Statehood for the District of Columbia
Even though residents of D.C. are U.S. citizens, they do not enjoy the same privileges and rights as citizens of other states. For example, before the civil rights movement, when the demand for statehood gained traction, D.C. residents could not participate in presidential elections and the District of Columbia was not awarded any electoral votes.
In March 1961, the 23rd Amendment gave the District of Columbia electors so that it may participate in presidential elections. Under its current political structure, however, D.C. does not have a governor. In times of crisis, the president alone has the power to activate the National Guard, leaving D.C. residents vulnerable if the president delays his response.
| Keyboard Shortcut | Action |
|---|---|
| Space | Pause/Play video playback |
| Enter | Pause/Play video playback |
| m | Mute/Unmute video volume |
| Up and Down arrows | Increase and decrease volume by 10% |
| Right and Left arrows | Seek forward or backward by 5 seconds |
| 0-9 | Fast seek to x% of the video. |
| f | Enter or exit fullscreen. (Note: To exit fullscreen in flash press the Esc key. |
| c | Press c to toggle captions on or off |
Watch the video, read the text, and click on the Pros and Cons below.
DR. TERRI JETT: The United States of America is made up of 50 states, represented by 50 stars on our flag. But before they were states, they were territories and little by little were added to the Union. Yet there is one piece of land, about 68 square miles, that isn't a state and it's not really a territory either. It's Washington D.C. So what would happen if D.C. became a state, too? Our flag, and our government, would need a bit of a redesign.
The Founding Fathers thought the nation's capitol city needed to be planned and independent and in the Constitution, it says that a "district (not exceeding 10 miles square) become the seat of the government of the United States." The Residents Act of 1790 decreed that the capital be located on the Potomac River and Maryland and Virginia both donated land for the new city. The district would therefore not be part of any state and would be under the jurisdiction of the United States Congress. The new capitol was named after George Washington and Christopher Columbus, Washington D.C., District of Columbia.
By the mid-1800s, the city of Alexandria was a major slave trading city and it was feared that as part of Washington D.C, slavery would soon be illegal. So in 1847, Virginia voted for retrocession to take back their portion of D.C., including Alexandria. Today, the district consists only of the land donated by Maryland, making Washington D.C. only 68 square miles, instead of the original 10x10 mile square. It is about the size of Paris, France and much smaller than Rhode Island, our smallest state, but with a population of about 700,000, D.C. has more people than Wyoming or Vermont.
Until the 23rd amendment in 1961, residents of Washington D.C. couldn't vote for President, as the district didn't have any electoral votes. Today it has three, but can never have more than the least populated state. D.C. residents must pay federal taxes, a rate higher per capita than any state in the U.S. However, because D.C. is not a state, they don't have a voting member in the House or Senate and therefore no influence as to how this money is spent. So isn't this taxation without representation?
That has been the argument of proponents for Washington D.C. statehood, yet because the district and its status is outlined in the Constitution, it would take an amendment to make this happen, right? On June 26, 2020, D.C.'s non-voting delegate proposed a rather elegant workaround in the House. What if the federal district was reduced to just the National Mall, the area with all the federal buildings? The district has been shrunk before. Remember Virginia's retrocession in the 1840s? And the Constitution says that it must be less than a 10x10 mile square. The remaining land, where most people live, would then become a new state. And to keep the name, but to erase the complicated history of Christopher Columbus, it would be called Washington D.C., Douglas Commonwealth, in honor of former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglas.
The bill passed the house, but is now headed for the Senate. The prognosis? The vote will most likely follow party lines. Washington D.C.'s population is overwhelmingly Democrat and adding two Democratic senators and at least one House seat is probably not the Republican's favorite idea. So what do you think? Does D.C. have the makings of a state or should we keep it at an even 50?
Granting D.C. statehood requires repealing the 23rd Amendment, and repealing any amendment is a difficult and contentious process. Legislation such as HR51 supporting D.C statehood was introduced in Congress in 2019 by D.C. representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, but the Republican-controlled Senate, fearful that D.C. statehood would give Democrats a political advantage in Congress, shut down any serious consideration of the bill.
Alternative legislation, such as HR980, has been put forth to retrocede the District of Columbia to the state of Maryland and retain a small federal district for the capital. HR980 is intended to grant residents the same rights as citizens of other states; however, it too faces challenges. Retrocession would require repealing the 23rd Amendment, and many argue that retrocession would cause D.C. residents to lose their separate identity and culture.
- Statehood could give one political party an advantage over the other
- Statehood would require repealing the 23rd Amendment, a difficult and contentious process
- Instead of statehood, D.C. could be retroceded to Maryland. Residents would gain citizenship rights but would lose recognition of their separate history, identity, and culture
Take Notes
List the top arguments for and against D.C. statehood.
