House Passes Bill Proposing to Make Washington, D.C., the 51st State
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON—The Democratic-controlled House approved legislation Thursday that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state, but the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate amid broad Republican opposition and hesitation from some centrist Democrats.
Proponents cast the bill as a civil-rights priority, saying the city's residents deserve full self-rule and representation in Congress. Critics call it a power grab by Democrats to gain two more senators and point to possible constitutional hurdles.
Thursday's party line vote of 216-208 marks the second time the House has approved the measure, which is backed by the Biden administration. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) hasn't committed to bringing it up for a vote in the Senate, where current rules require 60 votes for passage and only 45 of the 50 Democrats are currently sponsoring the legislation.
"I believe strongly in D.C. statehood, and we will try to work a path to get it done, absolutely," Mr. Schumer said Tuesday when asked if he intended to bring the legislation up for a vote. But he didn't provide any time frame.
Were the bill to become law, most of present-day Washington, D.C., would take the name State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, in honor of Frederick Douglass. An area around the White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court would remain as a two-square-mile federal area under the legislation. D.C. would be the first new state admitted to the U.S. since Hawaii in 1959, and proponents have already designed American flags that fit 51 stars.
Supporters say that residents of Washington, nearly half of whom are Black, deserve the same representation as other Americans. Residents pay federal taxes, register for selective service and fight in the military, but they don't have a full voice in Congress and local leadership can be overruled by the federal government. D.C. residents currently have a nonvoting delegate in the House, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, and no representation in the Senate.
Washingtonians "pay taxes, fight in our wars, power our economy yet do not have a full voice in our democracy," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) told reporters Thursday.
Republicans argue that Congress doesn't have the authority to make D.C. a state with regular legislation, and instead it would require amending the Constitution, a much higher bar that requires ratification by three-quarters of the states. They say the city is too closely tied to the federal government and too small to operate as a true state, and also charge Democrats want statehood to increase their voting power in Congress.
The city votes heavily Democratic—93% of voters backed President Biden in the 2020 election—and it is expected that its elected federal officials would be Democrats.
"Let's be clear what HR 51 is all about: It's about Democrats adding two new progressive U.S. senators to push a radical agenda," said Rep. James Comer (R., Ky.), the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, ahead of the vote Thursday.
Even as support within the Democratic Party has grown, a small group of centrist Senate Democrats remain undecided on whether they would support the legislation.
"I think that all Americans have a right to equal representation, you know, even in the United States Congress. But I haven't made a decision on it one way or the other," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) who isn't sponsoring the legislation.
Even if all 50 Democrats did end up supporting the legislation, the current 60-vote threshold in the Senate would block it from passage. Some supporters say it is another reason Democrats need to abolish the legislative filibuster to allow for bills to advance with a simple majority. So far, there isn't enough support within the Democratic caucus to remove the rule.
If it became a state, D.C. would be the smallest geographically, at just around 66 square miles. The city has slightly more than 700,000 residents, putting it ahead of Vermont and Wyoming. Some Republicans have proposed having most of the current district returned to Maryland, just as the western half of the district was returned to Virginia in 1847, but local leaders have opposed such a move.
Statehood legislation was first brought up for a vote in the House in 1993 and failed. At the time, 105 Democrats opposed it. The bill passed the House last year, but was never brought up in the then-GOP-controlled Senate.
Is there any constitutional reason for D.C. to not be granted statehood?
Taxation without representation..... Kind of why our country came to be in the first place isn't it?
None that I can think of, but why rename it the State of Washington? Why not just call it Douglass and call it a day?
call it jefferson and short sheet the aspirations of a certain dumb ass teavangelical.
That just might be the funniest, not to mention most meaningful, comment I've read today!!
That wasn't a jab...... Damn haymaker that started off in Georgia, gathered speed through the Midwest/Nebraska-ish, and found it's mark somewhere in Northern Ca. Yea Baby!
Unless I am mistaken the CA Jefferson movement has Russian Intelligence roots.
CA Jefferson movement has Russian Intelligence roots.
This is just begging to be researched for our teavangelical friends here on NT!
It was developed by a guy in Oregon in 1941. No Russians involved, intelligent or otherwise.
During WW2, right? No. Follow the money and follow the 'social media' IP's.
The early jefferson movement was before WW2 but got put on hold after Pearl, todays movement is iffy and started when cali started talking about seceding with oregon and washington state a few years back , even talking about going as far east as idaho and wyoming , i read that and laughed my ass off, seems some state is always talking of forming their own country when the political winds are not in their favor or liking.
I live in the "State of Washington".
Trust me, I went to D.C......11, 12 years ago? Just because I had never been there. Every time someone asked me where I was from, I answered, "Washington"..and every reply? "Oh, so you're a local then?!"
Seems that on the East Coast, they aren't aware of any states on the West Coast.
Name D.C. something OTHER than Washington, there is enough confusion as it is.
How about Maryland ?
The land that Washington, DC came from was Maryland and Virginia. Virginia received their land back in 1847. Maryland can have it's land back now; along with all of the people residing on it. They will still have a mayor; can vote for the governor; and will have representation in the House and Senate.'
Of course Democrats don't want that. They want more seats in the House and Senate; and more representation if the electoral college.
It is nothing more than a power grab to make Washington DC a state.
Of course it is, I think it's a bad idea either way. The Capitol needs room to grow and for security purposes Congress needs to control the area and the Capitol Police need jurisdiction throughout DC as they do now. If most of DC became it's own State or reverted to Maryland it would be a jurisdictional nightmare for Capitol Security. If anyone thinks the Federal Government isn't going to need to build many more buildings in the future they are sadly mistaken. They will not only will need to expand but they also need to keep it under a unified jurisdiction. We'll probably need to move into areas that are now housing as our country grows. We'll not only need more Government buildings but we'll also need more Parks, Memorials, Museums, and Hotels.
Is there any constitutional reason for D.C. to not be granted statehood?
I would think so. Article I, Section 8 defines the District, including its purpose and who has jurisdiction over it.
So the District is supposed to be the seat of government and Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over it. That means it’s not supposed to be a state. How could it exercise rights reserved to the states when it’s a federal territory? And according the Constitution, as the seat of government, it’s supposed to be federal territory.
Maybe they were just kidding when they wrote that, and what we can plainly read really means something else altogether?
Nothing more, really, than Democrats trying to improve on their minute majority.
A couple of things I didn't get. First off, Washington? Here I thought we already had a Washington state...
Second, there would still have to be government areas carved out. It seems to me it would hinder the US capitol of any growth.
There is all the government run facilities, the museums, parks...
I've been to DC many times, it's a state of mind if anything.
NO! It is way too small and would dilute the other States
Clear me up on what you mean by dilute charger? I'm not getting it.
too many democrats....... (the darker kind)
Making a City equal to a State hurts the States
700,000 residents have no say in their government while Wyoming with its slightly more than 400,000 residents have at least one representative and 2 senators. Same with Alaska. That sounds uneven to me
Got it.....
An area not quite 69 square miles should not be equal to a state
I don't think the geographical size should be a consideration.
Not to be difficult, but it's not the square miles that should be counting.... If it were, would you give Alaska at 665,384sq miles, more political clout than say South Carolina at 32,020sq miles? Keep in mind SC has a population of 5.1 million, while Alaska is a mere 732K.
If Vatican City can be a country, DC should be able to be a state.
DC covers more land mass than seven countries measured by the same.
How?
They have to pay for updated flags?
RI. isn't much bigger.
Also, geographical size counts for exactly dick.
Yeah. And D.C. only has two car dealerships too.
Moving it back to Maryland isn't a bad idea. They would still have representation. Maryland might have to add another congress critter
That's a thought, but back in 1993 in the last vote, 4 out of the 5 house of representative members from Maryland voted against statehood.
I think DC was the Murder Capitol of the USA back then so they were a bit of a Liability.
I'm all for it! Being a Marylander myself.
And No to you too.
NO.
Maryland donated 69 sq miles of Land via the Residence Act of 1790 so they should get it back. Virginia also donated 31 sq miles to DC but it was across the river so it was given back to Virginia through The Alexandria Retrocession of 1846. Since all that is DC today came from Maryland and because of the precedence set by The Alexandria Retrocession of 1846 if Congress should relinquish control of any part of DC it should be given back to it's original state which is Maryland.
I think we should worry more about places like Puerto Rico. Imo the only reason places like that are not given statehood would be some are afraid or don't want to have to give them all the social services.
All about money.
There is a report coming out today about why Puerto Rico didn't get the disaster funds they needed after the hurricane flattened them. Preliminary indications are most definitely political. I'm sure you can take it from there.
I don't need to read between the lines on that one
Just throw some paper towels...
He came out and straight up said he was going to withhold disaster funds because the mayor said some less than euphoric things about him to the media.
More to it than just that...... wait for the report Sister.
Somebody here on NT will post it, and it should be a rocking good time with the commentary...!
The people of Puerto Rico have consistently voted to not join the union. Doing so would require them to do the one thing that they don't now. Pay federal income taxes. They enjoy the perks and benefits without the burden, with the exception of some government workers who do pay fed taxes.
Yes it is. The people of Puerto Rico like to keep what they earn in their own pocket.
The republican party in PR supported it.
Republicans like paying taxes now???? Will wonders ever cease?
8NOV20:
At Tuesday’s plebiscite, residents narrowly favored statehood with 52% of the vote while about 47% of voters were against it, according to the election commission's website.
This was actually the sixth time Puerto Ricans had a choice to make on statehood.
Pretty close to even.... I'd say that it should be closer to a 60:40 vote to carry statehood, but that's just my opinion.
I believe all of the previous polling type votes have indicated pretty much the same. Then when they find that they would be responsible for paying federal taxes, and not get much more than they get now, if anything, the numbers go decidedly against. It's funny how people like 'free' federal money until they understand that the federal government doesn't have it's own money and survives only on what it gets from the people paying taxes.
This has a lot of the stats.
ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood_Referendum_(2020)
I think it is more pride than taxes.
"Republicans like paying taxes now???? Will wonders ever cease?"
Lawd A Mercy!
Or lack of it.
It is my understanding that the White House is in DC so that no one state can lay claim to it. It is The People's House, not MD's, not VT's, not MA's, etc.
That's the way it was taught to me in school... which made sense up until you hit that part of taxation without representation....
Except times have changed greatly since those times. We now have submarines with nuclear weapons, the internet and even The Kardashians.
America as a country may not be racist (some doubt on that tho) but it is definitely full of racists.
It sure is.
There are white racists.
There are black racists.
There are Asian racists.
There are Hispanic racists.
And on and on.
Racism has always and will always exist. America has I believe accomplished the task of eliminating 'official' or systemic racism, but there is no government or private organization that will ever be able to eliminate the way some people feel towards others. To believe otherwise is simply irrational.
We won't be able to eliminate it.... But it is a goal worthy of our best effort don't you think?
Since it's been around since our species started, likely not.
It would likely be a whole lot easier if some people would stop calling others racist, especially when they know nothing of the other person. If you call someone something often enough, even when wrong, the other will very often say, 'shit on it' think what you want and "prove" the racism by ignoring and avoiding the antagonist.
From a personal perspective, I know both sides of that coin. I was the pale skinned freckle faced red headed kid that spoke with an accent when I cam to America and got the Drunk Irishman or Limey name calling while I got my ass kicked by the olive skinned last name ending in an O or I punks in the neighborhood my dad moved us to. Later in life, I married my late first wife who I've noted before would make Halle Berry or Alicia Keys look like junkyard dogs. And my current wife is actually a naturalized citizen like me, but she comes from Columbia, and her ex-husband who is the father of my step daughters and son is of Mexican decent. So, yeah, I know there are individuals that are racist, but I'll also note that none of us have ever had experience with any kind of "systemic racism". Both of my kids are quite successful. My son has his PhD and is working for the feds in cyber security, and my daughter is a Pediatrician in Tennessee. If they've ever encountered blatant racism, they've never indicated it to me. But then they were raised by two parents who demanded respect and accountability from each of them. They were taught not only self respect, but respect for others, even those they disagreed with. It's funny how when one gives respect to others, one gets it in return.
Those people who were totally abhorrent to me, I did one of two things. If possible, I entirely ignored and avoided them. If on a professional level and ignoring was impossible, I only engaged if and when absolutely necessary.
It's not all that hard. Accept people for who and what they are and if they accept you the same, engage them. Otherwise avoid and ignore them. You'll never be able to make anyone not hate others for (fill in the blank), unless they themselves want to.
You have that correct my dear! It is chock-full- a-racists! You can 'nary swing a dead cat without hitting one of 'em in certain necks of the woods! Tarnation!
It's absolutely astonishing to me how many that have been found, that have 'come out of hiding ', since whatshisname was 'president'
He made it fashionable to be a racist again
Would you be good enough to post those constitutional details about "unique and distinct location." I'm not trying to be flip here. The request is strictly informational so we can all read and evaluate the same thing.
Thanks..... The Mgmt.
Seek and ye shall find....
Can we please have one of our legal types interpret what expatingb was good enough to post in English. As an engineer, legalese gives me the galloping-trots.
Actually, if you go to the Cornell Law site linked, they pretty much do just that. I have an EE and legalese is just that much gibberish to me also.
PS: What did you do in the Navy? Pilot, Flight engineer, Weapons officer? I did 28 in the Army and retired as an O-6, then worked in a civilian agency for another career.
Enlisted puke, but spent a bunch of as a sonar operator of the Lockheed S-3A Viking. Did two carrier cruises listening to shrimp fart and Russians banging on their submarines to get them to work in the 1980s.
Or as us ground pounders lovingly referred to you guys..... squid! (All inclusive)
I knew an RAF pilot that used to be a sub hunter. I believe he said he flew P3 Orions (?). But he bitched about freezing his balls off in the north Atlantic theatre of operations. Plus some cool stories about landing (sliding from the description really) in Greenland on the ice in winter.
hehehe
Virginia and Maryland gave land to form Washington. DC and the land Virginia gave was returned to Virginia
Any problem with returning the DC land..... improvements and all back to Maryland?
I like that idea
Annex North Dakota to South Dakota, give DC statehood ... presto, same amount of senators and y'all won't have to change the flag.
Why not? Or just let Alaska secede from the Union and problem solved
Russians would want Alaska back..... Improvements and all. Bet they'd even pay more than the original $7million we paid them for it.
Then, no. Let's keep Alaska unless Canada wants it
Canada would go bankrupt building enough kayaks to protect the new shores.
Just set up a defense line of bull moose or cows with calves.
They'd work cheap too! All the hay they can eat!
And all the bad people they can charge and stomp!
You're welcome
oil up there would be enticing , they still kicking themselves for selling cheap what they thought was tundra and worthless.
Agreed, zero point in having 2 dakotas. FFS my little town would be the biggest city in either of them.
lol the dakotas might have something to say about that since they both already have statehood.
What level of taxes would Washington, DC have to charge to provide all the services expected of a State?
Would they have to move their prison at Lorton, Va into their own borders?
All good questions charger.....
DC residents already pay income, property, sales and automotive taxes.
DC already provides all of the services expected of a state, except of course federal representation...
So why assume that they'd have to raise taxes?
Which prison is that?
Lorton, the former correctional institution, which was I just discovered closed in 2001.
It had a pretty bad history, but that's for another time.
Ya they made it into condos or some such...
I bet there's a ghost story or two about that place
I wonder if people just like the number 50. Don't want it to go up or down and be an odd number.
It was odd for a number of years when there were 49 states.
Hawaii was made a state the same year Alaska was. 1959
Alaska in January and Hawaii in August of 1959.
exactly! And in 1958 there were 48 states
My bad. The memory of us old farts admittedly has holes in it.
I'm almost 60 and remembered it
Damn, you're a youngster!! Let's just say 70+. Besides I had other things on my mind then, like my first crush, first church dance, and all those good times as a kid.
I don't think it's the number 50, i think it's more partisan politics. If the DC area normally voted Republican then I think the players would reverse their stand on the issue.
Pretty close to the truth there Snuffy....
That said..... Taxation without representation. Kind of goes against what we are all about in my opinion.
If DC normally voted Republican Democrats wouldn't want it to be a state.
DC statehood isn't a civil rights issue, it's a Democrat power grab.
you got that right!!
Opinions do vary..... I see it as a under representation situation..... Why do 732,000 people not have senators and members of the house to represent them, when lower number of people in Wyoming, and Vermont do?
because it is a federal district/reservation just like a military base , the 2 you mentioned have gone through the statehood process and been granted statehood and were (except vermont) territories like guam , PR and a few other places in the world . the only reason DC has a city government is congress allows it at its discretion .
I don’t have a problem with residents of Washington getting appropriate representation in Congress, but they can have that if they are considered to be citizens and residents of Maryland.
And let’s be honest. Democrats in Washington aren’t worried about the residents of Washington having appropriate representation. They just want two more Democrats in the Senate. This is not a smart way to go about it.
For much of our history, Congress has respected the balance of power issues in the Senate when states are added to the union, and sought compromise. The current action is an effort to change this for one side only.
The reason it’s dumb, is that one day there will be retaliation. Republicans will control the Congress and the White House, and then they’ll set about creating East and West Texas, North and South Alabama, and so on. Just like if Democrats give us 13 SCOTUS justices, then one day, Republicans will make it 19.
Problem solved.... Now how do we get from where we are to there?
And I'm assuming that you don't mean the it's dumb that the citizens of DC are taxed without having representation in Congress.
If they are folded into the state of Maryland, it might be that Maryland gets more reps in the House. Maybe D.C. itself could be a House district (of the state of Maryland) for the people who live there.
As far as taxation and representation go, I'm pretty sure bills covering that kind of the thing are supposed to start in the House anyway, so representation there is arguably more important.
In any event, adding a representative to the House is a more appropriate and proportional response to the problem than suddenly getting two Senators for a city of about 600,000 people. If we're going to start handing out statehood solely based on being a big city, then we should have hundreds of states. Heck, New York City, alone, could be like 14 states.
In my own personal opinion, I find it interesting that the seeded article completely fails to mention the name(s) of those responsible for originating the bill. That has to he deliberate on the parts of liberal media and the House Democrats. I wonder why?
The article is from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberal media.
Perhaps the author felt that those interested in the legislative history of the bill would look it up for themselves.
I did after the fact and it was submitted by Delegate Eleanor H. Norton, a Democrat of Washington, DC.