For DC Statehood- But For a Compromise Too
The framers never intended that over half a million people would have no representation.
The District of Columbia was originally envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. They had not decided its final location or named it, but the Constitution contains a specific clause empowering Congress to create and control such a district: “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 Government of the United States….”
The context of this is important. At the time the Constitution was adopted, most commerce was local, so the commerce power was not as broad as it is now and did not extend to such things as a marijuana plant you grow on your own windowsill. So if the framers wanted to ensure that Congress had plenary authority over a particular landmass, they had to say it, explicitly, in the Constitution. And so they did.
But you will notice that the Constitution refers to the district specifically as “the Seat of Government”. The notion, in other words, was that this would be the location of the major government agencies, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the executive offices, etc. It’s not that nobody would live there, but the clause says nothing about the people who might live there, because they weren’t the point. The point was to create a Seat of Government.
Accordingly, while this clause is a very strong foundation for Congress to control the District of Columbia’s government in various ways which the locals may not like (thankfully, the trend has been towards more home rule over time), it is an extremely weak foundation for disenfranchising the district’s residents. And yet here we are- people who live in D.C. have no franchise to vote for full, voting members of the House or Senate. And as I said, there are now hundreds of thousands of residents. (By contrast, the population of D.C. in 1850 was about 51,000.)
This can’t go on, and D.C. statehood has been a longstanding demand of many residents of the city. It’s unimaginable that a country that has expanded the franchise so much, to extend it to non-property owners, racial minorities, women, and 18-20 year olds, would not extend it to residents one single city with over 600,000 people living there.
Until recently, though, D.C. statehood was sort of a niche movement within the Democratic Party. While bills were introduced and platform planks added, it was never a priority for powerful Democrats. Indeed, it was the sort of thing that mainstream, center-left Democrats sneered at; they associated it with figures like Jesse Jackson who were seen as on the fringe of the party.
What changed? Well, the obvious thing that changed is that as more and more Democrats concentrated in American cities, and gerrymandering became far more of a Republican habit than a bipartisan one, the Democratic Party was looking at structural deficits in congressional representation. D.C. statehood is two Democratic Senators and a House member. The math is obvious.
To be clear, that doesn’t mean that it should be a partisan issue. I realize we live in the real world and it is one, but the fact of the matter is that the disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is real and it’s unfair.
But since the math is obvious, Republicans can do the math too, and that makes the chances of Democrats enacting pure D.C. statehood over a Senate filibuster very low.
So is it therefore hopeless for D.C. voters who want the franchise? Actually not. While the case for D.C. statehood is strong, it is not the only way for D.C. voters to get to vote for House and Senate members. The district, as is implied in the Constitutional provision I quoted at the start of this piece, was formed by land ceded by two states, Maryland and Virginia. The Constitution contains a number of provisions that make it difficult for Congress to muck with the definition of states (for instance, combining the Dakotas, another pet Democratic fringe project, is unconstitutional without both states’ consent). But the Constitution does not prohibit adding territory to a state. Accordingly, Congress could make D.C. a part of Maryland, or Virginia, or even give each state back the portion of D.C. that it originally ceded. The last approach would present governance problems for D.C. and would be the least optimal solution (although it would still be better than the status quo). But Republicans could go for a deal that simply attaches D.C. to Maryland. Mitt Romney has already indicated some interest in it, and the basic attractiveness of this to Republicans is that Maryland is already a blue state that Republicans have difficulty winning elections in. So it becomes a little more blue, and perhaps the Democrats pick up one House seat. But they don’t pick up two Senate seats, and the residents of D.C. now have the franchise and a real voice in Congress.
It is plausible that some sort of deal on retrocession to Maryland might get 10 Republican Senate votes. Obviously, in the racist fever swamps, there will be talk about the electorate of D.C. supposedly not deserving a voice in government. But I don’t think that’s a position that most Republicans are bound up with, and you don’t need a majority of Republican support anyway.
Why would congressional Republicans take such a deal? The big reason is that if they don’t, the possibility remains that the Democrats might win an election big, nuke the filibuster, and make D.C. a state. So it would be a very high stakes gamble to do this, and would also make Republicans look even worse than they already do on the franchise.
This doesn’t guarantee passage, of course. Republicans had obvious chances to compromise on gay marriage (remember civil unions and domestic partnerships?) and didn’t, because they were afraid of homophobes in their base. But hopefully congressional Democrats are making some calls. Because D.C. voters shouldn’t have to wait for a political moment that may never come.