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:

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: 

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: 

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: 

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:

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: