DC Statehood: Overview

Introduction

In the spring of 2019 the Washington Post asked every major Democrat running for president in 2020 whether they supported statehood for Washington, DC, and every candidate answered in the affirmative. However, a June 2019 Gallup poll asked people across the United States whether they opposed or supported statehood for Washington, DC, and a large majority—64 percent—opposed statehood. Many in Washington argue that this divide highlights the ignorance of most of the nation regarding the political plight of the city’s permanent residents, caught between the federal government and a nebulous state of home rule.

For supporters of statehood for Washington, DC, the need for change is clear: The lack of voting representation in Congress for the historically majority-black city is a grave injustice and clearly violates the foundational American principle of no taxation without representation. They point out that two states, Vermont and Wyoming, have smaller populations than Washington, DC, and have full representation in Congress. The issues at hand are fairness, equal representation, and voter suppression, and residents have been advocating for statehood for generations. Opposition to statehood for the District of Columbia is politically motivated, they argue, because the residents who would be able to elect US senators and representatives would skew Democrat, and therefore Republicans oppose statehood for the district.

However, opponents of statehood point to the “District Clause” of article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution, in which Congress is given the authority to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may . . . become the seat of the government of the United States.” Control over the nation’s capital was granted to Congress for very good reason, they argue: For one thing, the seat of the federal government should not be subject to state jurisdiction or reliant on a state for services and security. If Washington, DC, had been a state at the time of the Civil War, for example, the nation’s capital might have seceded from the Union that the federal government was trying to preserve. Finally, statehood opponents have their own mirror-image argument about political motivation: They argue that supporters of statehood are simply looking for reliably Democratic votes in Congress.

Others argue that change is necessary, but simply granting Washington, DC, statehood outright is not the answer. One proposed solution is to return (with protections for the federal government) the federal district to Maryland, which granted the land for the capital in 1788 (as did Virginia, which had its portion returned in 1846). Another is to create a compromise whereby giving Washington, DC, voting representation in Congress, with its reliably Democratic seat(s), is offset by creating additional reliably Republican seats.

With a long, complex history and serious political ramifications, the issue of statehood for Washington, DC, is likely to continue to be the subject of debate for years to come.

Understanding the Discussion

Constitutional amendment: A change to the Constitution of the United States through a two-step process that involves proposal by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or the petition of two-thirds of state legislatures, and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

51 for 51: An advocacy group with significant support from national liberal organizations that campaigns for statehood for Washington, DC, to be passed in the US Senate with a simple majority of fifty-one votes, rather than a two-thirds majority. The group argues that because a 2017 rule change allowed Supreme Court justices to be confirmed with fifty-one votes in the Senate, the same should apply for DC statehood.

Retrocession: The action of returning a territory back to a governing entity that had ceded it; in the case of modern Washington, DC, retrocession would entail returning the district to Maryland.

History

The push for statehood for Washington, DC, is limited by the terms of its creation by the young United States. From 1781, Congress (then known as the Congress of the Confederation), met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In June 1783 disgruntled soldiers demanding their pay for service in the Revolutionary War stormed the building, blocking doors and threatening members of Congress. After asking for time to address their concerns, the members of Congress demanded that Pennsylvania do more to protect them. They were rebuffed. Fearing for their safety, Congress left for Princeton, New Jersey, and from there to Annapolis, Maryland, then Trenton, New Jersey, and finally to New York City in 1785. They would not meet again in Philadelphia until the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Pennsylvania’s failure to protect Congress guided the dialogue around the formation of a federal district that was neither a state nor part of a state, where Congress could take steps to ensure its own protection. To that end, the United States Constitution, which took effect in 1789, included a clause in article 1, section 8, providing for the creation of a federal district on land ceded by certain states and giving Congress authority “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district.” However, the clause left the location unspecified.

Eventually, in 1790 Congress passed and President George Washington signed the Residence Act, calling for a federal district to be created on the Potomac River between Virginia and Maryland. The act allowed ten years for construction, during which time the national capital would be located in Philadelphia. The new federal district was created on a square plot of land ten miles by ten miles in size, on land ceded by Virginia and Maryland. It was named the District of Columbia, after Christopher Columbus, and the capital city (which ultimately became coterminous with the district), was named Washington, after George Washington. Congress relocated there in late 1800.

The following year, in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, Congress took control of the district as provided for in the Constitution’s district clause. Thereafter, residents of the district ceased being residents of Virginia and Maryland—but no provision was made for them to be represented in Congress or even vote in presidential elections. This sparked the first protest from a group of district residents, who sent a letter to Congress bemoaning that they were “reduced to that deprecated condition of which we pathetically complained in our charges against Great Britain, of being taxed without representation.”

The first congressional hearings to consider changes to the status of district residents took place a few years later, and throughout the nineteenth century, bills were introduced to retrocede the District of Columbia to Maryland and Virginia, to give its residents one senator rather than two, or to declare it a territory, which could have led to statehood. The push for retrocession was partially successful in 1846, when the residents of the portion of the district west of the Potomac (about a third of the total area) successfully petitioned to be retroceded to Virginia. The main reason this succeeded was that all the federal buildings of the capital, including the Capitol and the White House, were in the eastern portion of the district, the part ceded by Maryland.

As for moves to secure representation or statehood for the reduced District of Columbia, all failed to garner the support they needed to gain serious congressional attention. It was not until 1921 that the first congressional hearings on representation for the residents of Washington, DC, took place, and though a Senate committee approved a resolution in favor of the idea, the measure proceeded no further.

With the civil rights movement of the late 1950s came renewed interest in political representation for the District of Columbia, particularly as most of the disenfranchised residents of the area were black. In 1960 Congress proposed the Twenty-Third Amendment, giving district residents the ability to vote in presidential elections, granting them electors in the Electoral College, though no greater in number than the least populous state. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment in 1961. Because the amendment did not address the issue of congressional representation, bills on that topic continued to be brought forward, culminating in the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, proposed in 1978 but expired in 1985 without ratification by a sufficient number of states. However, in 1970 the District of Columbia Delegate Act created one nonvoting seat in the US House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, like the nonvoting seats held by US territories. Also, in 1973 the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowed city residents a measure of control over local affairs through an elected mayor and city council.

In 1980 the movement for outright statehood began to gather momentum. Residents gathered a constitutional convention and drafted a state constitution, following the statehood application process of a territory. They elected a shadow congressional delegation of two senators and one representative, who were not recognized by Congress but who lobbied Congress for DC voting rights. The proposed state was to be called New Columbia, and the proposed constitution was ratified in 1982. Another draft ratified in 1987 also failed to rally enough support in Congress to effect lasting change. After 1987 numerous statehood bills were introduced, but all failed to pass the House.

DC Statehood Today

Beginning in 1993 bills for DC statehood were introduced each year but failed to garner substantial support. Residents of Washington, DC, continue to agitate for change, however, and in 2000, they adopted a license plate that expressed their primary grievance: “Taxation without Representation.”

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 passed both House and Senate and would have given DC’s nonvoting delegate a real seat, with hopes that Republicans would support it because Utah was gaining an additional seat in a reliably Republican area, based on population growth. However, the bill failed after Republicans attached an amendment repealing gun restriction in the district. The issue had become clearly politicized, with Republicans reliably blocking statehood efforts and Democrats supporting them.

In 2016 Washington, DC, mayor Muriel Bowser initiated a city-wide vote on statehood for DC, along with a new proposed constitution. This plan carved out a small federal district that covered government buildings and monuments. The referendum passed overwhelmingly but had no power to effect the change in Congress.

Although support for statehood has been consistent within the District of Columbia, it is not widely supported nationwide, with a 2019 Gallup poll finding 64 percent of Americans opposed to the change. DC statehood was roundly endorsed by Democrats running for president in 2020, but the future of the issue remained unclear.

These essays and any opinions, information, or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

About the Author

Bethany Groff Dorau is a freelance writer, museum manager, and local historian, based in West Newbury, Massachusetts. She holds a bachelor of arts degree in history and sociology and a master of arts degree in history, both from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Bibliography

“D.C. Home Rule.” Council of the District of Columbia, 2016, dccouncil.us/dc-home-rule. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

Miele, Frank. “How about a ‘Grand Compromise’ on D.C. Statehood?” RealClearPolitics, 28 Jan. 2019, www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/28/how‗about‗a‗grand‗compromise‗on‗dc‗statehood‗139289.html. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

Ollstein, Alice Miranda. “Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Oppose D.C. Statehood.” Politico, 15 July 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/poll-dc-statehood-1415882. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

Poston, Dudley. “Picture This: Washington, D.C. Becomes the 51st State.” The National Interest, The Center for the National Interest, 7 June 2019, nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/picture-washington-dc-becomes-51st-state-61357. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

Seitz-Wald, Alex. “New Push for Washington, D.C., Statehood Hits the Presidential Campaign Trail.” NBC News, 20 May 2019, www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/new-push-washington-d-c-statehood-hits-presidential-campaign-trail-n1007541. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

Steinhauer, Jennifer. “The State of the Non-State, Washington, D.C.” The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/washington-dc-statehood.html. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

“Washington, D.C. Statehood: Where 2020 Democrats Stand.” The Washington Post, 2 Aug. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/washington-dc-statehood. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.