District of Columbia Statehood and Voting Rights

[angus]

the race issue is a bigger factor than the party issue.

a lot of people, dems and reps alike, would be reluctant to have a majority-minority state.

sad but true.

*snorts* I'm IN one already. Hawaii also counts. Give all the people to Maryland, since it is simply too small in population and area to be a separate state.

I was thinking Mississippi as well.  There is some truth to it:  you have to go to the DMV and you know it's going to be some overweight, undereducated black female who can barely read and whose english you can barely understand taking your order.  Trust me, living even a few months in the third world gives you patience.  Jesus would be proud of how patient I've become.

As Mitty said, "Sad but true."  Still, you have to assume the mantle of egalitarianism.  I say let 'em vote for two senators and a congressman.  A voting one!

[angus]

or three or four.  whatever seven hundred thousand people are worth.  One I think.

Is there some particular disadvantage (I mean a serious one) to having our nation's capital being a real state, with all the rights and priveleges, and burdens, thereunto appertaining?

[WMS]

the race issue is a bigger factor than the party issue.

a lot of people, dems and reps alike, would be reluctant to have a majority-minority state.

sad but true.

*snorts* I'm IN one already. Hawaii also counts. Give all the people to Maryland, since it is simply too small in population and area to be a separate state.

I was thinking Mississippi as well.  There is some truth to it:  you have to go to the DMV and you know it's going to be some overweight, undereducated black female who can barely read and whose english you can barely understand taking your order.  Trust me, living even a few months in the third world gives you patience.  Jesus would be proud of how patient I've become.

As Mitty said, "Sad but true."  Still, you have to assume the mantle of egalitarianism.  I say let 'em vote for two senators and a congressman.  A voting one!

One of NM's former governor's called NM a 'banana republic'. He was right, even if he himself was a prime example of a third world executive.

Mar-y-land! Mar-y-land! Mar-y-land! Virginia took back its piece of the District of Colombia a long time ago, Maryland should do the same. And I just don't like turning cities into states - even Classical Athens had some countryside!

As to the post you did while I was writing this one - in addition to the city qualm I have above, I also really don't like the politics behind the push for D.C. statehood. It's all about adding leftist Reps and Senators and nothing to do with any heartfelt desire for fair representation. If D.C. voted 50%+ for Republicans, do you think the current backers of D.C. statehood would still support it?

*edit* And think of the precedents! 'OK, if D.C. becomes a state I want...Indianapolis to become a state, too. That'd be a total of four Republican Senators between Indianapolis and Indiana.'

[angus]

maybe so, but I for one am not into putting more Democrats in Washington.  I just want the people of the district to be a part of the government.  If they decide to choose two D senators and a D congressman, well, that's just where they are now.  Of course, those trends change over long time, etc.  But yes, I suppose there are some who cynically push for the statehood on the basis of political gamesmanship.  I am not one.  I think it's important to distinguish between DC and PR, the latter of whom have voted repeatedly for the status quo.  In fact, I think the most recent election there was held in 2003 and a clear majority wanted to remain a Commonwealth of the United States, minorities wanted either Statehood or independence as a nation.  No so with DC.  They want to be a state.  For what reason, besides keeping Dems at bay (okay that describes the Republicans), or decididing we don't trust blacks enough to make decisions for themselves (okay, that describes the democrats), but for those who are not the Loyalist D or R types, can we give a reasonable non-political, non-racist reason not to make them a state?  I assume some can, and I assume it must have something to do with Washinton (i.e., the national seat of gov't) and not with the District of Columbia (i.e., a place where good, if poor, people live and work).   The problem is, although we can separate Washington and DC in theory, and in our minds, they actually overlap temporally and spatially, so unfortunately, if you're going to let people live in DC, then you have to give them statehood.  (i.e., a say in our collective federal government.)

[WMS]

maybe so, but I for one am not into putting more Democrats in Washington.  I just want the people of the district to be a part of the government.  If they decide to choose two D senators and a D congressman, well, that's just where they are now.  Of course, those trends change over long time, etc.  But yes, I suppose there are some who cynically push for the statehood on the basis of political gamesmanship.  I am not one.  I think it's important to distinguish between DC and PR, the latter of whom have voted repeatedly for the status quo.  In fact, I think the most recent election there was held in 2003 and a clear majority wanted to remain a Commonwealth of the United States, minorities wanted either Statehood or independence as a nation.  No so with DC.  They want to be a state.  For what reason, besides keeping Dems at bay (okay that describes the Republicans), or decididing we don't trust blacks enough to make decisions for themselves (okay, that describes the democrats), but for those who are not the Loyalist D or R types, can we give a reasonable non-political, non-racist reason not to make them a state?  I assume some can, and I assume it must have something to do with Washinton (i.e., the national seat of gov't) and not with the District of Columbia (i.e., a place where good, if poor, people live and work).   The problem is, although we can separate Washington and DC in theory, and in our minds, they actually overlap temporally and spatially, so unfortunately, if you're going to let people live in DC, then you have to give them statehood.  (i.e., a say in our collective federal government.)

Well, I have no problem with them having a voice - that's why I want them in Maryland. But the United States has no city-states amongst the entire 50. There's got to be a reason for that, since they could have made NY or Philadelphia states in the past if they wanted to. Now, I'm not sure what the heck the criteria are for admitting a state, since the last ones were admitted before I was born and I'm not sure if it has ever been codified somewhere. But we shouldn't admit a new state lightly. Although some of the Civil War-era new state admissions look political in nature...

And on PR, they're welcome anytime they want to join. Enough people, enough land, etc.

[John Dibble]

Leave it as an independent district. Give it one or two representatives in the House, and let them share one Senator from each of the neighboring states, giving them two.

[Jake]

Might as well let LA and NY become states too.  Hell, if Chicago, Detroit, and Seattle become states, everyone wins. More GOP senators, more Democrats, more Reps and more salaries to pay

[angus]

Leave it as an independent district. Give it one or two representatives in the House, and let them share one Senator from each of the neighboring states, giving them two.

you're clearly not in bed with the two big parties, and therefore can be trusted.  why not statehood?  why the complicated arrangement instead? 

[A18]

Leave it as an independent district. Give it one or two representatives in the House, and let them share one Senator from each of the neighboring states, giving them two.

Why the hell would Virginia allow the dump to vote for one of its senators?

[angus]

obviously they wouldn't, nor would anyone else.  the more pertinent question is, if you were in congress and were going to go through the trouble to try to amend the constitution, why not do the right thing according to the wishes of the people of the district?  And if not, why not just say why not and drop it, instead of offering some bizarre, complicated unsatisfactory alternative?

[A18]

How is it bizarre in any manner whatsoever to give the district to Maryland? It was their land in the first place.

Virginia already took its share back. Is that bizarre?

Because an amendment affecting a state's equal representation in the Senate requires that state's approval, it wouldn't matter if Congress and 49 states ratified the amendment. It still wouldn't happen.

How is it in any way unsatisfactory for DC to be part of Maryland? DC fits Maryland's politics perfectly. The legislature would certainly accept.

[angus]

well, I had hoped my question could be answered without resorting to political preferences, or voting provclivities.  Because, hell, if you want to do that, then it is easy to understand why it would never become a state.  I won't explain the mechanics of an amendment passing, or the fact that a bipartisan (as opposed to a tripartisan system, for example) greatly enhances the probability that one group will control DC, since you probably know all these things.  I'll only say that I was just wondering, in theory, what is the objection, or plan, outside the bounds of Democrat versus Republican politics.

I start with the recognition that some land (a square piece) was surrendered by MD and VA, and that the VA piece was subsequently ceded to VA.  But the fact that the plot of land was taken (georgetown, foggy bottom, etc.) in the first place suggests that the founders of DC saw fit to ensure that the Capitol wasn't part of any existing state.  I'm only asking what that reason was, and would its purpose be defeated by allowing DC to become it's *own* state?

Somebody going to have a Jack Nicholson moment or what?  Seriously, I don't get this.  Is it treat angus like a mushroom day?  Or is this just something everyone learned in history and I forgot?  or was I just absent that day?

see what I'm saying.  there must have been some reason.  fine.  I'm okay with that.  But WHAT THE  WAS THE REASON?

[WMS]

well, I had hoped my question could be answered without resorting to political preferences, or voting provclivities...

Hey, I tried. I even referred to Classical Athens. Needs more land and more people, but definitely more land. 

I also said I'm not sure why the U.S. has never approved city-states. My guess would be because the Founders didn't want cities to utterly dominate the politics of the U.S., and felt it important that rural and small-town Americans have a voice in their governance as well. However, I don't think the rules are codified anywhere, although I could be wrong...

[John Dibble]

Leave it as an independent district. Give it one or two representatives in the House, and let them share one Senator from each of the neighboring states, giving them two.

you're clearly not in bed with the two big parties, and therefore can be trusted.  why not statehood?  why the complicated arrangement instead? 

Well, the reason is that many probably wouldn't think statehood is a good idea - I'm just suggesting a compromise that would give the people in D.C. a say. Of note, the population of D.C. is greater than that of the state of Montana - it does seem a little unfair not to give them something. If not representation, give them some other type of benefit - no federal taxes or something, which would go along with the premisis of the revolution that founded this country, "No taxation without representation".

[angus]

yeah, okay, so the answer is we don't know.  clearly the "city-state" of Wasington, DC would be more populous than probably WY, AK, VT, and maybe MT.  So it's not the population issue.  And if Alaska, Texas, California can be put on the same footing with, say, Rhode Island, then clearly we're not about Square Milage when it comes to apportioning US senators, so those arguments are spurrious.  we only say that "most folks" don't like the idea.  Land area, population, race, and party have all been mentioned in this thread.  Only party stands the test of reason.  If we can put that aside, the others fall quickly. 

[A18]

well, I had hoped my question could be answered without resorting to political preferences, or voting provclivities.  Because, hell, if you want to do that, then it is easy to understand why it would never become a state.  I won't explain the mechanics of an amendment passing, or the fact that a bipartisan (as opposed to a tripartisan system, for example) greatly enhances the probability that one group will control DC, since you probably know all these things.  I'll only say that I was just wondering, in theory, what is the objection, or plan, outside the bounds of Democrat versus Republican politics.

Well, politics matters. It's like saying, let's merge Virginia with France. We want to preserve our state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The founders were worried that the legislature of the state the capital was in would effectively be making laws for the federal government.

But if you read the Constitution, they exempt DC, while also exempting all other federal property from any state legislation. So really, the second part makes the first unnecessary.

Making DC a state WOULD defeat the purpose, because then the capital is in a state (and in fact, is a state). But even then, any federal property in the district would not be subject to the legislature of DC's jurisdiction.

It would make most sense to give everything back to Maryland except select land for federal purposes.

It's just a little out there to on the one hand say "the capital shouldn't be in a state, so let's not give it back to Maryland" and at the same time say "let's make the capital a state."

[angus]

A18.  thanks.  that all makes sense.  I can see what they had in mind.  I see the failure in what you interpreted as my intent.  actually, as I read back over it, there is an internal inconsistency.  What was in my head was very much like what you are suggesting, however, and it is what I was hinting at by separating Washington and DC.  Peter Orvetti did this, as an art exhibit only, with photos of massive beautiful neoclassical architecture in the Washington part of the duality, and extreme poverty in the DC part of the duality.  But those images always stuck with me and made me think about trying to separate them formally, if possible.  So, although I didn't make it clear apparently, I was suggesting exactly what you are suggesting makes the most sense.  (at least before I got carried away on some weird DNC-esque tangent in which I decided to patronize black folks.  Sorry, that's the vestigial Liberal Democrat coming out of the closet.  That happens sometimes.  Time to break out the old WSJ).  Yeah, I think we're on the same page here.  I do appreciate the technical explanation, as I had lost sight of the original reasoning.

"You want the truth?!  You can't handle the truth!"

not only can we handle it, we deserve it.  sir.

[??????????]

The worst mistake they ever made was violating the consitution and allowing people to flow in and have homes built within the districts city limits. I say they should cut up the residential areas and give it to MD.

[muon2]

The worst mistake they ever made was violating the consitution and allowing people to flow in and have homes built within the districts city limits. I say they should cut up the residential areas and give it to MD.

In principle I agree, but we need to remember that the outskirts of DC were a long carraige ride from the Capitol at its founding.  It's easy to see reality creep in and allow residences within a walk of the Federal buildings. We can't evict the residents, so I support giving the private lands rights as part of MD.

There would still be some question about the voting status of anyone who is resident on any remaining Federal part of DC. On other Federal sites around the country, any residents count with the state and county that they are in. For instance, Fermilab (a Department of Energy site), has a small village to house visiting scientists and students. They may vote (if registered) in DuPage co, IL.

[John Dibble]

The worst mistake they ever made was violating the consitution and allowing people to flow in and have homes built within the districts city limits. I say they should cut up the residential areas and give it to MD.

In principle I agree, but we need to remember that the outskirts of DC were a long carraige ride from the Capitol at its founding.

Actually, that was kind of the point - they built D.C. out in the middle of nowhere, so that the politicians would be away from the momentary passions of the people.

[khirkhib]

Combine it with Virginia.  Bush would have still one the state but I bet turn out would have been bettter.

VA+DC Bush  1738215
VA+DC Kerry 1656998

[angus]

The worst mistake they ever made was violating the consitution and allowing people to flow in and have homes built within the districts city limits. I say they should cut up the residential areas and give it to MD.

In principle I agree, but we need to remember that the outskirts of DC were a long carraige ride from the Capitol at its founding.

Actually, that was kind of the point - they built D.C. out in the middle of nowhere, so that the politicians would be away from the momentary passions of the people.

good call.  but now it's a city of 600 thousand in an MSMA of about six million.  And jets are more common than carriages.  changes the whole line of thinking.  I still like A18's "most sense" case.  It seems to uphold the founders intents, while optimizing representation.  Also, it's a nice nod to States Rights, both the concept and the poster, by ceding to Maryland the territory, save that part which is necessary for the maintenance of government.

[A18]

Combine it with Virginia.

Combine it with your ass.

[Nym90]

Option 1; make it a full-fledged state.

[A18]

Option 1; make it a full-fledged state.

It would make far more sense to make Virginia Beach a state.

I challenge anyone to come up with an actual, rational reason why a Maryland city, covering so small an area as to be practically invisible on a map, that IS NOT SELF-RELIANT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM and could quite possibly be the most dysfunctional hellhole on the planet should get statehood.

If the Democrats ever make DC a state, as soon as we get Congress back I'll support dividing up Wyoming into pieces the size of DC and admitting them all into the union.

While we're at it, split Texas into five solid Republican states, as it is permitted to do.