Primer: DC Statehood

This week, NU’s Political Union will be considering the following resolution: The U.S. should expand statehood to Washington DC. Over two years ago, on April 22, 2021, the US House passed a bill that would provide statehood to much of the territory that is now DC. This new state, called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, would not include all of DC’s current territory, carving out a portion to be called “the Capital” that would remain independent of any state’s jurisdiction. For over 40 years, the movement for Washington DC to be granted statehood has gained increasing popularity, while also facing strong backlash from others. This article briefly describes the Pro and Con arguments for DC statehood (along with arguments for Puerto Rico). 

To give a more in depth look into this debate, I will summarize some of the main arguments made both for and against the idea of statehood for Washington DC. 

Those in favor of DC statehood have many convincing arguments. Due to Washington DC not being a state, Congress has much control over the governing of the city. The budget of the city requires congressional approval, meaning that Representatives and Senators from other states have major influence on the operation of DC. Additionally, Washington DC does not have any voting members of Congress, meaning that they have no say in the running of the federal government. This includes the tax rate, resulting in DC having no direct say in their taxation; the license plates in DC show their frustration with this, saying “End Taxation Without Representation.” With statehood, Washington DC would be able to have Senators and a voting Representative that could impact the federal government. Finally, proponents for DC statehood argue that this movement has been hindered by racism. With a majority Black population, proponents say that it is a fear of more fully representing this diverse city that blocks DC statehood. 

The reasoning behind the Con side of this debate is also one to be seriously considered. One argument against granting statehood to Washington DC is the political ramifications for Congress that adding another state would have. With the previously mentioned diversity of this city, it is almost certain that Democrats would gain 2 Senators and a Representative. With a Senate that already has 48 Democrats and 3 Independents that caucus with them, adding 2 new Democratic Senators would grant the Democratic Party more power. Orators against DC Statehood say that the movement is largely intended to help the Democratic Party, not to help the people of the city. Secondly, some argue that the movement to grant statehood to Washington DC is not constitutional. Because the Founding Fathers intended for the capital to be in a state-free zone, making the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth would go against the intentions of the Constitution. Finally, some people argue that granting statehood to DC is not the only option to grant congressional representation to the people in Washington DC. By giving the land of DC back to Maryland or Virginia, they would be able to gain the federal power that they are wanting. 

We hope to see you at our debate on Monday, May 1st in Scott 212! 

"dc license plate" by halliew is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.