Quote:As the Senate held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson this week, the proceedings offered yet another reason for locals to fight for Washington statehood.

Jackson, a Washington native, would make history as the first black woman to be appointed to the high court after serving as a federal judge in the district over the last decade. With that in mind, Eleanor Norton, the district's sole delegate in the House, argues it’s unfair her constituents won’t have a voice in whether Jackson gets the job.

The nominee's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee "reminds us of the stark reality that despite Judge Jackson’s connections to D.C., without statehood, the District has no senators and, therefore, will play no role in her confirmation,” Norton said in a statement. “The lack of voting representation in Congress for D.C. residents can be remedied by Senate passage of and the President’s signature on my D.C. statehood bill, which has passed the House twice.”

The push for statehood entered the modern-day mainstream in 1980 after decades of failed proposals to grant the district equal voting representation in Congress. District voters in 1982 decided to elect shadow members of Congress to advocate statehood and representation in federal government.

However, these two shadow senators and one representative are largely symbolic, as Congress never approved the creation of such positions. As a result, the three representatives spend the majority of their time lobbying for certain legislation but have no recognition in either chamber.

Those positions are different from Norton’s role as a delegate, as the three have no voting power, but she is recognized within Congress as a representative with limited powers. Although Norton cannot participate in floor votes, she is able to vote in committee and offer legislative amendments.

Mike Brown was elected as one of the district’s shadow senators in 2007 and has dedicated his time after retiring in 2012 to lobbying for statehood.

“This is all I do. This is all I've done for the past 10 years,” Brown told the Washington Examiner.

Despite years of no traction on legislation that would establish Washington as the 51st state, Brown said it’s only a matter of time. A bill proposing statehood passed the House in April 2021 and has since been introduced in the Senate with a record number of co-sponsors.

It’s unclear whether the legislation will survive, as no Republicans have thrown their support behind the initiative. Brown said that’s not a coincidence.

“There's pushback from the Republicans because making the District of Columbia a state will automatically give you two more Democrats in the United States Senate and a voting member in the House,” he said. “It's just about partisanship. That's all.”

Several Republicans have publicly dismissed the idea of the district gaining statehood, with some even threatening the limited autonomy Washington currently possesses.

Because the district does not have a state government, the city operates under a system called home rule that was established in 1973. Under this rule, the district is run by the mayor and the D.C. Council, consisting of 12 members who propose and pass local legislation.

However, the council is ultimately controlled by Congress, which must approve all legislation before it becomes law. Exceptions include temporary emergency legislation.

The district’s short-lived vaccine mandate implemented earlier this year irked Republican lawmakers, leading some to propose revoking Washington’s limited freedom altogether if they win majorities in the Senate or House in the midterm elections.

Some GOP lawmakers, such as Reps. Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Michael Cloud of Texas, told the Daily Caller in February they would consider stripping Washington of its local authority if they win back the majority.

“It's just an example of the reason why we need to be a state,” said Oye Owolewa, shadow representative for Washington. “There's no other mechanism in another area who could have the federal government, or at least a couple of senators, saying we're going to try and revoke the rules and laws that you've passed in your area.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Owolewa, elected in 2020, noted he was inspired by recent efforts for statehood. He told the Washington Examiner he believes “we’ve never been closer.”

“I see D.C. becoming a state within the next 10 years,” he said.

Brown echoed those sentiments, although he acknowledged it will not be an easy take. Part of the reason it hasn’t happened yet is because voters get preoccupied with other issues they deem more important, such as COVID-19 policies or the invasion of Ukraine, the shadow senator said.

As a result, the effort gets sidetracked and progress stalled. However, he pointed to previous successful statehood efforts, such as Alaska in the 1950s, that affirm his office will succeed.

“It's going to be an uphill battle. But it's going to happen,” he said. “It's inevitable.”

Link

I think the Republicans are right on this, DC statehood is unconstitutional. These efforts would be better spent on retrocession to return all but the core government center of DC to Maryland and thus give the residents of DC actual voting representation in the House & Senate that way.

https://www.freedomworks.org/content/cas...trocession

Well you can shrink the size of the district to the national mall and give the rest to back to Maryland and you're back in your state.


Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution says Congress should be in charge of the seat of government, which will be a "District (not exceeding ten Miles square)."

(03-28-2022 01:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I think the Republicans are right on this, DC statehood is unconstitutional. These efforts would be better spent on retrocession to return all but the core government center of DC to Maryland and thus give the residents of DC actual voting representation in the House & Senate that way.

https://www.freedomworks.org/content/cas...trocession

Agree. Return the Maryland portion just as they did the Virginia portion in the 1840s.
Plus DC is not a state. Its a city about 5% the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state.

(03-28-2022 01:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I think the Republicans are right on this, DC statehood is unconstitutional. These efforts would be better spent on retrocession to return all but the core government center of DC to Maryland and thus give the residents of DC actual voting representation in the House & Senate that way.

https://www.freedomworks.org/content/cas...trocession

damn... i agree with you

The whole reason for DC’s existence is that it would not be part of a state. Therefore dead issue. I like the idea of giving back the extra land not needed back to Maryland.

Just as a purely political matter:

1. The 23rd Amendment was supposed to resolve this issue. A lot of people who weren’t really in favor, supported it anyway in the hope that the conflict would go away. As always, the liberals played them for suckers.

2. If D.C. statehood ever happens “on its own”, just as a stand-alone bill with no other elements or political compromise, it will mean that America really has become a one-party Nation. We’ve never had that in this country before. I can only hope that my family and I won’t be around to suffer the damages.

(03-29-2022 10:36 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The whole reason for DC’s existence is that it would not be part of a state. Therefore dead issue.

This.

Quote:I like the idea of giving back the extra land not needed back to Maryland.

Can’t say that I “like” it, because it’s still fixing something that’s not broken. But, I’d be willing to go along with it, under certain circumstances.

DC has tons of representation in that each and every member of congress AND The Judiciary AND the White House PLUS the military and likely 70+% of their staff AND both parties all work and at least part-time live there... which isn't the case for any other jurisdiction. Their 'pseudo' senators know this... and they lobby using the 'this will ultimately benefit you'. NO OTHER DISTRICT IN THE NATION has this situation, where numerous members have a vested interest in the quality of life, housing, transportation, crime, industry etc etc etc of a district other than their own. As there is 'no way' to separate these two functions, there is no need to give them even MORE representation.
If instead they'd like to (as some have suggested) somehow 'remove' all of the infrastructure that is related to the operation of government such that no members of any branch of the government or adjuncts... THEN they might be deserving of their own, sole representation.

I mean seriously... how EASY must that job be... to convince people who live and work in DC a whole lot to 'fund' good things there?? This is a joke

(03-29-2022 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  DC has tons of representation in that each and every member of congress AND The Judiciary AND the White House PLUS the military and likely 70+% of their staff AND both parties all work and at least part-time live there... which isn't the case for any other jurisdiction. Their 'pseudo' senators know this... and they lobby using the 'this will ultimately benefit you'. NO OTHER DISTRICT IN THE NATION has this situation, where numerous members have a vested interest in the quality of life, housing, transportation, crime, industry etc etc etc of a district other than their own. As there is 'no way' to separate these two functions, there is no need to give them even MORE representation.
If instead they'd like to (as some have suggested) somehow 'remove' all of the infrastructure that is related to the operation of government such that no members of any branch of the government or adjuncts... THEN they might be deserving of their own, sole representation.
I mean seriously... how EASY must that job be... to convince people who live and work in DC a whole lot to 'fund' good things there?? This is a joke

I always found it interesting how many senior Navy and Marine officers, no matter where they were from originally, were huge Washington Redskins (then, now Commanders) fans. But when you consider that many of them went to Annapolis, and many others had done several tours in the Pentagon, it wasn't that hard to understand.

I have always found it very frustrating to go to DC and realize that how much of the urban sprawl had been--directly or indirectly--paid for with my tax dollars. I have long favored moving to relocate federal departments out of DC and around the country. Keep Defense and State and Justice in DC area, but move Commerce to NYC, Agriculture to Chicago, Energy to Dallas or Houston, EPA to Denver, Transportation to Detroit, HHS to Atlanta, Social Security to Florida, Education to Boston, something to LAX/SFO, and so forth. There would be a benefit to getting the thinking of various areas represented in government, and it would definitely make lobbying a lot harder, since you'd have to go to so many different places to do it.

If DC gets Statehood there's really no objective argument against the establishment of other US City/States. Washington is only the 20th largest city in the nation.

(03-29-2022 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2022 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  DC has tons of representation in that each and every member of congress AND The Judiciary AND the White House PLUS the military and likely 70+% of their staff AND both parties all work and at least part-time live there... which isn't the case for any other jurisdiction. Their 'pseudo' senators know this... and they lobby using the 'this will ultimately benefit you'. NO OTHER DISTRICT IN THE NATION has this situation, where numerous members have a vested interest in the quality of life, housing, transportation, crime, industry etc etc etc of a district other than their own. As there is 'no way' to separate these two functions, there is no need to give them even MORE representation.
If instead they'd like to (as some have suggested) somehow 'remove' all of the infrastructure that is related to the operation of government such that no members of any branch of the government or adjuncts... THEN they might be deserving of their own, sole representation.
I mean seriously... how EASY must that job be... to convince people who live and work in DC a whole lot to 'fund' good things there?? This is a joke

I always found it interesting how many senior Navy and Marine officers, no matter where they were from originally, were huge Washington Redskins (then, now Commanders) fans. But when you consider that many of them went to Annapolis, and many others had done several tours in the Pentagon, it wasn't that hard to understand.

I have always found it very frustrating to go to DC and realize that how much of the urban sprawl had been--directly or indirectly--paid for with my tax dollars. I have long favored moving to relocate federal departments out of DC and around the country. Keep Defense and State and Justice in DC area, but move Commerce to NYC, Agriculture to Chicago, Energy to Dallas or Houston, EPA to Denver, Transportation to Detroit, HHS to Atlanta, Social Security to Florida, Education to Boston, something to LAX/SFO, and so forth. There would be a benefit to getting the thinking of various areas represented in government, and it would definitely make lobbying a lot harder, since you'd have to go to so many different places to do it.

It should be done. They were talking about it.
I would move transportation to Chicago, agriculture to KC, energy to Houston, interior to Denver, maybe EPA to LA where the worst pollution areas are, perhaps commerce to Atlanta. I wouldn't move anything to NYC. And yes, defense, state, DOJ, homeland security and treasury should stay in DC. HHS, HUD, Labor, Education (kind of leery of sending education to Boston despite the logic) maybe move. VA needs to go away and be part of HHS.

Unconstitutional. Just stop.

(03-28-2022 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-28-2022 01:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I think the Republicans are right on this, DC statehood is unconstitutional. These efforts would be better spent on retrocession to return all but the core government center of DC to Maryland and thus give the residents of DC actual voting representation in the House & Senate that way.

https://www.freedomworks.org/content/cas...trocession

Agree. Return the Maryland portion just as they did the Virginia portion in the 1840s.
Plus DC is not a state. Its a city about 5% the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state.

That is another great point, aside from the constitutionality the idea of giving tiny DC two Senators, just like California and Texas have, is pretty absurd. I do think they have a point about taxation without representation, but I think there is a more reasonable way to resolve that. Lol not that we could pass ANY constitutional amendments in todays political climate, but what I would propose is -

1) DC and all US territories get 1 voting, regular member of the US House of Representatives (this would convert their current, nonvoting delegates to actual members and increase the size of the House from 435 to 441. These 6 members would be "extra", and only the 435 would continue to be used for apportionment to the states. No territory would ever get more than 1 member, no matter how large the population. Future nonvoting delegates, like the proposed Cherokee delegate promised by treaty, would still just be nonvoting delegates. Also note this would not automatically add 6 Democratic House members, the current nonvoting delegates from Puerto Rico & American Samoa caucus with the GOP)

2) Any future states must be at least as large as the smallest existing state (Rhode island at 1,544.89 square miles) and have a population at least equal to the existing state with the smallest population at the time of statehood (currently this would be Wyoming with 576,851, although this would change over time). This would prevent DC and most of the territories from ever becoming tiny, nonviable states. Only DC & Puerto Rico would meet the population test currently, while only Puerto Rico & the Northern Mariana Islands would meet the size test. Thus only Puerto Rico could ever be eligible for statehood, unless the Northern Mariana Islands gained a LOT of people someday. Even if the Marianas were recombined with Guam (which is part of the same chain, they were separated politically when we took Guam after the Spanish-American War), the combined territory would still be over 375,000 people behind Wyoming.

I have thought along somewhat similar lines, Gamenole.

1. DC and each territory (Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam & Northern Marianas, and American Samoa) get 1 representative and 1 senator.
2. Size of HOR is set at some multiple of size of senate. With 105 senators, that multiple could range from 4 (420 representatives) to 5 (525 representatives). I kind of like 4-1/3 (455 representatives) as being pretty close to where we are today.
3. Agree with your minimum area and population criteria for any new state. Additionally, I would make statehood or any other change in status contingent upon both 1) congressional and presidential approval and 2) approval by a majority of voters in the territory.

(04-03-2022 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have thought along somewhat similar lines, Gamenole.

1. DC and each territory (Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam & Northern Marianas, and American Samoa) get 1 representative and 1 senator.
2. Size of HOR is set at some multiple of size of senate. With 105 senators, that multiple could range from 4 (420 representatives) to 5 (525 representatives). I kind of like 4-1/3 (455 representatives) as being pretty close to where we are today.
3. Agree with your minimum area and population criteria for any new state. Additionally, I would make statehood or any other change in status contingent upon both 1) congressional and presidential approval and 2) approval by a majority of voters in the territory.

Very interesting! Personally I'd reserve the Senate for states only, but that did make me think about electoral votes. I think I'd propose my amendment as a revision of the 23rd, rather than an entirely new one. I've never really liked DC getting 3 electoral votes like the least populous states, statehood should be a higher status and come with privileges that territories don't get. So I'd add a 3rd section to my revised 23rd amendment -

3) DC and all US territories receive 1 electoral vote each (that would take away DC's current 3, but then add 6 for DC and the territories for a total of 541).

I definitely agree with you on statehood or other status changes requiring both 1) congressional and presidential approval and 2) approval by a majority of voters in the territory. I believe #1 is already required, but #2 should be as well so Washington couldn't jam through statehood for a territory that might not want it.