The 51st State: Washington D.C.
How the 117th U.S. Congress Can Preserve American Democracy
Over the last half century Americans have developed a romanticism with the pageantry of a fifty-state nation. It’s easy to see why — The white stars representing each State line with perfect symmetry across the blue of the American flag. 100 US. Senators sit in Congress every year and vote on issues with a clean 50-person majority. And, perhaps most notably, the simplicity provides a comforting sense of stability to our nations basic structure.
None of those are ultimately compelling reasons to keep it that way. Like the 435-seat U.S. House cap inherited from a 1911 Reapportionment Law, there is no Constitutional or legal mandate to maintain fifty states. In fact, the reasons to not maintain this rather arbitrary number of states are far more more pressing when you consider there are currently millions of tax paying American citizens spread across several U.S. owned districts and territories who lack the same rights and representation in Congress granted to those lucky enough to reside in a State.
The most promising candidate to achieve admission as a State in the near future has always sat in an odd juxtaposition of being physical next to the capitol of the nation while sitting outside the typical Statehood structure. I’m referring of course to the District of Columbia, and to understand it’s unusual current status we have to go back to its unusual founding.
I. History of a Capital
The 1st U.S. Congress did not sit in Washington D.C., primarily because Washington D.C. did not exist when they were sworn into office in 1789. Instead the federal government took refuge in lower Manhattan, which was an unhappy situation for most of the elected representatives involved.
Southerners grumbled it was too far north when they had travel across hundreds of miles across the unreliable road and sea lines of the era. Pennsylvania, the most populous of the northern states, felt slighted as the home to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and first Continental Congresses. New York was also full of English financial speculators, a wholly untrustworthy lot, and carried a reputation for harboring Loyalist sympathies during the Revolutionary war. While the 1st U.S. Congress disagreed on nearly everything they aligned on the need to create a new capital city. The fight was over where it would be.
Two strong contingents formed on the question — one led by the Pennsylvania delegation pushing for the new capital to be built within their state, and a second led by Virginians and southern representatives for a site further south. One area quickly marked by land speculators was a mostly undeveloped strip of swampy land on the northern end of the Potomac River that divided the States of Maryland and Virginia.
The issue dragged into 1790 in complete deadlock. Finally, U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and influential U.S. Representative James Madison met for their infamous dinner table discussion that resulted in the Compromise of 1790. Madison would pull together the southern votes needed for Hamilton’s Assumption Bill to absorb state debt and starting building U.S. credit with a centralized bank, Hamilton would secure the votes Madison needed to get the Potomac site selected for the nation’s capital.
In September 1791 the commissioners appointed to organize the capital agreed to name the associated Federal District the Territory of Columbia, and the associated city within as City of Washington in honor of the first president. The District and the City were planned in parallel, with the intent to make The District the larger boundary with the City contained within. The 1790 Residence Act specified that the Federal District be located along the Potomac River between the the Anacostia River and the Connogochegue, and encompass an area of no more than “ten miles square” on a side.
The heart of the District was finally settled to be established just east of the village of Georgetown on a rolling slope of small hills directly bordering the Potomac. Extensive survey and design work was prepared to make it a modern planned city. Ten years were spent building the future White House, the U.S. Congressional building, and other federal structures and infrastructure along this core strip.
President John Adams and the the 6th U.S. Congress moved into The District in 1800, then passed the District of Columbia Organic Act in 1801 that formally placing the District and City under the control of the U.S. Congress and renamed the federal area the District of Columbia. They also created two counties within, the County of Washington on the Maryland side of the Potomac and County of Alexandria for additional Virginia land added in the 1790’s. From that point onward any residents within the District were no longer considered residents of their former states, and no longer could vote for the U.S. President or U.S. Congressional representation even though they now lived literal miles from the heart of the federal government.
This odd arrangement, with local county and city governance but no federal representation, created stress points within the District over the next two centuries. The portions of the District south of the Potomac eventually returned to Virginia in 1846 after years of economic neglect by Congress on the portions of The District south of the Potomac, divisions over slavery, and the lack of voting rights.
The population of The District exploded after the Civil War as freed slaves flooded in from the south and the federal government itself grew larger, creating greater need for a large year round residential community. As the rural regions of The District outside Georgetown and the City of Washington soon filled in with homes, buisnesses, and organizations the local governments within The District proved incapable of handling the growth. The city was filthy, with muddy dirt roads and poor sanitation conditions serving as an embarrassment to visiting dignitaries from across the world.
In 1871 the District of Columbia Organic Act was passed, removing the county and city system and reorganizing the District under a unified single local government. This led to the modernization of the entire District, as the new government developed the urban area contained within their boundaries even though there was no longer any incorporated independent cities or townships. The U.S. Congress maintained nominal authority over The District, including veto power over many decisions.
In 1973 the District of Columbia Home Rule Act further expanded local authority and governance within the District to create the current mayoral system in place, with local council seats elected from the District’s eight wards. While these addressed the need for local representation for an urban area of over 500,000 people, it did not address the issue of the lack of elected federal representation for The District.
The 23rd Amendment was passed in 1961 to address part of the issue, guaranteeing citizens within the District a minimum number of electoral votes to cast for U.S. President elections as if they were a state. That numbers 3 votes now, the same as Delaware, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, and seems fairly apportioned. The issue is Delaware, Wyoming, and the Dakotas also hold the additional privileges of Statehood, namely greater autonomy in self governance, two sitting U.S. Senators, and at least one full voting U.S. House Representative seat.
The issue has been a continuous one within the District for decades, reaching a critical point in the last decade with many in the District calling for full Statehood and kick starting much of the process needed to become the 51st State in the Union. Unfortunately for them it is not always an easy road to tread.
II. How to Become a State
In the beginning there were Thirteen States, formed of the thirteen original British colonies that created the United States of America. Vermont was the Fourteenth State, standing as a sovereign entity for years before being admitted into the Union in 1791. From there new States have come about in all sorts of ways. Some like Kentucky (1792) and West Virginia (1863) were created by splitting land from existing states like Virginia. Some were part of the expansion westward thanks to treaties and questionable treaties with Native groups. Others were carved from territories won in war.
While there are many starting paths to becoming a U.S. State, we do have guidance on the matter that we can look to for on the actual process.
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
To start, you need consent of the people from within the prospective jurisdiction seeking statehood, and it cannot be formed from within the jurisdiction of another state without that state’s consent.
On November 8, 2016, 78% of voters living in The District of Columbia voted in favor of Statehood, following a proposal that would establish the sitting mayor the governor of the new state, and sitting council forming a new House of Delegates. This tracks with the history of most statehood processes, where the U.S. Congress has sent delegates to the prospective state to gauge local sentiment. Where lack of public support is often used in opposition to granting statehood, there are decades of consistent recorded support on the issue that would make such a barrier unlikely in the case of Washington D.C.
The second critical note from the Constitution is only the U.S. Congress has the authority to admit new states into the Union. Unlike adding Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which require approval of the President and a requisite number of States to ratify, Statehood can be granted by passing simple majorities in the both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. From here the question of statehood tends to become more political outside the constraints of the Constitution since it is largely left to those two bodies to decide what should constitute admission to Statehood.
In 2017, the non-voting representative for The District in the U.S. House introduced a bill formally requesting Washington D.C. Statehood in response to the successful 2016 referendum. The issue received support from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her party leadership in 2019. In 2020 the House of Representatives passed the “Washington, D.C. Admission Act” mostly along party lines. Ironically, Representative Norton was unable to vote on her own bill due to the District not having full voting powers in the House.
The Washington D.C. Admission Act has since been tabled by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, where it will likely expire at the end of the 116th U.S. Congress. Even so, The District has laid the foundation for two crucial prerequisites of the fight for statehood are already in place for the next 117th U.S. Congress — evidence of popular support for Statehood within The District, and full support within the U.S. House of Representatives if Democrats maintain their majority.
That leaves only two major battles left to be decided, the U.S. Senate, which is in midst of a close election battle between Republicans and Democrats, and any additional Constitutional challenges that arise due to the special circumstances of the Federal District.
III. District Challenges
To sum so far, there are three basic Constitutional requirements to being admitted as a new U.S. State:
1) Widespread support and consent from within the jurisdiction of the proposed state;
2) The proposed state cannot sit within the jurisdiction of an existing State without that State’s consent;
3) Passage and support of the majority of U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
For the District of Columbia, the 1st element has clear and consistent support that the people of the District wish to become a State, and the 2nd element does not directly apply to them as they are part of a federal district rather than a State. That leaves the 3rd element, which has been the historical road bump point for most Statehood battles through American history. The reason being is simple — Statehood is a political calculation.
Through the 1800’s one of the major issues in admitting new states surrounded the topic of slavery. While northern states abolished the practice of slavery in their own jurisdictions, there was no federal prohibition on slavery until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865. That meant southern states were free to maintain the practice, and fierce battles began in Congress over the expansion of such slave states westward.
Southern congressmen would block admission of “free states” and fierce political battles would start that required massive compromises. The admission of Maine (1820) as a free state was enabled by Missouri’s compromise to join the Union as a slave state (1820), and adding new “free” states such as California (1850), Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861) without corresponding slave states was one of the triggers that helped set off the American Civil War. My own home state of New Mexico became a U.S. Territory in 1850, but was blocked to become a state by Texan and other Southern congressmen over the next decade despite widespread territorial support due to the high likelihood the state would enter as a “free” state as well.
After the Civil War other political issues emerged to block and delay Statehood. Colorado became a state in 1876 despite local party squabbling as Republican party insiders feared it would result in more Democrats being sent to Congress. Wyoming (1890) survived numerous Democrat attacks against statehood for the Republican territory by attacking the proposed articles of women’s suffrage in the state. Alaska (1958) dealt with numerous hurdles to become our 49th state, including calming Republicans fears that it would end up a welfare state due to it’s small population.
While upsetting the political balance was usually the prime concern in Statehood admission votes, ethnic and religious barriers also played their parts as well. Utah waited nearly fifty years to become a State after tensions between early Mormon leaders and the U.S. Government in Washington D.C. escalated into the Mormon War. Mormonism as a religion remained unpopular, particularly the practice of polygamy, and it was not until that practice was formally denounced by Church leaders that the State was finally admitted to the Union in 1896.
For New Mexico, even anti-slavery congressmen such as Daniel Webster of Massachusetts were convinced that Mexicans like my ancestors were racially inferior, and adding a state heavily populated with them to the Union would erode the foundations of representative government. Such thinking delayed Statehood until 1912. And similar Anti-Asian racial animus delayed Hawaiian Statehood for decades, until it was finally admitted as our 50th and most recent state in 1959.
All of that is to say while there are practical concerns such as population size, taxes, revenue, and other considerations on how the U.S. Congress should review petitions for Statehood they often come down to very political decisions. The argument for Washington D.C. Statehood is no different.
The District of Columbia has an estimated population size of 702,455 people. It has an demographic breakdown of 49% African American, 39.6% White (Non-Hispanic), and 4% Hispanic. It would thus become the first, and likely only, majority African American State in the nation. It has reliably elected Democrats to local seats and cast it’s 3 electoral votes for Democrats over the last few decades. It would likely send 2 additional Democrats to the U.S. Senate and a full voting Democrat to the U.S. House in 2022 if it achieves Statehood. Those are all practical concerns why Republicans currently oppose Statehood for the District outright. They are following the historical pattern of playing politics with the creation of states.
But we should aim for a higher ideal than that.
The District of Columbia has an estimated population size of 702,455 people. That would make the proposed 51st State the 49th largest by population (ahead of Vermont and Wyoming), 51st by area, 1st by GDP per capita, 1st by median household income, and 34th by total GDP. It would also enfranchise hundreds of thousands of Americans who currently lack the same ideals the nation itself was founded on — no taxation without due representation, and the right for citizens to choose representatives through their vote.
It is almost always impossible to predict what the future holds. There are no longer any slave or “free” states, Colorado entered the Union as a Democrat state but was a Republican stronghold for decades, and Alaska achieved statehood thanks to majority of Democrat votes in Congress and has been reliably Republican for most of its history. What ultimately matters is citizens are enfranchised to vote as they decide, and more representation, not less, is ultimately the key to maintaining our representative democracy.
There are additional hurdles the District will still have to deal with, namely Constitutional questions on if it is prevented from becoming a state at all (with the likely counter argument to shrink the Constitutionally mandated federal District of Columbia down to the uninhabited core strip of buildings running along the National Mall and utilize the remaining territory as the new state), to what name the State would take (the current proposed name is: “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” to distinguish itself from the other State of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, as well as from the District of Colombia from which it severed like the Vatican City within Rome).
At the end of the day there is really only one question before the 117th Congress, particularly if they get the rare alignment of a Democrat controlled White House and U.S. Congress. That is if they will choose to empower and expand representation for over 700,000 Americans who lack federal representation and overwhelmingly support Statehood, or if they will keep to old traditions.
It has been over sixty years since a star was added to our Union. This is the perfect era to turn a page and start a new chapter in American history with an even stronger Union than the one we inherited.
This is the 2nd in a series for Medium.com. See:
