×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

DC statehood: A matter of justice meets political calculation

By Jules Witcover - Syndicated Columnist | Mar 31, 2021

Jules Witcover

WASHINGTON — In the guise of more equitable politics, many Democrats are taking up the old cry for statehood for the District of Columbia, whose residents see themselves as second-class citizens in terms of representation in Congress.

It’s a justifiable complaint but carries with it a claim for greater political power in the country. With the District now strongly Democratic, statehood would deliver the party two more U.S. senators and another House member, solidifying its grip on national politics.

Yet in terms of basic justice, the District, whose population of just over 700,000 is larger than that of sparsely inhabited Wyoming and nearly as large as those of each of the Dakotas, has a legitimate claim. But the Grand Old Party of Republicans, in a weak political position compared to the liberal Democrats, naturally does not see it that way.

The issue surfaced last week in a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. A witness, Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference Civil and Human Rights, a longtime District resident, argued that D.C. residents “should not have to abandon their homes and move elsewhere to secure the rights of citizens enjoyed by others.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson, a Republican who is the sole representative of the state of South Dakota, gamely suggested that the District be united with Maryland. The Baltimore Sun editorial board chimed in, going him one better: “Why not merge the nation’s least populous states when they are contiguous?” One possible merger: Wyoming and the Dakotas.

“Call it South Dakoming or, better yet, Wyokota,” the Sun pointed out, “the resulting state would have fewer than 1.5 million residents (still just one-quarter of Maryland’s current population), keeping it in the bottom 10 of population rankings.”

It’s all in jest, of course, but the Constitution explicitly states in Article IV, Section 3 that “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 … by the Junction of two or more States or Parts of States” without consent of the state legislatures and Congress.

The District is already eligible for presidential electors by virtue of the 23rd Amendment ratified by Congress in 1961, so what in the end is so urgent in requiring further involvement?

The rationale that all American citizens deserve equal congressional representation runs into an obvious partisan political consideration. Citizens of Wyoming and the Dakotas enjoy vastly greater representation in Congress than their counterparts in more populous state. Citizens of D.C. get none.

Republicans would naturally resist the creation of Wyokota, as its constituent states are presently solidly red, for the same reason they oppose statehood for D.C., as it would be solidly blue. It would be to their political disadvantage.

So it seems unlikely the residents of the District of Columbia will soon be in a position to strengthen President Biden’s hand in the Oval Office with the addition of more Senate Democrats. They may have to settle for being neighbors of the most powerful American living.

Jules Witcover’s latest book is “The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power,” published by Smithsonian Books. You can respond to this column at juleswitcovercomcast.net.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *