The question of granting full statehood to Washington, D.C. has been a matter which has been debated and redebated off and on at length in various circles for at least the past six decades. The founders of our nation created the District of Columbia as the official national seat of the federal government. It is not a part of either adjoining Maryland or Virginia.
The “district” as locals refer to it as, is purposefully not part of a state. The biggest argument for Congress making it the 51st state seems to be that the residents of Washington, D.C. have no voting representation in Congress, other than for a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. Proponents of this historic change seem to be basing their arguments in favor of statehood on the sole question of taxation without representation.
Residents of the District of Columbia do pay both federal income taxes, as well as income taxes that are levied by the district’s government. Washington, D.C.’s official 2020 U.S. Census population was: 712,816. Larger than the population of Wyoming, which came in at 578,803 as of 2021.
It is understandable, at face value at least, that many residents of Washington, D.C. would like the district to become a state. However, granting full statehood to the District of Columbia could open up all sorts of problems. Most of which would be unintended. Including, the argument could be made that granting full statehood to Washington, D.C. is unconstitutional.
A former speaker of the North Dakota House of Representatives, Kim Koppelman of West Fargo, said making Washington, D.C. a state may require more than a federal law.
“It may actually require a constitutional amendment,” Koppelman said. “Would any such proposal ever be ratified by three-fourths of the states?”
A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution must originate in Congress, with at least a two-thirds vote in favor by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If approved by Congress, the amendment must be ratified by at least 38 of the state Legislatures within a seven-year time period in order for said amendment to become a part of the Constitution.
U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said granting statehood to the District of Columbia could disenfranchise the voice of North Dakotans.
“Two hundred years ago, our founders had the foresight to understand the political importance of our nation’s capital. Their intentionality behind Washington, D.C.’s status as a district, and not a state, still rings true today,” Cramer said.
“Washington is fundamentally a political town and statehood would grant its residents, including thousands of federal employees, outsized power and disenfranchise the voice of North Dakotans. Democrats know this and continue pushing for statehood to further their agenda with a favorably packed Senate,” he added.
Cramer is absolutely correct with his thinking on the Washington, D.C. statehood matter. Granting full statehood to the District of Columbia, of course, would entitle the nation’s capital to at least one member of the House, and the requisite two senators. About 95 percent of D.C.’s population votes Democratic.
Given the divided Congress we have, statehood for Washington, D.C. would almost guarantee an all-Democratic congressional delegation for the District of Columbia. It would be questionable whether Republicans could once again obtain a majority in the upper chamber of Congress, thus creating a favorably packed Senate, as Cramer noted.
Requests for comment on the District of Columbia statehood matter were also left with the offices of North Dakota’s other two members of Congress. Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., and Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. Neither had responded to my requests for comment before this edition of the Journal went to press.
The District of Columbia is unique in that it does have some amount of home rule. It’s mayor acts much like the governor of a state does, and the D.C. city council acts much like a state Legislature would. A unicameral body similar to Nebraska, which is the only state with a one house Legislature.
Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, D-D.C., has introduced H.R. 51, “The District of Columbia Admission Act” into the current Congress. There are 165 original cosponsors on this legislation. Ms. Holmes-Norton has the authority to sit on, has a voice and vote in committees. She may also introduce legislation. However, she has a voice, but no vote on the floor of the House.
How it would work, simply put, is this. A small part of Washington, D.C. where the Capitol, the White House and most of the other buildings where the federal agencies are headquartered would be carved out of the state and be called the “Federal Enclave.” Picture Vatican City sitting in the middle of Rome. It would be its own territory, independent of the state surrounding it.
What would the District of Columbia be called if it became a state? While there have been a number of suggestions, I have seen two suggested names in my research for this article. One would be “New Columbia” and the other, “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.”
Could Republicans ever again control the Senate should D.C. become a state? In 2021, in a historic vote, the D.C. statehood bill passed in the House of Representatives, and Congress adjourned without the Senate taking up the bill.
Accordingly, it is quite conceivable that a D.C. statehood bill could go all the way in the next few years — clear both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President. Democrats generally favor the move, while Republicans oppose it in general. From a personal standpoint, I hope it never does.
In conclusion, there is a lot to consider and think about here. I am against full statehood for the District of Columbia. I have doubts as to the constitutionality of making the District of Columbia a state. It seems apparent that for those who are pushing this subject, the end game for them would be to make sure that the Democrats strengthen their hold on the U.S. Senate permanently. At the same time, making it virtually impossible for the Republicans to regain a majority in the Senate.
Olson, of Fargo, is a published author of commentary and opinion articles in publications throughout North Dakota. He may be reached at: rickolson@midco.net.
