DC's Push for Statehood

For more than two centuries, the District of Columbia has been the capital of the country and the seat of Congress. It was built to house the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the federal government. Since its founding, DC has become a home to about 700,000 residents. Today, those residents are fighting for voting equality in a bill on the Senate floor.

DC was not intended to house so many people, so the original government did not provide any way for the residents of the district to vote in federal elections. For years, those residents had no voting power in the Senate, the House, or in presidential elections. In 1961, they were given the right to vote in presidential elections with a small amount of electoral votes. In 1970, DC was given a non-voting House Representative and a mayor, but still no delegate in the Senate. Their non-voting House Representative can draft legislation but has no vote. The current delegate is Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Residents of the District of Columbia have lobbied for full voting rights for a long time, but it wasn’t until recently that their pleas were introduced as legislation. On January 4th, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the H.R.51 bill, or the DC Admission Act. The bill’s main goal is to admit the District of Columbia into the Union as its own state with its own voting rights. The state would be the smallest state by land in America, with about 70 square miles of land, and one of the smallest states by population.

Its proposed name is the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, named after Frederick Douglass. Alongside the name change, the H.R.51 bill would also repeal the 23rd Amendment. That amendment currently gives DC a small amount of electoral votes for the sole purpose of voting in the presidential election. Since this amendment would be unnecessary and counter-intuitive, there is a consensus to remove it if the bill becomes law.

The bill itself is not extremely specific about the details, so it’s unclear what the possible results could be. It outlines how the electors will be chosen, the specific area enclosed in the state, tax regulations, and other economic changes and consistencies that will be impacted by the transition, but it mostly generalizes. Since the bill is not a constitutional amendment, most supporters agree that a joint-resolution will be needed after the bill is passed. A joint-resolution is the legal equivalent of a bill, but it would be specifically for adding an amendment that nullifies the 23rd Amendment. The main reason for having the bill and the resolution separate is that constitutional amendments often take years or decades to be approved.

After almost four months, the bill was passed in the House of Representatives on March 22nd. Now, DC residents are awaiting a vote in the Senate. The outcome of the Senate vote is much murkier, but many are reporting that the bill is not likely to pass. A Senate bill officially requires a majority to pass, or 51 out of 100 votes.

However, due to the nature of the "filibuster," in actuality, 60 out of 100 votes are really required to pass any piece of legislation through the Senate. This is because any Senator who did not want a certain bill passed could simply "filibuster" it, or talk on the floor for an extended period, preventing further action from being taken on the bill. 60 votes are required to end a filibuster, which effectively makes it necessary to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass any provision.

While Democrats currently possess a slim majority in the Senate (51 Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris), they do not possess the majority required to end a filibuster. And not only is the bill unlikely to get much support from the Republican side, but it may not even receive full support from Democrats.

While the bill is a largely Democratic initiative, several independent and Democratic Senators have not signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, and one Democratic Senator has even strictly opposed it. Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia has said that he believes the issue should be in a constitutional amendment, not a bill, and that he will not vote for it.

Without solid support from most Democrats and some Republicans, the bill is unlikely to acquire its needed 60 votes. As of May 12th, the bill still has less than 50 co-sponsors in the Senate. Of those who have co-sponsored it, there are no Republicans and only one independent, Bernie Sanders.

Biden’s administration has strongly backed the DC statehood movement, encouraging delegates to vote for it. While this is a great development for many DC residents, voters' opinions are still split.

Those who oppose the bill are questioning whether it is a necessity. Many argue that the residents of DC should instead become a part of Maryland’s voting pool. This would eliminate the need for a 51st state and fix some presumed issues with the proposal. The process would be called ‘retrocession’. However, both DC residents and Maryland residents appear to oppose annexing DC. Those in Maryland oppose annexation because it would disrupt the culture and interests of both areas.

Another issue some Americans have is that DC is just one of many districts that do not have equal voting rights. Millions of Americans live in U.S. territories that have fewer voting rights than DC, such as Puerto Rico and Guam. Some argue that DC’s statehood would complicate the statuses of these other territories. Those who oppose the bill bring up that giving DC voting rights while ignoring Guam or Puerto Rico is morally wrong. Others worry that giving DC rights would spur civil unrest for those other districts.

The last issue, and perhaps the most important one, is purely political. With a historically Black majority, DC is almost guaranteed to vote Democratic. Some Republicans are questioning the motives behind the bill; Donald Trump and Mitch Mcconnell have remarked that they believe DC statehood is a ploy to gain more Democratic votes. Others have brought up the constitutionality of the bill, because it would be disrupting the current government makeup addressed in the Constitution. The law around DC is very vague, but strict constructionists believe the district can’t be changed.

DC statehood is a contentious issue with a multitude of varying viewpoints all across the board. Does this bill give adequate equality to DC or does it overrepresent Democrats? If DC were granted statehood, what would that mean for other districts and territories without equal representation? Should this bill be replaced with an amendment that’s more constitutionally sound? The fate of this bill is being mulled over by the Senate now, but the issue will likely remain until it’s fully addressed.