When the Feds move away, statehood makes a play?
October 1, 2014 3:38 PM   Subscribe

Lately, Washington DC has been abuzz with the FBI's plans to relocate outside of the District. But for some, the movement of major government agencies to the Maryland and Virginia suburbs means something potentially revolutionary: legal grounds for DC to finally achieve statehood.

Johnny Barnes, a lawyer who has been fighting for statehood for decades, suggests that the lack of representation for DC residents has always been contingent on Federal agencies remaining within the city. But when they leave, he argues, that agreement has been violated:
"The federal government and the Founding Fathers promised that the District would enjoy federal patronage and the special economic benefit of that patronage. In exchange, District residents agreed to sacrifice the key privileges of state citizenship, including sovereignty and political standing. . . . We're saying, 'We have have honored our part of the deal to surrender our rights. . . and now we want our rights restored, otherwise we're going to make you do your part of the deal, that's to keep all federal agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C.' That's the deal that was made," he said.
Will it work? Even the bill's sponsor Senator Tom Carper doesn't think it likely, but Barnes's new approach has intrigued several spectators and brought new attention to the issue. Even the United Nations has called the lack of representation for city residents a human rights violation. (You can read Barnes's full lawsuit here.)
posted by a fiendish thingy (48 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
I am really excited about the prospect of this, just as I am by the current movement towards Puerto Rican statehood. But I fear that just as in Scotland, Quebec, etc., there's some sort of territorial inertia in the developed West that causes regions to not want to disturb the status quo- whether its for separation or for integration.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:48 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Congress has the sole (undefined) authority to confer Statehood under Article IV, Section 3. There's a 0% change of DC ever attaining statehood, simply because it would mean 2 more permanently Democratic Senators, flipping the balance of power towards the Democrats indefinitely. There's no scenario where the House as currently constructed would ever pass a DC statehood act, and no long term scenario that includes a path to statehood as long as there's such a thing as the organized Republican party. This is the same fantasyland as, "Japanese Company Proposes to Colonize Jupiter by 2025" or "Im moving to Canada if _____ wins the election."
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:50 PM on October 1, 2014 [7 favorites]


There no scenario where the House as currently constructed would ever pass a DC statehood act

Unless it also passed statehood for Puerto Rico, which is seen as friendly to Republicans.
posted by rocketman at 3:56 PM on October 1, 2014


Well, whatever happens about statehood, you can always go buy Barnes' merch. Me, I'm waiting on the bobble head.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:06 PM on October 1, 2014


which is seen as friendly to Republicans.

Citation needed. A whole state full of Spanish speakers, with what would be by far the lowest median household income in the Union, just dying to vote for these guys? Sure.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:06 PM on October 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


There's no scenario where the House as currently constructed would ever pass a DC statehood act, and no long term scenario that includes a path to statehood as long as there's such a thing as the organized Republican party.

I'd like to see D.C. get a voting seat in the House. But the only way that I see that happening is if the Democrats allow a change to the electoral college that gives up two of the three electoral votes. I think D.C. Democrats would rather cry about a lack of representation than give up their disproportionate say in the Presidential decision.
posted by dances with hamsters at 4:10 PM on October 1, 2014


Given Congress's constitutional authority over the district and statehood, this suit has no merit other than as a means to get some publicity for the cause. I suppose this FPP shows it has had some success on that front.
posted by Area Man at 4:13 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


That'd be a reasonable solution to obtain some representation in Congress, but 1 House seat or 3 electoral votes which can always be written in Blue stone anyway isn't the deal breaker, representation in the Senate is what really matters, and why full statehood is a nonstarter.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:13 PM on October 1, 2014


When the Democrats last took control of the Whitehouse, House and Senate I assumed that they would make DC a state. It seems like an obvious political ploy to extend their majority particularly in the Senate. If the district was GOP dominated you know if would be a state tomorrow.
posted by humanfont at 4:22 PM on October 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


I think D.C. Democrats would rather cry about a lack of representation than give up their disproportionate say in the Presidential decision.


I'm not sure why you think it's disproportionate: in 2012, the population of Wyoming was 576,412. Vermont had 626,011 people. DC? 632,323. Even so, I don't think DC's apparently superfluous 2 votes is really wielding a mighty hammer in the electoral college.
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:23 PM on October 1, 2014 [7 favorites]


the eventual destruction of the FBI building might become an annual holiday in my family though so I'm torn on the whole actual voting rights/getting rid of the most strikingly ugly office building in DC thing
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:26 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


2 years old, but here's a cite.
posted by rocketman at 4:30 PM on October 1, 2014


The actual solution is for Congress to return the District of Columbia to Maryland, but for a small defined federal district (or perhaps not even that; the Pentagon and CIA seem to operate without much interference from Virginia). DC has enough well-off people now that it would probably be tax-neutral to Annapolis, or close enough to be adjusted, and Maryland hasn't voted for many Republicans, so it wouldn't upset the political balance of the Senate, while giving DC all or most of a Congressional district.
posted by MattD at 4:39 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


Never mind that most DC residents don't like that "actual solution" I guess?
posted by phearlez at 4:43 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


Except that neither Maryland nor DC politicians/citizens are fans of retrocession, it would be a massive change that would require deconstructing all of DC's internal government structures and merging those systems with their Maryland counterparts, and it might require a constitutional amendment?
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:44 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


2 years old, but here's a cite.

The only thing in that article is a meaningless platitude inserted into the party platform, supporting the right of Puerto Rico to hold a referendum while it had a nominally Republican governor. I don't see any Republicans sponsoring Puerto Rican statehood bills, and unlike the Cuban expat community in Florida, there's nothing to suggest that a Puerto Rican state would be an overly reliable red state, any more than maybe New Mexico, a very purple state with a large Spanish speaking population and a Republican governor...and two Democratic Senators.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:51 PM on October 1, 2014


If DC gets statehood (which seems totally deserved), does that mean that Northern Colorado becomes a state?

'Cause I'm tired of dumping tax money into them, only to hear about the "war on rural Colorado". (From the article, "Crackpottopia" is a great term).
posted by underflow at 5:28 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


The actual solution is for Congress to return the District of Columbia to Maryland...

Or just give residents of the District voting rights in Maryland. It wouldn't really even take any effort -- you just ship the ballot boxes to Annapolis.
posted by Etrigan at 5:40 PM on October 1, 2014


Never mind that most DC residents don't like that "actual solution" I guess?

Seems odd that, if this were actually about representation, they'd oppose the most likely route to it.
posted by jpe at 5:46 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Seems odd that, if this were actually about representation, they'd oppose the most likely route to it.

Just because someone really wants representation doesn't outweigh the enormous changes, cultural/fiscal/political, of retrocession. DC and Maryland are not actually the same. I've heard the lightweight suggestion of giving DC residents voting rights alone in Maryland, but I'm not sure what that would entail: how would local elections work? What district would they be put in? Would it only be for congressional elections and not for presidential elections? If it was for presidential elections, would that require another constitutional amendment? Has there ever been a precedent set for voting in a different district than the one you're resident in? What benefit would there actually be from having representation with no ties to or control over the District? (Or would it be like the current "benefit" of having people like Jason Chaffetz in control?)
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:00 PM on October 1, 2014


Washington, DC has a distinct culture and history. Most tourists don't venture beyond the museum-y areas and news organizations report on the federal government as "DC" so a lot of the country has this idea that the city is full of fatcats, lobbyists, and politicians. It isn't. If the district were to be absorbed into Maryland, so much of that cultural history would end up assimilated and lost. And even if the city were just lobbyists and bureaucrats, hell, we're Americans, too. We deserve representation in Congress just like you have and we shouldn't have to give up part of our identity in order to get it.
posted by troika at 6:00 PM on October 1, 2014 [10 favorites]


I mean DC also has a cultural, social, and economic identity distinct from Maryland; nobody--as far as I've ever heard--has proposed Puerto Rico statehood be contingent upon it becoming part of New York or Florida.
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 6:01 PM on October 1, 2014 [5 favorites]


PR statehood wouldn't require an amendment, though.
posted by jpe at 6:03 PM on October 1, 2014


At this point, there are well over a dozen agencies with their headquarters in the DC suburbs - this feels like yet another instance of a statehood activist in high dudgeon, heading towards an indifferent shrug from Congress or a federal judge.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:41 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Washington, DC has a distinct culture and history. Most tourists don't venture beyond the museum-y areas and news organizations report on the federal government as "DC" so a lot of the country has this idea that the city is full of fatcats, lobbyists, and politicians. It isn't. If the district were to be absorbed into Maryland, so much of that cultural history would end up assimilated and lost. And even if the city were just lobbyists and bureaucrats, hell, we're Americans, too. We deserve representation in Congress just like you have and we shouldn't have to give up part of our identity in order to get it.

San Francisco and la have distinct cultures and histories and somehow they survive under the banner of a single state. hell, brooklyn and Manhattan are at least as different as dc and maryland and they survive as a single city.
posted by empath at 6:59 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


San Francisco and la have distinct cultures and histories and somehow they survive under the banner of a single state. hell, brooklyn and Manhattan are at least as different as dc and maryland and they survive as a single city.

No one is suggesting that San Francisco become a part of Nevada or Manhattan suddenly be governed by New Jersey, though.
posted by troika at 7:13 PM on October 1, 2014


San Francisco and la have distinct cultures and histories and somehow they survive under the banner of a single state.

San Francisco and LA have always been a part of their state. (And in turn, they have helped define and shape what California is.) They have always been governed by the same rules, they have had the same laws, and they have voted in the same elections. Proposing that DC become a part of Maryland is not the same.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:21 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've lived 8 years in DC and 15 in Puerto Rico, the two major US sites of screw-you when it comes to representational democracy. Because, you know, minorities.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:57 PM on October 1, 2014


BTW, NoVa and MD have been stealing federal operations for years because they have representatives that can barter for it. The Pentagon, the CIA, NIH, etc.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:10 PM on October 1, 2014


I seriously can't believe it's acceptable in the year 2014 for a federal agency to push for relocating from a site accessible from the Metro to one lacking meaningful transit access. hey remember that whole climate change thing
posted by threeants at 8:23 PM on October 1, 2014 [3 favorites]


no it's cool they can always just expand the highways, commuting by personal vehicle is a delight in the DC metropolitan area

(Though this article suggests at least one site might actually be a bonus for leveling out some metro demand at peak hours? Have there been other concerns raised by the other sites?)
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:57 PM on October 1, 2014


"There's a 0% change of DC ever attaining statehood, simply because it would mean 2 more permanently Democratic Senators, flipping the balance of power towards the Democrats indefinitely. "

That's what they said about Missouri!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:21 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


But 50 is such a nice round number. Maybe we could bring in DC and Puerto Rico and trade them out for two other states. (Goodbye Texas!)
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:27 PM on October 1, 2014 [2 favorites]


A better compromise to keep the number at 50: DC and PR can both become exclaves of one of the states that currently only has one House member, to be selected at the conclusion of a hot new reality show called Extreme Makeover: State Edition.
posted by aaronetc at 10:00 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


Alexandria County, D.C. was part of the original District of Columbia in 1791. It was retroceded to Virginia by an act of Congress in 1847 and is now mainly Arlington County, Virginia.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:25 PM on October 1, 2014 [1 favorite]


But 50 is such a nice round number.

But 51 is a multiple of 17, so it's actually a more interesting number.
posted by twirlip at 11:16 PM on October 1, 2014 [8 favorites]


I grew up in Alexandria, inside the original DC boundary (King Street). My buddy from Bethesda couldn't get over it. "If Maryland had done what you did* we'd have no nation's capital!"

*Again, this occurred in 1847.
posted by Mapes at 5:26 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


I live in D.C. and think D.C. should be considered a state, or should at least have one member in the House of Representatives with full voting rights as well as two senators (just like Wyoming and Vermont, which have smaller populations than D.C.). The fact that D.C. doesn't have the same rights as states seems like a bizarre anachronism on par with the name of the football team.

However, I don't expect D.C. to get the rights of states any time soon, in part based on the myths people believe about the idea, including those displayed in this thread. For example:

There's a 0% change of DC ever attaining statehood, simply because it would mean 2 more permanently Democratic Senators, flipping the balance of power towards the Democrats indefinitely.

This suggests that states never change party affiliation. It was just eight years ago that the state of Virginia was represented by two Republican senators. In 2008, North Carolina's electoral votes went to Obama. A third party candidate for the Senate in Kansas is currently leading the Republican. This is lazy thinking.

But 50 is such a nice round number.

I know that this is facetious but really, me and my 646,000+ neighbors shouldn't have a voting member of Congress because then we'd have a weird number of states and we'd all have to replace our flags?


Washington, DC has a distinct culture and history. Most tourists don't venture beyond the museum-y areas and news organizations report on the federal government as "DC" so a lot of the country has this idea that the city is full of fatcats, lobbyists, and politicians. It isn't. If the district were to be absorbed into Maryland, so much of that cultural history would end up assimilated and lost. And even if the city were just lobbyists and bureaucrats, hell, we're Americans, too. We deserve representation in Congress just like you have and we shouldn't have to give up part of our identity in order to get it.


QFT.
posted by kat518 at 6:21 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


There's a 0% change of DC ever attaining statehood, simply because it would mean 2 more permanently Democratic Senators, flipping the balance of power towards the Democrats indefinitely.

This suggests that states never change party affiliation. It was just eight years ago that the state of Virginia was represented by two Republican senators. In 2008, North Carolina's electoral votes went to Obama. A third party candidate for the Senate in Kansas is currently leading the Republican. This is lazy thinking.


DC went to Mondale in 1984 by 150,000 votes. Mondale only won his home state by 3,700. Lazy or not, that number alone is a big reason why the GOP will fight DC statehood for a long time.
posted by Etrigan at 6:31 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


Whether you win by 150,000 votes, 3,700 votes or 1 vote does not matter as far as the electoral college is concerned (except in a handful of places if you want to nitpick).

While I want statehood for D.C., I would be happier if Congress just stayed out of District affairs. I don't think people outside of D.C. appreciate how much Congress meddles with District affairs. One small example - we can't build tall buildings because Congress passed a law.

More infuriatingly, Congressional intervention in District affairs frequently involves Congress determining how we can spend our own tax dollars. City funds cannot be used to lobby Congress for greater representation. Congress prohibited D.C. from offering needle exchange programs until 2007 while D.C. had incredibly high rates of HIV infection. When Obama was working with John Boehner to end the government shutdown, Obama sacrificed local funding for abortion in D.C.

To be super duper clear, none of those are examples of Congress telling the District what they can do with federal funds but how D.C. tax dollars collected from D.C. residents could be spent. That doesn't happen with states. It's not right and it should stop.
posted by kat518 at 6:54 AM on October 2, 2014 [9 favorites]


What do we even need a centralized government district for, anyway? Congress can telecommute.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:13 AM on October 2, 2014


DC went to Mondale in 1984 by 150,000 votes. Mondale only won his home state by 3,700. Lazy or not, that number alone is a big reason why the GOP will fight DC statehood for a long time.

If people did what was right instead of what made things easier for them, the world would be a much better place. Politicians seem even less likely to do this than the average person, and Republicans seem even less likely to do this than the average politician.
posted by freecellwizard at 7:54 AM on October 2, 2014


More infuriatingly, Congressional intervention in District affairs frequently involves Congress determining how we can spend our own tax dollars.

You forgot how Congress blocked implementation of DC's medical marijuana law, passed in 1998, until just last year.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:38 AM on October 2, 2014


This is lazy thinking.

Since gaining the right to vote in Presidental elections in 1962, DC has never once voted for the Republican canidate. The closest it came was just 21% for Nixon in the historical landslide of 1972. No other state has voted for the same party for as long.

Lazy thinking backed by 52 years of historical precident and the tiniest bit of informed observation about the current political landscape.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:02 AM on October 2, 2014 [1 favorite]


Puerto Rico, which is seen as friendly to Republicans.

This is really just wishful thinking on the part of the GOP. Most Puerto Ricans who move to the mainland are reliable Democratic voters. Since WWII, Puerto Rico's at-large non-voting Congressional seat has been held by 9 who caucused with the Democrats, and 3 who caucused with the Republicans. Of the 10 Governors since elections began in 1946, 8 have been associated with the Democratic Party while only 2 have been "Republicans." They all, of course, ran as members of the local Popular Democratic Party (most members associate withe Democratic Party) or New Progressive Party (mix of Democratic and Republican sympathizers).
posted by snottydick at 9:53 AM on October 2, 2014


You forgot how Congress blocked implementation of DC's medical marijuana law, passed in 1998, until just last year.

And just a couple of months ago, through a desire to meddle in our business and overturn our own laws, they nearly accidentally completely legalized marijuana by refusing to fund decriminalization. I sort of lost track of that whole saga, so I can't say for sure if the idiots in the House are still trying to screw around with it, but decriminalization has been actually enacted, so at least that's something.
posted by Copronymus at 10:39 AM on October 2, 2014


I don't expect D.C. to start supporting Republican presidential candidates any time soon but I think the GOP will have a much bigger problem than D.C. when Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas become reliable sources of Democratic support.
posted by kat518 at 10:55 AM on October 2, 2014


I mean DC also has a cultural, social, and economic identity distinct from Maryland; nobody--as far as I've ever heard--has proposed Puerto Rico statehood be contingent upon it becoming part of New York or Florida.

I hereby 100% endorse Puerto Rico as the Sixth Borough of New York City. Subway construction will start within 90 days of ratification of the statehood bill.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:26 AM on October 2, 2014


« Older Preamble   |   The Elon Musk Mars Interview Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments