# data[].attributes.body
The flaws of the house of representatives, and how they could be a valid argument against DC representation

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rico and other territories, similar to DC, don't have federal representation.

# data[].attributes.body
The founders of the country did not want Washington DC to have representation because they thought it could lead to too much power and corruption.

# data[].attributes.body
DC has a similar status to Puerto rico and other territories, and many use this as a talking point for why DC should not have federal representation. But I think its unfair for all of them to have no representation

# data[].attributes.body
Washington DC needs statehood.

# data[].attributes.body
Washington needs more representation, but statehood is not the option

# data[].attributes.body
Washington DC does not need more representation

# data[].attributes.body
DC doesn't have to become a fully fleged state for it to get federal representation, there are many ways around this, and I think they would be easier to argue for than statehood.

# data[].attributes.body
No other countries with a similar form of government devoid their capital city from representation

# data[].attributes.body
Washington DC is already a privelaged city. It houses the entire federal government, and, if given represetation in congress, would be arguably overrepresented in the house.

# data[].attributes.body
Taxation without representation was the reason that this country was formed, and now more than 700,000 citizens living in washington DC are devoid of any federal representation

# data[].attributes.body
Should DC have more representation in the federal government than it already does?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Debate: NEW COLUMBIA Representation, not statehood, is answer: [FINAL Edition]

# data[].attributes.subject
The Debate: NEW COLUMBIA Representation, not statehood, is answer: [FINAL Edition]

# data[].attributes.body
https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=5165e1b5-41c1-4cc3-bcf0-8713522663e2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A62N8-26H1-DXY4-X4PH-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6742&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=zznyk&earg=sr0&prid=e9a51396-d11b-4a9d-8db7-c4d348f0b732

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

# data[].attributes.headline
"This Might Be the Year D.C. Becomes a State" nyt article

# data[].attributes.subject
"This Might Be the Year D.C. Becomes a State" nyt article

# data[].attributes.body
https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=5165e1b5-41c1-4cc3-bcf0-8713522663e2&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A62N8-26H1-DXY4-X4PH-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6742&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=zznyk&earg=sr0&prid=e9a51396-d11b-4a9d-8db7-c4d348f0b732

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

# data[].attributes.headline
Senator Baldwin, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Grant Statehood to The District of Columbia; Bill would give equal representation to over 700,000 taxpaying D.C. residents; Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) News Release

# data[].attributes.subject
Senator Baldwin, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Grant Statehood to The District of Columbia; Bill would give equal representation to over 700,000 taxpaying D.C. residents; Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) News Release

# data[].attributes.body
https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=cda24ce6-c178-4f16-9374-3958fc7848da&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A67DJ-MS61-DYVR-P2KM-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=468349&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=zznyk&earg=sr0&prid=312fb7d2-41fa-4130-a0c7-cd565714f1b4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

# data[].attributes.headline
Three questions for the “right to vote” amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Three questions for the “right to vote” amendment

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.proquest.com/central/docview/1627685817/73DCCFB35E914D1APQ/14?accountid=11752

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

Left unchecked, this can cause errors on some browsers or result in you returning to the web site you tried to leave, so this page is presented instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

# data[].attributes.headline
House approves statehood bill for District of Columbia 

# data[].attributes.subject
House approves statehood bill for District of Columbia 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.proquest.com/central/docview/2417739769/73DCCFB35E914D1APQ/5?accountid=11752

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

Left unchecked, this can cause errors on some browsers or result in you returning to the web site you tried to leave, so this page is presented instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment

Citation:

Crockett, David A. “Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36, no. 3 (2003): 423–26.

Summary:

The article argues for more of a middle ground approach. It argues that a good solution is to, instead of giving it representation equal to another state, it would give it only 1 vote in congress. This would give at least some representation to DC, without giving it equal representation to the other states. Its Evidence largely points to the fact that the other solutions to Washington DC representation are close to impossible, and supports its claim that a compromise is needed. It argues that representation is needed because, in recent times, elections have been getting tighter and tighter, making DC's lack of representation more and more important.

Response:

I chose this source because it gives an out of the box solution that I never would have thought of, and adds a middle ground to a previously dual sided issue. The strengths of this article are that it explains why a solution is needed in a very compelling way, and it comes up with a compelling solution to a problem that has been the same for at least 50 years. The main weakness is also the solution. It’s a solution that would be great to start a movement, but it’s by no means the final cure for representation in DC.

Research notes:

I found this while looking for sources on Jstor

Link:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649250

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David A. Crockett, Dodging the Bullet: Election Mechanics and the Problem of the Twenty-Third Amendment, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 423-426

# data[].attributes.headline
More DC statehood and its constitutionality 

# data[].attributes.subject
More DC statehood and its constitutionality 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3329772?searchText=District+of+Columbia%22+AND+Representation+AND+statehood&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%253ADistrict%2Bof%2BColumbia%25E2%2580%259D%2BAND%2BRepresentation%2BAND%2Bstatehood&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_phrase_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Adc19e6febab79351746254fd7c640191

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is a preview. Log in through your library.

Journal Information

Publius is an international journal and is interested in publishing work on federalist systems throughout the world. Its goal is to publish the latest research from around the world on federalism theory and practice; the dynamics of federal systems; intergovernmental relations and administration; regional, state and provincial governance; and comparative federalism.

Publisher Information

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Publius © 1979

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When District of Columbia Representation Collides with the Constitutional Amendment Institution on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clement E. Vose, When District of Columbia Representation Collides with the Constitutional Amendment Institution, Publius, Vol. 9, No. 1, The State of American Federalism, 1978 (Winter, 1979), pp. 105-125

# data[].attributes.headline
DC statehood article, both sides of argument 

# data[].attributes.subject
DC statehood article, both sides of argument 

# data[].attributes.body
AT ISSUE: The DIstrict of Columbia: Should it be Admitted to Statehood

Citation:

NORTON, ELEANOR HOLMES, and THOMAS J. BLILEY. “AT ISSUE: The District of Columbia: Should It Be Admitted to Statehood?” ABA Journal 79, no. 8 (1993): 46–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27834919.

Summary:

There are 2 sections to the article. One that is pro statehood and one that is anti statehood. For the pro statehood argument, their claim, obviously, is that DC should become a state. Their evidence for this is that in the past the federal government has tampered with the boundaries of the district, and therefore has some control over what to do with the district, and are allowed, through the constitution, to admit DC as a state. The main claim of the anti statehood section is that DC would just have too much power if it became a state. They use the district clause, article 1 section 8 cl. 17, as an example. This is because that clause was created because of the corruption that happened in Philadelphia and New York when they were simultaneously part of a state and the capital.

Response:

I chose this source, again, because it clearly shows 2 differing viewpoints. This provides a separate argument for statehood, basing it on past precedent, rather than any interpretation of the constitution. I think a robust argument is very important to have so I appreciate different argument points. The strength of this article is that it introduces a new reasoning for why DC should become a state. The weakness, if any, is that it fails to provide any middle ground in between the 2 opposing viewpoints.

Research notes:

I found this by searching on jstor for articles with both viewpoints.

Link:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27834919

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AT ISSUE: The District of Columbia: Should it be admitted to statehood?

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON and THOMAS J. BLILEY JR.

Vol. 79, No. 8 (AUGUST 1993), pp. 46-47 (2 pages)

Published By: American Bar Association

https://www. jstor .org/stable/27834919

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AT ISSUE: The District of Columbia: Should it be admitted to statehood? on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AT ISSUE: The District of Columbia: Should it be admitted to statehood? ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON and THOMAS J. BLILEY JR. Vol. 79, No. 8 (AUGUST 1993), pp. 46-47 (2 pages) Published By: American Bar Association https://www. jstor .org/stable/27834919

# data[].attributes.body
https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=286ece4a-b041-4c88-8dcc-b89b8dc28f35&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A607N-Y4C1-JCCP-0143-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=468349&pdteaserkey=sr2&pditab=allpods&ecomp=zznyk&earg=sr2&prid=14b3dad5-a2a3-4108-b35e-9cb24bd2e395

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

# data[].attributes.body
House Backs Statehood for District of Columbia, but Senate is Obstacle

Citation:

Bibliography

Cochrane, Emily. 2021. "House Backs Statehood for District of Columbia, but Senate is Obstacle: [National Desk]." New York Times, Apr 23. https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/house-backs-statehood-district-columbia-senate-is/docview/2516658100/se-2.

Summary:

This source is also covering the recent fight for statehood in DC. They outline the arguments from both sides. Republicans say that democrats are solely fighting for this because it would ensure more votes for them in the senate and house, while democrats claim that they are doing it for equal representation in DC. Though it did pass the house by a wide margin, the article claims that it is unlikely that it will pass the senate. It’s evidence for this is that many democratic senators have failed to publicly support the bill so far, making it unlikely that they will vote for it.

Response:

I Chose this source because it’s covering the issue in a modern context, and gives fairly equal weight to both sides of the argument. This provides another argument that I haven't heard before, but this time from the republicans. They argue that democrats are solely fighting for DC statehood because it would benefit them. The source's strength is that it is very well organized, and it’s easy to understand. I would argue that it doesn’t have any cons.

Link:

https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/house-backs-statehood-district-columbia-senate-is/docview/2516658100/se-2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

Left unchecked, this can cause errors on some browsers or result in you returning to the web site you tried to leave, so this page is presented instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins Enterprise Authentication - Stale Request

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may be seeing this page because you used the Back button while browsing a secure web site or application. Alternatively, you may have mistakenly bookmarked the web login form instead of the actual web site you wanted to bookmark or used a link created by somebody else who made the same mistake.

# data[].attributes.body
Carper leads senate reintroduction of bill to grant statehood to the District of Columbia.

Citation:

States News Service. "CARPER LEADS SENATE REINTRODUCTION OF BILL TO GRANT STATEHOOD TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA". States News Service. January 24, 2023 Tuesday..

Summary:

The article is informing the audience about the recent attempt at statehood. The article first explains that 700,000 people living in DC all are not represented in congress. It then details the progress of the bill through the house and congress. The article provides evidence for context, explaining that the bill has passed the house a few times, but still likely won't pass through the senate. The article definitely leans towards more representation, which is evident by their constant mentioning of disenfranchised voters.

Response:

I chose this source because it details the present day fight for representation in DC. This article provides me with all of the present day arguments for representation. Though they largely have remained the same, that's still important, because it shows that the issue is still important and hasn’t changed much, even with the constant changing of the modern world. The strength is probably that it provides a very detailed outline of the most recently introduced bill. Its flaw is that it doesn’t represent both sides very well, providing very pointed evidence.

Research notes:

I found this on nexus uni while looking for news sources.

Link:

https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:67D5-HJR1-DYTH-G2CR-00000-00&context=1516831

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_statehood_movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The District of Columbia statehood movement is a political movement that advocates making the District of Columbia a U.S. state, to provide the residents of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and complete control over local affairs.

Since its establishment by the "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, the District of Columbia has been a federal district under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States Congress. It is currently debated whether the District of Columbia could be made a state by an act of Congress or whether it would require a constitutional amendment. Alternative proposals to statehood include the retrocession of the District of Columbia and voting rights reforms. If the District of Columbia were to become a state, it would be the first state admitted to the union since 1959.

As a state, it would rank 49th by population as of 2020 (ahead of Vermont and Wyoming); 1st in population density as of 2020 (at 11,685 people/square mile compared to the next densest state, New Jersey with 1,207 people/square mile); 51st by area; 34th by GDP as of 2020; 1st by GDP per capita as of 2019 (at $177,442 it is nearly 2.4 times the next state, Massachusetts at $75,258); 1st in educational attainment in 2018 (with 59.7% of residents having a bachelor's degree and 34.0% having an advanced degree); and 6th in terms of Human Development Index as of 2018.

For most of the modern (1980-present) statehood movement, the new state's name would have been the State of New Columbia, although the Washington, D.C., Admission Act passed by the United States House of Representatives in 2020 and 2021 refers to the proposed state as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth to honor Frederick Douglass.

In the late 18th century, several individuals believed that Congress needed control over the national capital. This belief resulted in the creation of a national capital, separate from any state, by the Constitution's District Clause, with a maximum area of 100 square miles (260 km ²; 64,000 acres; 26,000 ha) (i.e., based on a "square" where the sides are no more than "ten miles" long).

The "District Clause" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power] 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.

In support of the creation of the District of Columbia, Madison wrote in Federalist No. 43 that the residents of the new federal district "will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them". Madison did not elaborate as to how this would be but even with a then unidentified parcel suggested that the principles of self-government would not be absent in the capital of the Republic.

In 1788, the land on which the district was formed was ceded by Maryland. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act placing the district on the Potomac River between the Anacostia and Connogochegue with the exact location chosen by President George Washington. His selection was announced on January 24, 1791, and the Residence Act was amended to include land that Virginia had ceded in 1790. That land was returned to Virginia in 1847. The Congress did not officially move to the new federal capital until the first Monday in December 1800. During that time, the district was governed by a combination of a federally appointed board of commissioners, the state legislatures, and locally elected governments.

Within a year of moving to the district, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 and incorporated the new federal district under its sole authority as permitted by the District Clause. Since the District of Columbia was no longer part of any state, the district's residents lost voting representation in Congress and the Electoral College and a voice in Constitutional Amendments and the right to home rule, facts that did not go without protest. In January 1801, a meeting of district citizens was held which resulted in a statement to Congress commenting that as a result of the impending Organic Act "we shall be completely disfranchised in respect to the national government, while we retain no security for participating in the formation of even the most minute local regulations by which we are to be affected. We shall be reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation."

Talk of suffrage for the District of Columbia began almost immediately, though it mostly focused on constitutional amendments and retrocession, not statehood. In 1801, Augustus Woodward, writing under the name Epaminondas, wrote a series of newspaper articles in the National Intelligencer proposing a constitutional amendment that would read, "The Territory of Columbia shall be entitled to one Senator in the Senate of the United States; and to a number of members in the House of Representatives proportionate to its population." Since then more than 150 constitutional amendments and bills have been introduced to provide representation to the District of Columbia, resulting in congressional hearings on more than twenty occasions, with the first of those hearings in 1803. At that time, resolutions were introduced by Congress to retrocede most of District of Columbia to Maryland. Citizens fearful that the seat of government be moved asked that D.C. be given a territorial government and an amendment to the Constitution for equal rights. But James Holland of North Carolina argued that creating a territorial government would leave citizens dissatisfied. He said, "the next step will be a request to be admitted as a member of the Union, and, if you pursue the practice relative to territories, you must, so soon as their numbers will authorize it, admit them into the Union."

The first proposal for congressional representation to get serious consideration came in 1888, but it would not be until 1921 that Congress would hold hearings on the subject. Those hearings resulted in the first bill, introduced by Sen. Wesley Livsey Jones (R-WA), to be reported out of committee that would have addressed District representation. The bill would have enabled - though not required - Congress to treat residents of D.C. as though they were citizens of a state.

Congressional members continued to propose amendments to address the District's lack of representation, with efforts picking up as part of the Civil rights movement in the late 1950s. This eventually resulted in the successful passage of the Twenty-third Amendment in 1961, which granted the district votes in the Electoral College in proportion to their size as if they were a state, but no more than the least populous state. D.C. citizens have exercised this right since the presidential election of 1964.

With District citizens still denied full suffrage, members continued to propose bills to address congressional representation. Such bills made it out of committee in 1967 and 1972, to a House floor for a vote in 1976, and in 1978 resulted in the formal proposal of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. But that amendment expired in 1985, 22 ratifications short of the needed 38.

Before the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed, but when passage seemed unlikely, District voters finally began to pursue statehood. In 1980, former Paulist priest and founder of the Community for Creative Non-Violence, J. Edward Guinan, put statehood on the ballot as an initiative. District voters approved the call of a constitutional convention to draft a proposed state constitution, just as U.S. territories had done prior to their admission as states. The convention was held from February through April 1982. The proposed constitution was ratified by District voters in 1982 for a new state to be called "New Columbia". In 1987, another state constitution was drafted, which again referred to the proposed state as New Columbia. Since the 98th Congress, more than a dozen statehood bills have been introduced, with two bills being reported out of the committee of jurisdictions. The second of these bills made it to the House floor in November 1993, for the only floor debate and vote on D.C. statehood. It was defeated in the House of Representatives by 277-153.

Under the 1980 proposed state constitution, the district still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, consisting of two shadow senators and a shadow representative, to lobby the Congress to grant statehood. Congress does not officially recognize these positions. Additionally, until May 2008, Congress prohibited the district from spending any funds on lobbying for voting representation or statehood.

Since the 1993 vote, bills to grant statehood to the district have been introduced in Congress each year but have not been brought to a vote. Following a 2012 statehood referendum in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, political commentators endorsed the idea of admitting both the District and Puerto Rico into the Union.

In July 2014, President Barack Obama became the second sitting president, after Bill Clinton in 1993, to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Asked about his opinion on statehood in a town-hall event, he said, "I'm in D.C., so I'm for it ... Folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else ... They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else. And it's not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood and I've been for it for quite some time. The politics of it end up being difficult to get it through Congress, but I think it's absolutely the right thing to do." D.C. residents now pay more in taxes than 22 states.

There were no congressional hearings on D.C. statehood for more than 20 years following the 1993 floor vote. But on September 15, 2014, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs held a hearing on bill S. 132, which would have created a new state out of the current District of Columbia, similar to the 1993 bill.

On December 4, 2015, the District of Columbia was granted membership in the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, an advocacy group for people groups and territories which do not receive full representation in the government of the state in which they reside.

On April 15, 2016, District Mayor Muriel Bowser called for a districtwide vote on whether the nation's capital should become the 51st state. This was followed by the release of a proposed state constitution. This constitution would make the Mayor of the District of Columbia the governor of the proposed state, while the members of the District Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates. While "New Columbia" has long been associated with the movement, community members thought other names, such as Potomac or Douglass, were more appropriate for the area.

On November 8, 2016, the voters of the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, with 86% of voters voting to advise approving the proposal. Although the proposed state name on the ballot sent to voters appeared as "State of New Columbia", the resolution passed by the D.C. District Council passed in October 2016, weeks before the election, changed the name to "State of Washington, D.C.", in which "D.C." stands for "Douglass Commonwealth", a reference to African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who lived in Washington, D.C. from 1877 to 1895.

In March 2017, the District's congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the Washington, D.C. Admission Act to propose D.C. statehood in the U.S. House of Representatives. In May 2017, the Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate. These efforts were supported by the activist coalition, 51 for 51.

In February 2019, the House Democratic leadership put its support behind legislation to grant D.C. statehood. H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, included a nonbinding expression of support, passed 234 to 193 in March 2019 on a party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

The George Floyd protests in June 2020 brought attention to situations of racial injustice and President Trump's controversial use of the D.C. National Guard (among other forces) to clear protesters from near the White House angered the city government, which, unlike the states in the United States, does not directly control its National Guard. On June 26, 2020, the House of Representatives passed the "Washington, D.C. Admission Act" 232-180 largely along party lines; Collin Peterson and Justin Amash were the only Democrat and Libertarian, respectively, to vote no. It died in the Republican-controlled Senate at the end of the 116th Congress. On January 4, 2021, Delegate Norton reintroduced H.R. 51 early in the 117th Congress with a record 202 co-sponsors.

The Washington, D.C. Admission Act would create the state of "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" (named after Frederick Douglass). As a state, the Douglass Commonwealth would receive two senators and one representative in the House of Representatives based on population. The admission act would carve out a smaller federal district, dubbed "the Capital"; this would consist of the White House, U.S. Capitol, other federal buildings, the National Mall, and its monuments. The bill included a section creating faster procedures for repealing the Twenty-third Amendment, which grants the district three electoral votes in presidential elections. The bill also repeals Section 21, Title 3 of the US Code, dealing with presidential elections, which for the purposes of the election of the President and Vice President, "State" includes the District of Columbia. Were the Twenty-third Amendment not to be repealed, the small district remaining as the seat of government would retain three Electoral College votes; Congress would need to legislate a means of appointing electors, as the amendment requires, with one possibility being awarding them to the winner of the popular vote. On April 14, 2021, the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted to pass the bill, paving the way for the House of Representatives to vote on the bill. The House passed the bill on April 22 with a vote of 216-208.

On January 26, 2021, Tom Carper of Delaware introduced a similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" into the United States Senate with a record 38 co-sponsors. Additional co-sponsors signed on, totaling 45 by April 17, all of whom are Democrats or Independents.

Advocates of statehood and voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as U.S. citizens, the District's estimated 706,000 residents (more than Wyoming and Vermont) should have the same right to determine how they are governed as citizens of a state. At least as early as 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

Under the constitution, Congress has exclusive power to oversee D.C, which has led to tension in how D.C. appropriates its budget and responds to emergencies. In 2016 Congress rejected an attempt by D.C. to gain full control of its budget, which Congress has historically overseen. Muriel Bowser has also argued that D.C. statehood might have resulted in a swifter response to the January 6 United States Capitol attack since state governors have the power to mobilize their National Guard units.

The district's lack of voting representation in Congress has led to the debate on the status of the civil rights of those living there. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home state's Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the world, does not apply if a U.S. citizen were to move to the district, meaning those that move to or reside in the area permanently do not have voting representation in Congress.

Since 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee report has cited the United States for denying D.C. residents voting rights in alleged violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States ratified in 1992. In 2015, D.C. became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

Boston Globe commentator Abdallah Fayyad called anti-statehood arguments "racist", targeting the district's high African-American population. Fayyad noted opponents often implied that Black people couldn't be trusted to govern themselves, for example when they pointed to crime and government corruption despite the same problems in states. A report by the Gender Equity Policy Institute (GEPI) details how the system of taxation without full representation for the district's residents disproportionately affects people of color and women.

Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also have non-voting delegates, citizens of the District of Columbia are subject to all U.S. federal taxes. In the financial year 2007, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.4 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita. This situation has given rise to the use of the phrase " End Taxation Without Representation" by those in favor of granting D.C. voting representation in the Congress. Since November 2000, the standard Washington, D.C. vehicle license plate has featured some form of the slogan.

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 shortly before the end of his second term. However, President George W. Bush, in one of his first official acts as president, had the plates removed. The usage of "taxation without representation" plates was restored by President Barack Obama shortly before his second-term inauguration. President Donald Trump continued to use the plates, though he stated he had "no position" regarding statehood or representation for the district. However, in an interview in 2020, Trump said D.C. statehood would "never happen."

Before the District's founding, James Madison argued in Federalist No. 43 that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states to provide for its own maintenance and safety. He wrote, "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."

The proposed statehood movements address concerns that the national capital should be independent of the states by reserving an independent enclave for the federal government buildings. Specifically, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, the statehood legislation supported by the district government since 2017, carves out an enclave within the proposed state known as "The Capital" to act as the new federal district; this Capital would encompass the White House, Capitol Building, Supreme Court Building, and other major federal offices. However, the D.C. Admission Act would not affect the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the U.S. capital "shall appoint" at least three members of the Electoral College even though it is not a state. The text of the amendment says that the capital shall choose its electors "in such manner as the Congress may direct"; while the District of Columbia currently chooses its electors based on the Election Day popular vote for president, this is not required by the amendment.

Critics such as Hewitt Pate of the Heritage Foundation have argued that the continuation of the 23rd Amendment would create an absurd result because the Presidential family would be among only 30-50 people living in the smaller Capital, giving them a disproportionate influence on the Capital's three electoral votes and thus on the President's election or reelection. The D.C. Admission Act attempts to address this issue by repealing the congressionally established laws that control how the District of Columbia chooses its Electoral College members, but the Congressional Research Service has concluded that even with this provision, courts would likely find that the 23rd Amendment still grants three electoral votes to the smaller Capital.

In addition, the D.C. Admission Act would require Congress to quickly take up the issue of repealing the 23rd Amendment. However, actual repeal of the amendment itself would still require approval by three-quarters of the states after the proposed repealing amendment is approved by Congress, as required by Article V of the Constitution.

Alternative proposals to statehood have been proposed to grant the district varying degrees of greater political autonomy and voting representation in Congress. Most proposals generally involve treating the District of Columbia more like a state or allowing Maryland to take back the land it donated to form the district.

In a process known as retrocession, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland or given to Virginia, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court building. This would require agreement between Congress and the Maryland General Assembly or Virginia General Assembly. If the district were returned to Maryland or given to Virginia, District residents would gain voting representation in Congress as residents of Maryland or Virginia. Retrocession could also alter the idea of a separate national capital as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. However, retrocession is unpopular among D.C. residents.[better source needed ] In addition, the exclusion of small tracts of land as a rump District of Columbia, under any retrocession proposals, would also give the minimal number of people who live on those lands (possibly just those living at the White House) three electoral votes in any U.S. presidential elections, if the 23rd Amendment is not repealed.[citation needed ]

A proposal related to retrocession was the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act of 2004" (H.R. 3709), which would have treated district residents as Maryland residents for congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the district's population. Those in favor of such a plan argue that the Congress already has the necessary authority to pass such legislation without the constitutional concerns of other proposed remedies. From the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in the District of Columbia continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars, therefore, propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district. However, the proposed legislation never made it out of committee and would not grant the district any additional authority over its local affairs.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to grant the District of Columbia voting representation in one or both houses of Congress. The primary issue with all legislative proposals is whether Congress has the constitutional authority to grant the district voting representation. Members of Congress in support of the bills claim that constitutional concerns should not prohibit the legislation's passage but should be left to the courts. A secondary criticism of a legislative remedy is that any law granting representation to the district could be undone in the future. Additionally, recent legislative proposals deal with granting representation in the House of Representatives only, which would still leave the issue of Senate representation for District residents unresolved. Since the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment was proposed in 1978, no bill granting the district voting representation has successfully passed both houses of Congress, though the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 did pass in the Senate in 2009. If a bill were to pass, the law would not grant the district any additional authority over its local affairs.

Religious groups supporting D.C. statehood include the American Jewish Committee, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, the Catholic Social Justice Lobby, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. On June 22, 2021, statehood was endorsed by over 300 religious leaders, including James Winkler, head of the National Council of Churches.

According to the Commission for Statehood, an office of the Government of the District of Columbia, D.C. statehood is supported by American University, Georgetown University, the League of Women Voters, the National Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the Human Rights Campaign, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Urban League, SEIU, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Iowans for D.C. Statehood (a grassroots non-partisan organization dedicated to educating and engaging the citizens of Iowa in the District of Columbia statehood movement)., and many others.

A July 22, 2021 letter to President Biden calling for support of voting rights and DC statehood prepared by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights was signed by 150 organizations including the Children's Defense Fund, Common Cause, the National Association of Social Workers, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Organization for Women, and the Communications Workers of America.

In March 2021, the Federal City Council, a consortium of Washington business and civic leaders that promotes economic development in the District of Columbia, launched a research organization, Statehood Research DC, to provide the historical, economic, and legal details of making the District of Columbia a state.

Statehood is supported by the D.C. Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party of the District of Columbia, and the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The D.C. Republican Party platform says "The District of Columbia must either become a state or its residents must be exempt from federal income taxes."

Democratic presidents and presidential nominees since Bill Clinton have supported statehood, including former President Barack Obama, 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton and incumbent President Joe Biden. The Democratic party national platform included support for statehood again starting in 2016, having been previously removed from the platform from 2004 to 2012.

From the 1993 statehood failure through the failure of the 2009 House Voting Rights Act, neither statehood nor retrocession was a legislative priority by either party. In 2014, Maryland's senators, both Democrats, co-sponsored a D.C. statehood bill.

In May 2017, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate, which led to the first hearings on the subject in years. In February 2019, the House Democratic leadership put its support behind legislation to grant D.C. statehood. Bill H.R. 1, which included a nonbinding expression of support, passed 234 to 193 in March 2019. In 2020 and 2021, the full House of Representatives voted on statehood bills, both approved on party-line votes with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition.

On April 30, 2021, Democratic senator Joe Manchin came out against both H.R. 51 and S. 51, effectively dooming their passage.

The national Republican Party opposes statehood and believes a constitutional amendment would be required for the district to become a state. The 2016 Republican party platform stated: "Statehood for the District can be advanced only by a constitutional amendment. Any other approach would be invalid."

Congressional Republicans have strongly opposed statehood bills that attempt to make the district a state without amending the Constitution first, characterizing congressional Democrats' attempts to pass statehood through as legislation as an "unconstitutional power grab to gain two progressive Senate seats". Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has called D.C. statehood "full bore socialism" and promised to object to any statehood push in the Senate.

The D.C. Republican Party platform says, "The District of Columbia must either become a state or its residents must be exempt from federal income taxes."

majority approve plurality approve majority disapprove plurality disapprove plurality unsure or have no opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
District of Columbia statehood movement - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The District of Columbia statehood movement is a political movement that advocates making the District of Columbia a U.S. state, to provide the residents of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and complete control over local affairs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/us/politics/dc-statehood-vote.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The vote reflected broad support among Democrats. But Republican opposition could stall the measure in the Senate.

Video

Back

transcript

House Lawmakers Approve D.C. Statehood Bill

The House passed legislation that would establish Washington, D.C., as the 51st state. The bill, approved in a 216-to-208 vote along party lines on Thursday, still faces obstacles in the Senate.

"Congress has a choice: It can continue to exclude D.C. residents from the democratic process, forcing them to watch from the sidelines as Congress votes on federal and D.C. laws. And to treat them, in the words of Frederick Douglass, as aliens, not citizens, but subjects end quote. Or it can live up to our nation's founding principles, join the 54 percent of Americans, that is 54 percent, Mr. Speaker, and growing, who support D.C. statehood and pass H.R. 51." "Let's be clear what H.R. 51 is all about. It's about Democrats adding two new progressive U.S. senators to push a radical agenda championed by 'The Squad' to reshape America into the socialist utopia they always talk about." The real power grab is denying 712,000 taxpaying American citizens the right to vote. That's the power grab. This isn't about politics. It's a fundamental voting and civil rights issue." "Our founders got it right. This measure gets it wrong. If D.C. surrenders the special status of our federal district and instead becomes one of 51 equals, why should it enjoy all the benefits also being the federal district?" "On this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are 208. The bill is passed."

The House passed legislation that would establish Washington, D.C., as the 51st state. The bill, approved in a 216-to-208 vote along party lines on Thursday, still faces obstacles in the Senate. Credit Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The House voted along party lines on Thursday to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., as Democrats moved to use their congressional majority to accomplish a long-held goal that has become a central plank in the party's push to expand voting rights and address racial inequity.

The legislation would establish a 51st state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth - in honor of Frederick Douglass, the Black emancipation and civil rights leader - while leaving the National Mall, Capitol Hill, the White House and some other federal property under congressional control. The new state would have a single voting representative in the House and two senators representing its more than 700,000 residents, most of whom are people of color.

The House passed the statehood legislation last year over united G.O.P. opposition, but it died in the Senate, where Republicans who controlled the chamber at the time declined to consider it. On Thursday, House Republicans againuniformly opposed the legislation, calling it an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats.

"Congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass H.R. 51," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's nonvoting House delegate, using the legislation's symbolic designation to reflect the new state.

Ms. Norton has championed the legislation, but could not vote on the bill she wrote. "This country was founded on the principles of 'no taxation without representation' and consent of the governed, but D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they, as American citizens, must live," she said.

The vote in the House was 216 to 208.The White House confirmed President Biden's support for the measure this week, with the Office of Management of Budget issuing a statement of administration policy declaring that making the District of Columbia a state would "make our union stronger and more just."

But even with Democrats now in control of a 50-to-50 Senate, prospects for the measure remain dim. A few Senate Democrats have not publicly endorsed the proposal, and advancing it would most likely require at least 10 Republicans to vote in support, while none have said they would.

Momentum for statehood has skyrocketed in recent years, as proponents have highlighted how much control the federal government wields over the nation's capital and how the disenfranchisement of its residents disproportionately affects voters of color.

Backlash over the violent removal of protesters outside the White House during demonstrations against police brutality galvanized the movement. A decision to treat the District of Columbia as a territory when initially distributing state pandemic relief in 2020 also shortchanged the local government more than $700 million, local officials have said.

On Thursday, lawmakers pointed to the deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6, in which Washington's Metropolitan Police Department helped respond to the chaos, as further evidence of the need for statehood. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser could not swiftly summon the National Guard, as a governor could have, and officials have acknowledged that the delay in sending troops contributed to the devastation at the Capitol.

"Statehood for the District of Columbia is about showing respect for our democracy, for the American people and for our Constitution," Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said on the House floor on Thursday. "For more than two centuries, the people in Washington, D.C., have been denied their right to fully participate in our and their democracy."

Republicans have mounted a fierce campaign against the legislation, insisting it was not about equal representation, but ensuring that Democrats would secure three reliable votes - two in the Senate and one in the House - and pad their slim margins in both chambers. During an hour of debate, several Republican lawmakers criticized the bill as an unconstitutional affront to what the country's founders intended when they established the nation's capital.

"They never wanted the seat of our government to be a state, and they specifically framed the Constitution to say so," said Representative Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia. "And yet, what the Democrats really are trying to do, that they will not admit, is gaining even more representation by creating a city-state whereby they get two more senators."

Other Republicans have pushed for retroceding the nation's capital into Maryland as a solution to ensure representation, a suggestion that has been repeatedly rejected by both Washingtonians and Marylanders.

"Instead of jumping to full-fledged statehood - which would conveniently add two brand-new Democrats to the U.S. Senate - we should address the underlying issue, which is representation," Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, said in a statement before the vote.

He said he would be open to giving Ms. Norton, or her successor, full voting rights on the House floor. "Let's respect the institutions of our democracy and have real conversations about fair congressional representation for the District of Columbia," he said.

Some proponents of statehood have begun pushing for the bill to be incorporated in sweeping legislation to expand voting rights and overhaul national elections, which Democrats have staked out as a top priority. They have also mapped out plans to pressure the handful of Senate Democrats who have not endorsed the legislation.

"We cannot allow D.C. statehood to become the next bill in a long line of civil rights legislation killed by the filibuster," said Stasha Rhodes, a campaign director for the pro-statehood coalition 51 for 51. "Equal representation in Congress for more than 700,000 mostly Black and brown Washingtonians is a critical voting rights issue, and it's no longer enough for Congress to support or talk about democracy reforms while leaving D.C. statehood on the legislative back burner."

A group of House Democrats gathered for a news conference on Thursday to call on their Senate counterparts to abolish the filibuster, as many of their legislative ambitions are doomed to fall short of the 60-vote supermajority threshold needed to advance bills. They are continuing to send legislative priorities to the Senate's doorstep, in a bid to ramp up pressure on moderate Democrats who remain reluctant to do away with the blocking tactic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House Approves D.C. Statehood, but Senate Obstacles Remain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The vote reflected broad support among Democrats. But Republican opposition could stall the measure in the Senate. WASHINGTON - The House voted along party lines on Thursday to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., as Democrats moved to use their congressional majority to accomplish a long-held goal that has become a central plank in the party's push to expand voting rights and address racial inequity.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitution.org twenty third amendment

Citation:

“The Twenty-Third Amendment.” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Accessed April 9, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxiii/interpretations/155.

Summary:

The 23rd amendment granted the right to vote to the citizens of DC, but made no changes to its status in congress. The more liberal of the 2 interpretations argues that, in all the democracies in the world, we are the only one where our capital city is not represented fully. Also, in the constitution, there is no implicit or explicit wording to suggest that the citizens of DC should not be represented equally. The more conservative interpretation of the amendment and constitution argues that DC is actually over represented in many ways, and that giving it representation in congress would make it too powerful. Also, territories like Puerto Rico have the same problem with representation in congress.

Response:

I chose this source because it clearly includes both interpretations of the constitution and provides good background for the amendment itself. This gives me an insight into most of the arguments for both sides, which is incredibly useful because I came into this project trying to have an open mind. The strengths are that it provides an incredibly unbiased take on the issue. The con is that though the 23rd amendment is incredibly relevant in the debate for DC representation, it still isn’t an article on the issue itself, rather an article on one part of the issue. This source is pretty removed from the other sources.

Research notes:

Me and Ms. Westcot found this source in our first meeting.

Link:

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxiii/interpretations/155

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress passed the Twenty-Third Amendment on June 16, 1960. The proposed amendment was quickly ratified as part of the Constitution. On March 29, 1961, Ohio became the thirty-eighth State to approve the Amendment, thereby fulfilling the Constitution's Article V requirement that amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the States. Six months later, Congress exercised its power under Section 2 of the Amendment to enact Public Law No. 87-389, establishing the mechanics of presidential election in the District of Columbia. After its ratification, two more States ratified the Amendment.

The Amendment allows American citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for presidential electors, who in turn vote in the Electoral College for President and Vice President. In layperson's terms, the Amendment means that residents of the District are able to vote for President and Vice President. Prior to the Amendment, citizens residing in the District could not vote for those offices unless they were validly registered to vote in one of the States.

Congress ultimately controls the District, but has allowed it a degree of self-rule. The Seat of Government Clause of the 1787 Constitution, which provided for the establishment of the District, grants Congress exclusive power to govern the District. Over the years, most recently pursuant to the 1973 Home Rule Act, Congress has exercised that power to extend to the District a measure of autonomy, including the power to elect a Mayor and a Council.

Since its creation, the District has sometimes been treated like a State. The District is deemed to be a State for the purpose of levying and collecting federal and local taxes, for service in the armed forces, for diversity jurisdiction, and for regulating commerce. But it still remains that, at present, the District is not considered a State for purposes of congressional representation. Nothing in the Twenty-Third Amendment changes that: the Amendment neither grants the District statehood, nor does it provide residents with representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives, though, by congressional legislation, residents have long had the right to elect a non-voting delegate to the House.

In 1978, Congress adopted "The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment," which provided for the District of Columbia to "be treated as though it were a State." The proposed amendment would have given the District seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Only 16 of the 38 States needed for ratification approved the proposed amendment before the seven-year period open for ratification expired.

There are two important points to consider about the Twenty-Third Amendment: The first and perhaps most crucial, as Rep. Jamin Raskin writes, is that "we are the only nation on earth that disenfranchises the people of its capital city." This fact, which places us entirely outside the norms of other democracies, is neither a natural consequence of our federated political structure, nor the implicit, much less explicit, intent of the Framers of the Constitution. The second and no less significant point to bear in mind is that the people of the District of Columbia were not always second-class citizens. For a while after Virginia and Maryland ceded land to the federal government to form the District, residents living within the geographical boundaries of the District did vote in the elections of federal officers for Virginia and Maryland.

A federated political system is usually understood to consist of "a national polity with dual or multiple levels of government, each exercising exclusive authority over constitutionally determined policy and/or geographical areas, but in which only one level of government-the central government-is internationally sovereign." By that definition, at least 24 of the world's 193 countries have federal political systems. The capitals for these 24 states fall along three main categories: 1) capital as city-state; 2) capital within a state or province; and 3) a federal district or territory. Today, the capitals of 11 of the 24 federated systems essentially accord with the third or D.C. model of a federal district or territory; in every single one, save D.C., residents of the capital enjoy full political franchise and legislative representation.

The language of the final Seat of Government Clause that was adopted at the 1787 Constitutional Convention set out the parameters of the Nation's Capital but intentionally did not set its location, so as not to offend New York or Philadelphia, which remained options. The debate surrounding the Clause indicates that the Framers intended to insulate the Federal Government from the influence of any one state but nothing in those debates settled the question of representation for residents of the District. In fact, as far as we can tell, as Judge Oberdorfer of the D.C. District Court wrote, "delegates to the Convention discussed and adopted the Seat of Government clause, and the remainder of the Constitution, without any recorded debate on its implications for the voting, representation or any other rights of the inhabitants of federal enclaves, including the yet-to-be-selected Seat of Government." Adams v. Clinton (D.D.C. 2000). In July 1790, Congress enacted the Residence Act, establishing the location and size of the District and the President's duties within it. But again, there is no evidence in the Act that the early Congress considered or discussed the consequences the Clause or Act would have (or should have) on the voting rights of the District's inhabitants.

One not insignificant piece of evidence that the denial of full representation to District residents is not the natural state of things is that, after Virginia and Maryland ceded land to the federal government and the District's boundaries were formally drawn in 1791, District residents continued to vote for members of the House representing Virginia and Maryland. The practice would continue for a decade until Congress adopted the Organic Act in 1801 and assumed full authority over District government. The point, of course, is not that today's District residents should be split up to vote in Virginia or Maryland federal elections according to pre-ceded geographical lines, but rather that there is precedent for residents of the District being represented in Congress without it resulting in irreparable harm to the republic.

The claim that District residents do not have (and should not have) full representation in Congress tends to rest on the meaning of the word "state" as it is used in the Constitution. For example, with respect to the House of Representatives, the argument goes: 1) the right of any citizen to full House representation rests exclusively in Article I; 2) Article I provides that only qualified citizens have the right to be represented in the House of Representatives; 3) a citizen is qualified under Article I if he or she is a resident of a state; 4) the District of Columbia is not a state; therefore 5) District residents are not qualified under Article I and have no voting rights.

However, the question of whether the District should be declared or called a state is separate from-and in a way less important than-the question of whether the people of the District should have full representation in Congress. We've long had little difficulty treating the District as a state for various reasons even when doing so is not necessarily supported by explicit constitutional text. But more importantly, it is far from clear that the Framers used the word "state" in Article I with the specific intent to disenfranchise the class of people living in the District. Rather, the far more likely explanation is that references to "States" in Article I reflect the Framers' overriding desire to set up a mechanism by which the people of the several states would form a national representative government-a mechanism that in and of itself was not meant to disenfranchise anyone purely by the accident of which side of the Potomac River they happen to live.

Today, the Twenty-Third Amendment, giving the people of the District the right to choose electors to participate in the elections of the President and Vice President, together with the 1973 Home Rule Act, giving the District the right to elect a Mayor and Council, have gone some way in bringing District residents closer to full citizenship. But it still remains that the District has no voting representative in the Senate or the House, no final control over its taxes, and no dominion even over its laws, which Congress can overrule when it so chooses. This quasi-colonial relationship is often explained away with claims on the one hand that congressional representation would result in the District having outsized power given its small geographic footprint and small population, and on the other hand that any disadvantages to not having full legislative representation are more than outweighed by the supposed financial benefits the District receives from its relationship with the federal government. But it seems an irreconcilable contradiction to maintain both that legislative power is too important to entrust to such a small population as make up the District and not so important that it can't be bought off with some federal appropriations money.

In the final analysis, if legislative representation is the irreducible core of democratic self-rule, it is a remarkable thing that whether it is afforded to the people of the District should somehow be determined by the symbolic internal lines we've drawn on a map. But, the reality that a population larger than that of Vermont or Wyoming lives as second-class citizens is perhaps less remarkable than the fact that there is no definitive evidence that under the 1787 constitutional order it was ever intended that it be so.

Further Reading:

Jamin Raskin, A Right-to-Vote Amendment for the U.S. Constitution: Confronting America's Structural Democracy Deficit, 3 Election L.J. 559 (2004).

Johnny Barnes, Towards Equal Footing: Responding to the Perceived Constitutional, Legal, and Practical Impediments to Statehood for the District of Columbia, 13 D.C. L. Rev. 1, 13 (2010)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Policy Essay: No Right is More Precious in a Free Country: Allowing Americans in the District of Columbia to Participate in National Self-Government., 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 287, 300 (2008)

Peter Raven-Hansen, Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia: A Constitutional Analysis, 12 Harv. J. on Legis. 167, 174 (1975).

The Twenty-Third Amendment is clearly the proverbial "camel's nose in the tent," with the tent being statehood for the District of Columbia. The Amendment treats the District of Columbia as if it were a State for purposes of the Electoral College. Both the Amendment and the argument for D.C. statehood are founded on the false premise that failure to accord the District equality with States discriminates against U.S. citizens living in the District.

The premise is false for at least four reasons: 1. Until the Twenty-Third Amendment, citizens of the District were treated on an equal basis with U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico or a foreign country. 2. After the Twenty-Third Amendment, citizens of the District have undue weight in the Electoral College. 3. As the capital of the country, the District enjoys advantages not possessed by any State. 4. No one State should be home to and legislate for and have power over the capital of all the States.

These reasons are discussed in more detail below:

1. Prior to the Twenty-Third Amendment, citizens living in the District of Columbia were in the same position as U.S. citizens living in a foreign country or Puerto Rico, who still cannot vote for presidential electors unless they are registered to vote in one of the States. Prior to the Twenty-Third Amendment, citizens living in D.C. would have had to be registered to vote in a State.

2. Since adoption of the Twenty-Third Amendment, U.S. citizens living and voting in the District of Columbia have had more weight in the Electoral College than their numbers warrant.

Originally, the District of Columbia contained two counties divided by the Potomac, Washington and Alexandria. Washington, ceded by Maryland, encompassed about twice the size of Alexandria, ceded by Virginia. Roughly, that ratio today applies as to the relevant populations of Washington and the area receded to Virginia. (Alexandria County, retroceded to Virginia in 1846-47, included much of what today is called Old Town Alexandria and Arlington County.) The District of Columbia has a current population of 672,228 (Census Bureau, 2015), which is somewhat more than twice the population of the area receded to Virginia.

Pursuant to the 2010 census, congressional districts were allocated to the States generally on the basis of having one seat in the House of Representatives for roughly every 710,767 people ( Congressional Apportionment, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011). Two States (Vermont and Wyoming), however, have a population of fewer than 700,000. Nevertheless, they are still entitled to one member of the House of Representatives, as provided by the Constitution in Article I, Section 2. Five other states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) with only one member of the House have populations over 700,000 (with Montana having the most: 1,032,949).

The District of Columbia receives very special treatment otherwise reserved for the rare case of sparsely populated States. Those States are given that privilege as States in recognition that some largely rural States will be sparsely populated. The District of Columbia lacks the status of statehood not only for constitutional reasons discussed below, but because it is a city. The United States, unlike medieval Europe, does not have city-states.

If the remainder of the District of Columbia was to be retroceded to Maryland, as has been proposed, that population of 627,228-by itself-would not quite add one more member to the State's representation in the House. Had the 2010 population of the District been combined with that of Maryland, however, it is likely that Maryland would have gained one more member of the House and another electoral vote. Nevertheless, Maryland would not have received the two additional electoral votes awarded D.C. under the Twenty-Third Amendment.

Even if D.C. deserved one electoral vote based on population, it does not deserve the two electoral votes attributable to statehood. Each State receives two electoral votes for their two senators under Article II, Section 1. The equal representation of each State in the Senate by two senators is not based on population, but on the residual sovereignty of each State. The District of Columbia does not have residual sovereignty. Not even the Twenty-Third Amendment changes that; the Amendment provides that the selection of the electors shall be "in such manner as Congress may direct." In other words, the Twenty-Third Amendment actually re-confirms what has always been true: despite a degree of home rule, the District of Columbia remains under the sovereign power of Congress.

In effect, the Twenty-Third Amendment increases the powers of Congress. Given that Congress has continually expanded its powers at the expense of the States, it should not surprise us that it would covet controlling voting in the Electoral College as if it were a State legislature.

3. Until Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" greatly increased federal domestic spending, Washington, D.C. was considered something of a "backwater." Since then, Washington has grown into an imperial city of the kind the Anti-Federalists feared in opposing the Constitution's provision for a "federal town."

Even from the beginning, however, the District of Columbia has enjoyed advantages as the seat of the national government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, that "there can be little doubt, that the inhabitants composing [the District] would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests be subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole Union.

4. The provision for a "federal town" in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, addresses the need for the federal government to be separate from, and not dependent on, any State. It reflects the experience of the Philadelphia Mutiny of 1783, when some soldiers marched on the Continental Congress and the city failed to protect the Delegates. Accordingly, James Madison writes in The Federalist No. 43:

The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it . . . . Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national council an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy.

The District of Columbia and those living there enjoy a privileged status. It is patently false to say that the United States "disenfranchises the people of its capital city." See Jamin Raskin, A Right-to-Vote Amendment for the U.S. Constitution: Confronting America's Structural Democracy Deficit, 3 Election L.J. 559 (2004).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were

# data[].attributes.headline
National Representation for the District of Columbia: A Legislative Solution

# data[].attributes.subject
National Representation for the District of Columbia: A Legislative Solution

# data[].attributes.body
Citation:

Frankel, Lawrence M. “National Representation for the District of Columbia: A Legislative Solution.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139, no. 6 (1991): 1659–1709. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312392.

Summary:

The article comes to the conclusion that no other solution can fix the problem as effectively or as easily as giving congressional representation to Washington DC does. This solution also comes with the plus of not having to grant statehood to DC, only congressional representation through legislation. The purpose of this article is to find a practical solution to the problem of representation in Washington DC, and it ultimately decides that that is the only good solution. The main evidence that the article uses is actually the constitution. It argues that, under some interpretations of the constitution, you could grant DC representation in congress without actually making it a state. It argues that this would be the easiest solution.

Response:

I think that this is a really interesting perspective. I didn’t know that it was possible to give representation in congress without statehood, but it seems like a very practical solution that is more a realistic possibility than statehood. I chose this source because it has an interpretation that I had not heard before. If there's a weakness it would be that its entire claim is based on just one interpretation of the constitution, so it is standing on somewhat flimsy grounds.

Research notes:

I found this in a meeting with Dr. westcot.

Link:

https://doi.org/10.2307/3312392

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Representation for the District of Columbia: A Legislative Solution on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawrence M. Frankel, National Representation for the District of Columbia: A Legislative Solution, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 139, No. 6 (Jun., 1991), pp. 1659-1709