Tue. Mar 2nd, 2021


On Wednesday night, Democrats clinched a narrow majority in the Senate, wresting control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 2011. With an incoming Democratic president in Joe Biden, the party stands poised to reverse, or at least reckon with, the legislative agenda imposed by Donald Trump’s four years in office—barring the usual impediments of the filibuster and the Senate’s 50-50 split, of course.

As Democrats gear up for a potential legislative overhaul, circles of beltway wonks, activists, and liberal politicians on Twitter have been discussing a particular potential policy position that could very well alter the makeup of U.S. politics if enacted: Making Washington, D.C. the country’s 51st state.

D.C. statehood is hardly a new idea dreamt up by political radicals; rather, it’s an old legislative chestnut previously voted on by Congress in 1993, 2009, and by the House just last June, only to fall short of passing both chambers all three times. Just this week, the issue was given new life by Washington, D.C.’s sole (and non-voting) House representative, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, who introduced the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which aims to grant statehood to the nation’s capital.

The bill already boasts 202 co-sponsors and has received vocal support from returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, and a variety of online cheerleaders. Though granting statehood to a new municipality isn’t an easy task—and hasn’t happened since the 1959 inductions of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union—it appears poised to be an issue Congressional democrats will attack with gusto.

Here’s how the process might unfold, as well as a bit on the motivations for seeking D.C. statehood, and how the political landscape would be affected if it actually happens.

How do states become states?

It’s a process rooted deep in the Constitution. In a general sense, the granting of statehood is typically determined by Congress, under the Admissions Clause of the Constitution. Sixty years after we added the last stars to the flag, it’s easy to forget that the United States is really an ongoing project, one that has gradually accrued more territory since the start of the 18th century. That said, the admittance of new states hasn’t exactly followed a predetermined pattern across the centuries.

But as the legal scholars Eric Biber and Thomas B. Colby write for the National Constitutional Center, despite the peculiarities of different situations, the admission of new states has always merited oversight from Congress:

The Admissions Clause provides that admission of a state requires at least one Act of Congress. However, Congress has often followed a more complicated process. For many admitted states, Congress first passed an Enabling Act, which authorized the population of a territory to convene a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the new proposed state, and to apply for admission to Congress. Often in the Enabling Act, Congress specified a range of conditions that the proposed state had to meet in order for admission to occur. These conditions varied widely across time and states.

It’s easy to get bogged down in the constitutional minutiae, and the authors freely admit “the Constitution provides almost no guidance as to how Congress should exercise” the Admissions Clause. It is, like many things wedded to Constitutional scholarship, a complicated issue, and open to interpretation. But generally speaking, there are rules governing how to states become states. According to the actual text of the clause:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

How is Washington, D.C. different?

Washington, D.C. has been the nation’s capital since 1790. It’s a city, and thus markedly different from the vast, sprawling wilds of Alaska and Hawaii, or even the relative confines of Rhode Island. In order to make D.C. a state, the current bill floating through congress intends to effectively shrink the geographic size of the city in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution’s Enclave Clause, which gives Congress full control of federal districts no bigger than 10 square miles. As you might have guessed, it’s a process overwhelmingly dictated by Constitutional doctrine.

Robinson Woodward-Burns, an assistant professor of political science at Howard University, detailed the broader process to Lifehacker in an email:

The pending DC statehood bill would reduce the current district’s borders to a much smaller district encompassing the national mall and surrounding federal buildings, satisfying the clause’s requirements. The bill then cedes the remaining area to a new state, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, which would approve a state constitution and elect federal senators and a representative, delegates to the Electoral College, a governor, and state legislators.

Woodward-Burns explains that legislative barriers involved would be easily overcome, as the “Supreme Court has affirmed that the Enclave Clause gives Congress the power to redraw district borders and cede district land.”

How much would D.C. statehood change national politics?

Quite a lot, actually. D.C. has enjoyed three Electoral College votes since the adoption of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, but its entry into the Union as a state would help Democrats claw back more permanent territory in the Senate—historically, D.C. residents have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates for president. As Woodward-Burns explains, it may seem like a naked power grab at first blush, but this kind of move is not without precedent.

He wrote to Lifehacker:

As Republicans have made inroads with rural voters in low population states, the GOP has gained disproportionate Senate power, taking narrow Senate majorities over the last few years, and pushing Democrats to admit D.C. as a state and gain two Democratic senators. While this might seem like a baldly partisan tactic by Democrats, this is the norm in the statehood process – in 1889/90, the GOP added six new states to claim 12 new Senate seats.

Making D.C. a state would grant a population of nearly 700,000 tax-paying Americans representation in Congress that they’ve never previously enjoyed. The city’s population exceeds that of both Wyoming and Vermont, each of which is represented by two democratically elected Senators.

The argument, in effect, is to give the people of the nation’s capital equal footing with everyone else in America. And it’s looking more and more like that might happen.





Source link