I have lately been hearing renewed calls for the District of Columbia to become a State. Unfortunately, for many people voicing their opinions, contemporary politics are playing a role in support for or opposition to this proposition, with Republicans opposing Statehood because it would give Democrats more votes and Democrats supporting Statehood for exactly the same reason.
This is ridiculous, because DC Statehood would be forever, and, just as some formerly "red" States have turned "blue" and formerly "blue" States have turned "red," the current political makeup of the District of Columbia is not guaranteed to last forever: while it is currently mostly Democrat-leaning, that could change in the future, something that members of both major parties seem to be forgetting.
Instead, we must look at the broader picture.
BACKGROUND
At the present time, the USA consists of 50 States, the District of Columbia, and four major territories: Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. People born in these territories are full United States citizens, not through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is where people born in States get their citizenship) but by statute.
There is another territory where things work a bit differently: American Samoa (plus Swains Island, which has not actually had any permanent inhabitants since 2008). American Samoans are not United States citizens; they are United States NATIONALS. They carry the same passports as citizens and have unlimited rights to travel to, move to, or work in any other part of the U.S. They are also immune from deportation and cannot lose their status merely by being away from the USA for too much time (unlike "Lawful Permanent Residents," better known as "Green Card holders," who, although residing legally in the U.S., can be deported if they commit certain crimes and can also lose their status if they stay outside of the USA for too much time). After residing in another part of the USA for three months, United States nationals can apply to change to become full United States citizens.
These territories (including American Samoa) send a nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives (who, while "nonvoting," usually does vote in COMMITTEES, just not in votes of the full House of Representatives) but do not send two Senators to the Senate, the way States do.
The territories do not send electors to the Electoral College, either, meaning, in a practical sense, that residents of these territories do not vote for President (but do vote in primaries).
If someone from one of the United States territories moves to a State, that person – who is already a United States citizen – gains the right to vote for President and send Senators and voting Representatives to Congress, just like all other United States citizens who reside in that State.
(The exception is someone from American Samoa/Swains Island, who is a United States national, rather than a citizen. If a national moves to a State, that person does not gain the right to vote, but, again, after three months living in that State, can apply to become a citizen, after which the person then gains the right to vote.)
Putting aside the original 13 States, the majority of States in the U.S. started out as territories (or parts of other territories – such as how the States of Oregon and Washington were once together, as the Oregon Territory). As a result, places like Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are on track to one day become States, in keeping with the trend we have already seen in the history of the country. From the perspective of the outside world, this would not really change anything, since these places are already part of the United States.
Likewise, in terms of the daily lives of the residents, not much would change with U.S. Statehood, since they already hold United States citizenship. The primary change that would come with Statehood would be seen every election day, as residents would gain the right to vote for two Senators, (voting) Representatives, and President (i.e., by sending electors to the Electoral College).
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The District of Columbia is administered much like the other non-States (i.e., territories). Natives of the District of Columbia are full United States citizens but do not send Senators to the Senate. Since 1970, they have been sending a non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives. A difference, though, is with regard to President.
Prior to 1961, U.S. citizens living in the District of Columbia were just like the people in U.S. territories, not sending electors to the Electoral College (and, thus, not voting for President). With the ratification of the 23rd Amendment, that changed, and now the District of Columbia is the only non-State in the U.S. that sends electors to the Electoral College (meaning, in a practical sense, that United States citizens living in the District of Columbia now vote for President, just like United States citizens living in States).
So the main things that the District of Columbia would gain through Statehood would be the right to vote for two Senators and the right to vote for VOTING Representatives in the House of Representatives.
In addition, as a State, it would have a degree of sovereignty vis-à-vis the federal government and could, for example, call up the National Guard without the need to go through the federal government (which currently administers DC).
So what is the problem with Statehood for the District of Columbia?
The Constitution provides that the "Seat of the Government of the United States" is to be located in a district "not exceeding 10 Miles square." The idea here is that the national capital would be in a neutral territory that is not part of any State. (Australia's capital – Canberra – is, likewise, in the neutral Australian Capital Territory, which is not part of any Australian state.)
To accomplish this, the States of Maryland and Virginia each gave up some land to create the District of Columbia. (However, the size of the District shrank in 1846, when Virginia's part was returned to it, in what has been referred to as "retrocession"; the remaining portion of the District of Columbia is still quite expansive.)
The primary argument against DC Statehood is that the Framers of the Constitution intended for the capital of the United States to be in a neutral District that is not part of any State (so that it is, indeed, the capital of the ENTIRE country, without favoritism toward any one State).
To address this, the District's nonvoting Delegate has, since 1991, been proposing legislation every year that would keep the "Seat of Government" buildings (i.e., the White House, the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court building, etc.) in the District while making the remainder either part of a new State or part of an existing State (for example, Maryland).
The question remains if it is possible to have the nation's capital consist merely of the White House and a few other buildings.
However one comes down on this issue, the decision will affect the country for generations to come, so the petty issues of contemporary politics must be set aside as the question gets debated.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
