Looks like statehood for Washington D.C. is once again up for vote in Congress.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics ... index.html

Still long odds of actually happening, but curious about everyone's thoughts.

To me I've always found the idea of DC becoming its own state a bit asinine. I think it's pretty clear the Founders did not want any one state privileged with having the federal capital...hence the entire reason for the creation of the District of Columbia.

Agreed - it's too much of a conflict of interest and should stay as intended. That said, there's no reason for PR or the Northern Marianas not be states at this point, if that's what they desire.

Aaron747 wrote:

That said, there's no reason for PR or the Northern Marianas not be states at this point, if that's what they desire.

In principle, completely agree. In practice, the main stumbling block to the territories becoming states has been the federal minimum wage. The economies of these territories would be severely stunted if they were forced to raise wages to the federal level on the mainland as well as comply with various other sundry regulations. There was an example not too long ago with American Samoa I believe where, for some reason, they were going be forced to raise their minimum wage to US mainland levels, and they practically had to beg to be made exempt.

Wont happen with the current congress set up. It would be an easy way to practically guarantee the democrats 3 more seats.

As stated above, DC is the capital of the country and should remain "neutral".

Nope.

TWA772LR wrote:

Wont happen with the current congress set up. It would be an easy way to practically guarantee the democrats 3 more seats.

As stated above, DC is the capital of the country and should remain "neutral".

Why should it remain neutral? What is it that we are too incompetent/uneducated at that stops us from giving tax payers in our capital due representation while the rest of the world does?

DC has 535 “representatives”, more than any state. DC and the surrounding area is among the richest in the nation AND you want to vote, too?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DC has 535 “representatives”, more than any state. DC and the surrounding area is among the richest in the nation AND you want to vote, too?

Yup - if they wanna vote nationally, they can live in Alexandria or Rockville.

Why is DC statehood such a big problem? Oh, because 3 new Democrats would enter Congress...that's why. So lets spread freedom overseas but keep over 700k Americans without a vote in Congress (and while we're at it, let's tax them as if they were a state).

Oh, the capital must be free of local influence? Well, why can't the federal buildings be enclaves in the new state? I mean, that's how military bases work: those are sections of land in a state that are not subject to state laws. DC votes for president, but given that the Home Rule charter can be taken away at a moment's notice, DC's status will remain in limbo.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

That said, there's no reason for PR or the Northern Marianas not be states at this point, if that's what they desire.

In principle, completely agree. In practice, the main stumbling block to the territories becoming states has been the federal minimum wage. The economies of these territories would be severely stunted if they were forced to raise wages to the federal level on the mainland as well as comply with various other sundry regulations. There was an example not too long ago with American Samoa I believe where, for some reason, they were going be forced to raise their minimum wage to US mainland levels, and they practically had to beg to be made exempt.

Shows how much you know about the territories. The minimum wage in all of them IS the federal minimum wage. The only exception WAS American Samoa. In 2010 a law was passed to make AS's minimum wage the same as the federal mandated one.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DC has 535 “representatives”, more than any state. DC and the surrounding area is among the richest in the nation AND you want to vote, too?

If all 535 representatives answered to DC voters, you'd have a point. But as DC only sends a non-voting delegate to Congress while each state has a say not only in their affairs but in those of DC's, it's almost like all Americans vote for a representative FOR DC as well. Since when is it a democracy where I vote for my representative that can also make decisions for you while your representatives has no vote and is subjected to the whims of what my representative wants?

Not only that: it's funny to see conservatives in particular be all about states' rights as a justification to pass laws for their benefit. Imagine a GOP controlled Congress reviewing the laws of DC. Imagine if DC decides to allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Why should WY's delegation vote on what DC wants but not the other way around? Kind of ironic that the capital must be free of local politics but national politic influence it...

einsteinboricua wrote:

Why is DC statehood such a big problem?

IDK, you tell us why is should be a state. It's pretty clear why it was created in the first place. Why should its status be changed at this point?

einsteinboricua wrote:

Oh, the capital must be free of local influence? Well, why can't the federal buildings be enclaves in the new state?

Couldn't that precisely be how one would describe the whole District of Columbia? The fact that people decided to move in and live in a tiny district with no direct federal representation was their choice...they're free to move to Virginia or Maryland if that's so important to them.

einsteinboricua wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

That said, there's no reason for PR or the Northern Marianas not be states at this point, if that's what they desire.

In principle, completely agree. In practice, the main stumbling block to the territories becoming states has been the federal minimum wage. The economies of these territories would be severely stunted if they were forced to raise wages to the federal level on the mainland as well as comply with various other sundry regulations. There was an example not too long ago with American Samoa I believe where, for some reason, they were going be forced to raise their minimum wage to US mainland levels, and they practically had to beg to be made exempt.

Shows how much you know about the territories. The minimum wage in all of them IS the federal minimum wage. The only exception WAS American Samoa. In 2010 a law was passed to make AS's minimum wage the same as the federal mandated one.

Good to know, I stand corrected. I had thought they were still exempt from the federal minimum wage.

I thought there were reasons why DC was never granted statehood from the beginning? Like partisan disagreements and funding? I think it is a bad idea. I think Puerto Rico and Guam should be states but I don't think DC should ever be granted statehood.

For many years, the DC license plates (except for certain Federal Government agency ones) have contained the words 'Taxation Without Representation', a reference to their lack of Federal Congress members, a term originally used during the American Revolution and I believe in the Declaration of Independence. In comparison, other countries with designated 'capital' districts like ACT/Canberra in Australia, have elected national representatives in proportion to their size.

The idea that they do not have full Federal Congressional representation is sadly a mix of fears by Republicans of the Democratic Party gaining seats, especially now how it would mean a narrow Majority of Senate and likely 2 of all 3 of the elected Congress members being Black or non-White persons.The district is majority non-White, mostly the descendants of slaves. In the past it is possible that racism as to Black persons also discouraged it.

I would note that DC's population is about 700,000. Only the states of Wyoming and Vermont have fewer residents while they have each 2 Senators and 1 House member. The population of the greater DC metro area, including parts of Maryland and Virginia is among the top 10 in the USA. That would further dilute the value of the larger states in population and proportion of representation in the Congress (mainly due to Senate seats)

Why not just give them representatives that vote? They were not meant to be a state, but the people there don't have a voice. So how about we just give them voting congressmen. If the GOP (Mitch Moconell said this was the reason he had not considered it) is upset that they won't get any of the congressmen, maybe it is a reflection of the party itself and that they need to resonate better with urban voters.

seb146 wrote:

I thought there were reasons why DC was never granted statehood from the beginning? Like partisan disagreements and funding? I think it is a bad idea. I think Puerto Rico and Guam should be states but I don't think DC should ever be granted statehood.

I think the founders never intended for people to live in the District of Columbia. It was to be for the Capitol and other official federal buildings. But, as the reality of commuting, transportation, and growth evolved, people ended up choosing to live inside district boundaries. And now there's what, about 600,000 people living within District boundaries? Are they not American citizens worthy of full representation in Congress? How is there a 10th Amendment based argument towards not granting them statehood?

I'm not comfortable with the idea that we call people that live in DC, PR, Guam, Samoa, and Micronesia American citizens, but they don't have full rights and representation of other citizens.

Too confusing, flags would all have to be altered, too late in the game

Yeah I don't know, I'm not opposed to it exactly, but it's not like their representation was stripped away from them suddenly. They chose to live there.

Would it need an amendment since it was what the founders intended? Make it so no one can be a DC resident, instead only a resident of one of the 50 states? I don't know

dmg626 wrote:

Too confusing, flags would all have to be altered, too late in the game

The American flag has already been altered like 13 times in our country's history. That's one of the dumber reasons to deny statehood to DC. Although if you're that concerned about keeping the number of stars to 50, merge the Dakotas. Easy peasy. Hell, merge Kansas and Nebraska and then Puerto Rico can be a state too.

It wasn’t intended to be a State, it’s why it’s called a District. It’s not a City, it’s a Capitol. So nope.

DL717 wrote:

It wasn’t intended to be a State, it’s why it’s called a District. It’s not a City, it’s a Capitol. So nope.

Precisely.

DC exists for the explicit purpose of NOT being a state, but rather, being a federal preserve as the seat of the government.

If anyone living in DC has a burning desire to vote for a Senator or Representative, they can move to the state of their choice.

stl07 wrote:

Why not just give them representatives that vote? They were not meant to be a state, but the people there don't have a voice. So how about we just give them voting congressmen. If the GOP (Mitch Moconell said this was the reason he had not considered it) is upset that they won't get any of the congressmen, maybe it is a reflection of the party itself and that they need to resonate better with urban voters.

Urban voters or swamp critters?

DC is represented by literally every Congressperson and Senator. That is where they own their homes, they educate their kids, where they stay and live after they get voted out of office, etc. Their incentives are to grow DC, not their "home" districts. The result is more than 50% of the top 15 richest counties in the country being in an area that produces nothing but government. Build a wall around DC, prevent anyone from forgetting not than 10 years induce (lifetime maximum) and then we can start talking.

Versailles on the Potomac

flyguy89 wrote:

IDK, you tell us why is should be a state. It's pretty clear why it was created in the first place. Why should its status be changed at this point?

It was created for the same reason that some people oppose its statehood today still. Because petty states and petty politicians. Back then, they didn't want another state to have the capital if it wasn't going to be in their state; today they can't stand the (minor) loss of influence that DC statehood would result in.

flyguy89 wrote:

Couldn't that precisely be how one would describe the whole District of Columbia? The fact that people decided to move in and live in a tiny district with no direct federal representation was their choice...they're free to move to Virginia or Maryland if that's so important to them.

Yes, they should move from the place they didn't decide to be born in to begin with. By the way, careful about sending them to Virginia. Plenty of Southern and Western Virginians will want word with you. You should have written DC residents are free to move to a state where they will not influence the color of local politics.

Pyrex wrote:

DC is represented by literally every Congressperson and Senator. That is where they own their homes, they educate their kids, where they stay and live after they get voted out of office, etc.

It's a time long past since members of Congress lived in DC. There's a reason the typical Congress workweek begins on Tuesday and ends on Thursday afternoon, and it's not because they want an extended weekend in their DC residence with their DC families. Elected representatives are expected to live in the districts they represent. Nowadays, it would be very easy to primary out someone if they spent too much time in DC. Many people smarter than you or me have argued Congress would be less partisan if its members actually got to know each other rather than fly in at the last minute, and fly out as soon as possible (and no, not so much to see the family, but to attend fundraisers back home).

Pyrex wrote:

The result is more than 50% of the top 15 richest counties in the country being in an area that produces nothing but government.

I'll give you Howard, Fairfax, and Arlington counties as home of government employees and large and small corporations that depend on public contracts for (a substantial) part of their revenue. I'll be kind and extend it to the top 20, and throw in Montgomery and Prince William, and still come up short of 50%. As for the richest, Loudon, it may be close to DC geographically but between large equine farms to the West and the "Silicon Valley of the East" to the East (more data centers and high-tech firms than Starbucks), it isn't exactly government that is footing the bills.

LittleFokker wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Too confusing, flags would all have to be altered, too late in the game

The American flag has already been altered like 13 times in our country's history. That's one of the dumber reasons to deny statehood to DC. Although if you're that concerned about keeping the number of stars to 50, merge the Dakotas. Easy peasy. Hell, merge Kansas and Nebraska and then Puerto Rico can be a state too.

It’s sarcasm , get a grip

I know of many states with 2 senators and some congressmen that are willing to trade them for all of the power and billions DC gets for being the seat of the federal government.

Congress representation is over-rated. Have you folks seen the approval ratings for congress?

DL717 wrote:

It wasn’t intended to be a State, it’s why it’s called a District. It’s not a City, it’s a Capitol. So nope.

Capital. The Capitol is the structure in which houses of government reside.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Versailles on the Potomac

That is a great description for the current state of DC - an aristocratic class who think they are superior to others and that laws only apply to the little people, so detached from reality they will actually be surprised when the metaphorical guillotines come out for them. I mean, Andrew McCabe flat out and admittedly did what the FBI forged evidence to pretend Michael Flynn did, destroying his life in the process, and they couldn't even find a grand jury in that wretched swamp to indict him. Things can only go one way from here.

I still think DC better resembles the Metropolis in "Hunger Games", though - a group of people living in the lap of luxury and extracting tributes from the outlying districts, which they see as lesser to them

DL717 wrote:

It wasn’t intended to be a State, it’s why it’s called a District. It’s not a City, it’s a Capitol. So nope.

Agreed

blueflyer wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Wont happen with the current congress set up. It would be an easy way to practically guarantee the democrats 3 more seats.

As stated above, DC is the capital of the country and should remain "neutral".

Why should it remain neutral? What is it that we are too incompetent/uneducated at that stops us from giving tax payers in our capital due representation while the rest of the world does?

As others have said, the founding fathers didnt want one state to have all the power of the capitol. I'm not trying to bash on your rights, but you do have the ability and right to choose where you want to live.