Introduction
My first of many visits to Washington, D.C. was in the summer of 1969. I was eight and my family drove across the country from California.  That family visit made me excited and proud to be an American.  I distinctly remember visiting the US Capitol, where there was tremendous anticipation in the Senate gallery that Vice President Agnew could be coming into the Senate for a tie-breaking vote.  I also remember touring the White House and being amazed by its size and that the president got to live there.  During the 1960s, as today, the issue of Washington, D.C. Representation was in the forefront of many resident’s minds.  This paper compares three possible plans for Washington, D.C. representation: the status quo, Maryland retrocession, and statehood.  It uses the lenses of history, size, equity, and the Constitution to arrive at conclusions.

History Matters
During the early part of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress passed the Articles of Confederation in 1777.   This happened while General George Washington led his desperately outnumbered and under supplied troops against the British. The Articles of Confederation clearly defined the powers and meaning of statehood in Article 2: 
In 1787, the 13 states of the United States of America approved the US Constitution to strengthen and improve the nation’s government.   Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution includes the following section for setting up the formal seat of a federal government:
On July 16, 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act.  This act gave the president (George Washington) instructions to survey and select a site along the Potomac River for the district.  Washington selected and proposed a site approximately 10 miles up the Potomac River from his home at Mount Vernon. The creation of the district required Maryland to cede approximately 2/3 of the total land, and Virginia to cede 1/3 of the total land since it straddled the Potomac River.  The US Capitol was built and opened by December 1800 in this new district as required by law. 

In the mid-1800s, the extremely divisive issue of slavery roiled our nation.  The website virginiaplaces.org describes how the people on the Virginia side of the District of Columbia were concerned that slavery would be outlawed in the port of Alexandria, Virginia.  The US Congress passed a bill in 1846, and the Virginia Assembly had to then agree to take back the Virginia part of the District of Columbia (retrocession).  The preamble explained the justification for this retrocession:
After the Civil War, in 1871, the Organic Act was passed by Congress to govern the District of Columbia.  This act merged the municipalities in the district into a single Municipal Corporation.  It established a governor and a secretary of the district which were both appointed by the president and it created a legislative assembly.  From the Preamble and Section 18 of the Organic Act: From Section 18 of the Act
Three short years later in 1874, profligate spending by the district on public works programs caused the Governor and Assembly to be replaced by a commission appointed by the president.  This was followed by additional changes in 1878 that helped to clean up the financial mess. 

The small district of Washington, D.C. continued to grow under the direct supervision and control of the Congress.  By 1950, the population had grown to 802,178.  As shown in Figure 1, at the same time, Alaska had a population of 128,643 and Hawaii had a population of 499,794. 
When Alaska and Hawaii were granted statehood in 1959, there were 11 states that had populations that were smaller than the District of Columbia.  This “greased the skids” for the 23rd Amendment  which, when it was ratified in 1961, was one of the fastest universally supported Constitutional Amendments in our nation’s history.  The key section is shown here:
As the decades have progressed since the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia’s population has shrunk, while all other states have grown.  In 2020, there were only two states that had a smaller population, and they both have grown by over 60% since 1950.  If past growth rates continue, the population of the District of Columbia will be smaller than any state within the next 30-40 years; and it could happen much sooner.

The final major change to the District of Columbia’s status was the Home Rule Act which was passed in 1973.  With the Home Rule Act, the residents of Washington, D.C. can pass legislation for the district, but all laws are all subject to congressional override.  The key part of the preamble is as follows:
Size Matters
Unlike any of the 50 states, Washington, D.C. is extremely short of land for any growth as evidenced by the fact that its population has fallen since 1950.  Washington, D.C. is so small that it would be the 5th largest city by population in California, as shown in Figure 2.  When considering land area, Washington, D.C. is 17 times smaller than the smallest state of Rhode Island and a whopping 9,355 times smaller than Alaska (whose population has more than tripled in the last 60 years).
 
There are many major problems associated with limited size.  Key functions provided by state and local governments include supplying water and electricity.  Presently, Congress is analogous to the 800-pound Gorilla in the room advocating for Washington, D.C.  If Washington, D.C. were to become a state, it would lose that protection and would be fending for itself.

The most critical function at a state level is the supply of clean drinking water.  Washington, D.C. gets a large majority of its water through the Washington Aqueduct from the Potomac river upstream in Maryland and distribution is done by DC Water.  The aqueduct is run by the US Army Corps of Engineers, but the aqueduct could always be privatized as has been proposed in past budgets.   States frequently sue each other in the US Supreme Court over water rights and supplies (i.e. Texas v. New Mexico and Florida v. Georgia ) and Washington, D.C. would have no special rights if it became a state.

Electricity supply is also of critical importance to citizens.  The District is too small for either solar or wind power generation, or for the addition of fossil fuel or nuclear plants.  Therefore, the district will be beholden to energy purchases from neighboring states.  According to the US Energy Information Institute, “the District of Columbia consumes almost 100 times more energy than it produces”.  Presently, electricity to the District of Columbia is supplied by Pepco  which supplies 312,000 customers in the District of Columbia and 582,000 customers in Maryland. 

Equity Matters
From a presidential Electoral College perspective, Washington, D.C. is one of the three most highly represented states or districts.  Washington, D.C. has 1 electoral vote per 240,229 residents as compared to California which has 1 electoral vote per 726,136 residents.  Therefore, Washington, D.C. citizens have over three times the voting power for president as citizens of California. 

All 435 members of the House and all 100 Senators spend a significant part of the year working, eating and in many cases, living in the district.  No congressional district in the United States would come close to the congressional attention that Washington, D.C. receives.  The addition of a new state would not impact the total number of House members, but Washington, D.C. with its population of 720,687 would barely qualify for a single house member now.  Therefore, Washington, D.C.’s House seat would come from some other state.

The addition of a new state to our union would add two new Senators and would effectively reduce the voting power of all other states in the Senate.  As a Californian, I am obliged to compare the citizens of my state to those of Washington, D.C. to determine equity.  Figure 3 shows how California has 15.5 Million Hispanics, 14.5 Million Whites, 5.7 Million Asians, and 2.2 Million Blacks according to the United States Census Bureau.  If Washington, D.C. were to become a state, its 0.3 Million Whites and 0.3 Million Blacks would have the same voting power in the Senate as those citizens of California.  The Maryland Retrocession approach where Washington, D.C. is re-absorbed into Maryland would be a much more equitable solution.
 
Presently, the citizens of Washington, D.C. are tremendously advantaged in their electoral votes for president. They have a non-voting member of the US House of Representatives.  If any citizen of Washington, D.C. feels so strongly that they need to be able to vote for US Senators and a Representative, they can consider moving to Maryland or Virginia.   The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system provides ample opportunities to commute to work in Washington, D.C. with six metro routes entering DC on the Maryland side, and three metro lines entering DC on the Virginia side. 

The Constitution Matters
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly explains that Congress will exercise exclusive control over all legislation for the District of Columbia.  This was clearly highlighted in the Organic Act of 1871 and the Home Rule Act of 1973.   The Organic Act of 1871 also combined the Maryland part of the District of Columbia under a single municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.  All states in the union relied upon this understanding of the size and contents of the “District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States” when they approved the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1961. 

If the 23rd Amendment did not exist, would Congress have permission to make DC a separate state?  If this were the case, Article 1, Section 8 would conflict with the clear definition of a statehood since Washington, D.C. would not have “sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right” provided to every state.  Could a specific Congress eliminate Article 1, Section 8 through law and not a Constitutional Amendment?   When an enumerated power is defined in the Constitution, it can not be eliminated by law.  Following that illogic, a future Congress could remove the Income Tax for all time by passing a law that the 16th Amendment is hereby eliminated. 

With the addition of the 23rd Amendment, it is clear the Constitution needs to be amended if Congress wishes to return parts of the District of Columbia to Maryland via retrocession or grant statehood.  This analysis has shown that the District of Columbia is well represented by the status quo, and that if any equitable change is to be made it would be the Maryland retrocession approach.  The 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed, and Article 1, Section 8 would need to be adjusted.  In a win-win fashion the Maryland retrocession and elimination of the 23rd Amendment would eliminate 3 electoral votes.  This would increase the relative presidential voting power of all other states in the country.