You could make a reasonable argument that residents of the District of Columbia are getting shortchanged … in one respect. They pay taxes just like you and me, but have no voting representation in Congress (though they can vote for presidents). Democrats want to remedy this problem by making the city a state, though apparently a duchy or a kingdom has not been considered. In fact, the House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would make D.C. the 51st state, by a strict party-line vote of 216-208.
This is a bad idea for several reasons, and fortunately it will wither on the vine in the Senate. There are other ways to address this issue for district residents, which in the grand scheme of things, is not that major.
Everyone in both parties knows that the issue of “no taxation without representation” (where have we heard that before?) is not the real reason that Democrats are crying crocodile tears for the denizens of D.C. Statehood would bring two more Democrats to the Senate, currently split 50-50 and closely divided for much of the last decade. It’s a cynical ploy at a time when our politics are perilously cynical — and yes, Republicans would be trying the same stunt if it added two more GOP seats.
Anyone arguing passionately for statehood should review how the district was set up back in 1801. The founders specifically wanted a federal district that would not be part of any state so that the seat of the U.S. government would be a neutral entity which oversaw the states without being part of them. Which makes sense.
Anyone in the district who is greatly bothered by this political quirk could move a few miles into Maryland or Virginia, which are actual states. D.C. residents could also be allowed to vote as part of one of those two states, or divided between them.
The main reason, however, that statehood is unjustified is that the district is just a city — only 68 square miles with 700,000 residents. Making a small enclave like that a state on par with mighty Texas or California would be ridiculous. Every resident of this new state would also be a resident of its capital city. Would it have a state House of Representatives and a state Senate? If so, what happens to the D.C. City Council?
Yes, it can be argued that Rhode Island is hardly huge at 1,214 square miles, though that’s still nearly 18 times the acreage of D.C. And you could point out that D.C. has more people than Vermont and Wyoming — and is only slightly behind North Dakota and Alaska. Still those places are actual states, with size and national parks and farms and businesses. The only thing D.C. makes is laws, and it doesn’t even do a good job of that.
Another reason not to pack the roster of states is the same for not packing the Supreme Court — retaliation. Republicans could respond by carving out a small section of a solid GOP state and making this new territory the 52nd state. Democrats could return the favor by slicing off a portion of a blue state and adding two more Senate seats for their party. Since D.C. is so tiny, it wouldn’t be hard to detach a few square miles of another state to make it roughly comparable to the district. Instead of 100 senators, we might have 100 states someday. (I don’t think all those stars would fit on a flag.)
D.C. residents will just have to suck it up. They may lack statehood, but they get to see the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument and Smithsonian Institution all the time. For many Americans, that wouldn’t be a bad tradeoff.
Thomas Taschinger, TTaschinger@BeaumontEnterprise.com, is the editorial page editor of The Beaumont Enterprise. Follow him on Twitter at @PoliticalTom
