Navigating the Push for D.C. Statehood

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited by: Connor Tooman and Jared Fischer

The rallying cry “No Taxation Without Representation” resoundingly marked the inception of the United States, encapsulating the core principle that ignited the drive for independence. It now, quite literally, roams the streets of the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. Since November of 2000, the D.C. license plate has projected this same phrase coined during the nation’s strive for independence. [1] For over two centuries, the United States has grappled with a stark contradiction to this foundational belief. Despite living in the heart of the nation and paying more federal taxes than individuals from many other states, Washington, D.C. residents lack full representation in Congress. Throughout the past few decades, there have been evolving movements advocating for statehood for the United States’ capital. Amid ongoing efforts for reform, the lingering question remains: will tangible change ever materialize? 

Clause 17 of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, also known as the “Enclave Clause” or “District Clause,” established the nation’s capital as a district “not exceeding ten miles square” independent of state control and completely under congressional jurisdiction. [2] The framers sought to ensure that state jurisdiction could not interfere with the security and functioning of the national government. The concern arose mainly from a 1783 incident under the Articles of Confederation when the Continental Congress in Philadelphia was threatened by a group of soldiers demanding monetary compensation for service. The state government refused to provide protection to Congress. [3] As a result, in July of 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, which established Philadelphia as the temporary capital for a period of ten years. It also authorized the later creation of a new federal district along the Potomac River, which would be independent of any state and serve as the permanent location of the U.S. government. [4] This district later became known as Washington, D.C. However, the Residence Act failed to account for the representation of individuals residing in the district. Under the provisions of the United States Constitution, Congressional representation and Electoral College votes are apportioned “among the several States according to their respective numbers.” [5] This allocation does not extend to the District of Columbia, which is not recognized as a state. Residents of the District of Columbia, formerly constituents of Maryland and Virginia, were deprived of the voting and representation rights they had previously possessed. 

Residents of Washington, D.C. have long sought the same voting rights as state citizens. The movement for equal representation began alongside the civil rights movement. [6] In 1961, Congress ratified the 23rd Amendment, granting “the citizens of the District of Columbia with appropriate rights of voting in national elections for President and Vice President of the United States.” [7] Regarding congressional representation, the 1970 District of Columbia Delegate Act enabled the election of a non-voting “shadow” House representative, and, starting in 1990, D.C. began electing two shadow senators. [8] The 1973 Home Rule Act allowed a locally elected mayor and city council. [9] However, Congress must still approve all D.C. legislation, including budgets, within a specified review period. In 1979, a pivotal moment in American political history unfolded with the passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment in both the House and Senate. The ambitious amendment, aimed at granting statehood to the District of Columbia, achieved a remarkable feat by securing a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress. Despite this significant congressional support, the amendment encountered a major hurdle: ratification by at least 38 states. It fell considerably short, with only 16 states voting in favor. [10] In 2020 and again in 2021, the House passed H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, similarly aimed at granting statehood to the district, but this time via legislative change rather than a constitutional amendment. The bill, however, died in the Senate both times. 

In 1790, when the District was first established, only an estimated 3,000 citizens lived in the area. [11] As of July 1, 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the Washington D.C. population to be 671,803. [12] Washington, D.C., now has a larger population than it did in 1790, one significantly higher than the states of Vermont and Wyoming. Nonetheless, it is still denied representation in Congress. Moreover, this lack of political representation for the District of Columbia is argued to be one of the ways our political system underrepresents voters of color. While most states have a majority white population, Washington D.C. has a majority African American population. In 1970, 71.1% of the D.C. population was Black. [13] Most recently, according to the 2022 Census, the District of Columbia is still about 45% African-American, meaning Black Americans still comprise a considerably higher proportion of its population than other states. [14] Thus, proponents of D.C. statehood argue that the lack of representation not only perpetuates a significant issue of disenfranchisement and civil rights but also one that holds the nation back from moving forward in racial equality.

D.C. statehood proponents firmly argue that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress may admit new states to the Union. [15] However, the question in this context is not whether Congress can admit a new state but whether they can admit the nation’s capital as a new state. Therefore, while incorporating a new state into the Union is not inherently unconstitutional, transforming the District into a full state represents a significant shift of power, a move that directly challenges the explicit constitutional authority vested solely in Congress. In response to this constitutional concern, advocates for D.C. statehood often cite a certain historical precedent to support their case: the retrocession in 1846 when Congress returned the portion of the District originally ceded by Virginia back to the state. Statehood proponents see this act as an instance when Congress demonstrated flexibility in altering the composition of the District. However, there is a critical distinction to be made between partial retrocession and full statehood. The retrocession of land to Virginia in the 19th century did not encompass granting the remaining area of the District the full rights and responsibilities of statehood. Instead, it targeted the adjustment of boundaries, a move that does not directly contradict any constitutional provision. Statehood’s second potential constitutional problem is Article IV, Section 3, which provides that no new state may be created out of the territory of an existing state without that state’s permission. [16] Under this clause, it is thought by some that Maryland must consent before the District could be granted statehood. While it ceded its territory to the federal government for use of the new district, it never explicitly consented to its territory being used for a new state. However, this constitutional provision is less likely to cause issues to the push for statehood since Maryland has, in recent years, shown a more favorable stance towards the idea of D.C. becoming a state. [17] Moreover, one could argue that the territory was originally ceded for creating a federal district, not necessarily with the condition of permanence as a non-state entity, nullifying these concerns. Pursuing this line of reasoning, Maryland’s approval for statehood might not be a strict constitutional necessity. The 23rd Amendment also raises a conflict in the case that the District was to become a state via congressional legislation. [18] According to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, electors are given in proportion to their congressional representation. [19] Yet according to the 23rd Amendment, D.C.’s electoral votes should equal “in no event more than the least populous State.” [20] Addressing these complex issues that arise from statehood requires a constitutional amendment, as legislation alone would not suffice. 

The question, therefore, stands: Is there a way to salvage the need for effective and efficient federalism without infringing on the representation rights of U.S. citizens? The concept of federalism, ingrained in the United State’s founding, aims to ensure that neither the federal government nor the state governments hold complete power, maintaining a check-and-balance system. The challenge with D.C. statehood lies in balancing the unique status of the nation’s capital and its contribution to federalism with the constitutional and democratic principles that guide the country. Statehood would inherently retract a significant player in the model of federalism, allowing for state laws to influence federal processes. Politically, achieving statehood is similarly complex. While Democrats are generally supportive of D.C. statehood as is, many Republicans who have voiced their support for fair representation propose full retrocession of the District to Maryland, rejecting statehood since it is seen as a threat to their hope for control over the Senate. However, this solution is far from ideal since it fails to solve the issue of federalism, which established the District in the first place. Other potential solutions could involve a constitutional amendment that provides a creative reconfiguration of the District’s boundaries or governance. A partial retrocession of this kind could reduce the impact of lack of representation by adjusting D.C.'s boundaries, leaving a smaller federal district. Alternatively, a model of cooperative federalism could offer a blend of state and federal governance. This approach would involve shared responsibilities and cooperation between the federal government and the District or new state, maintaining federal jurisdiction on protective principles surrounding federal government procedures and protections. But is this form of compromise even possible? It would necessitate innovative legislative design and a willingness to redefine long-standing governance traditions.

Notes:

1.  David Montgomery, “Mayor Signs Order for DC Democracy Plates,” The Washington Post, August 17, 2000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/08/17/mayor-signs-order-for-dc-democracy-plates/33865026-42dd-4756-8076-f5b1d2280a9f/. 

2. U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 17. 

3. William Tindall, Origin and Government of the District of Columbia. Washington Government Printing Office, 1908, 6, https://www.loc.gov/item/08035146/. 

4. “An Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States”, Ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130, 1790. 

5. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2, cl. 1.

6. Maya Efrati, “DC Statehood Explained,” Brennan Center for Justice, 18 Mar. 2022, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained. 

7. U.S. Const. Amend. XXIII. 

8. “District of Columbia Delegate Act”, Pub. L. No. 91-405, Vol. 84 Stat. 845, 1970.

9. “District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act”, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774, 1973. 

10. “Washington DC Voting Rights Amendment,” Legal Information Institute, Accessed 4 Dec. 2023,  www.law.cornell.edu/wex/washington_dc_voting_rights_amendment. 

11. “Overview of the State - District of Columbia - 2020,” Health Resources & Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://mchb.tvisdata.hrsa.gov/Narratives/Overview/258318d0-8dbe-46fd-9a77-385b6753e1c7. 

12. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: District of Columbia,” United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, ​​https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/DC/PST045223. 

13. Joy Phillips, “District of Columbia Black Population Demographic Characteristics,” Government of the District of Columbia, D.C. Office of Planning State Data Center, February 2012, https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/District%2520of%2520Columbia%2520Black%2520Population%2520Demographic%2520Characteristics.pdf. 

14. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: District of Columbia,” United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/DC/PST045223. 

15. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3. 

16. U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3. 

17. Josh Kurtz, “Marylanders in Congress Aiding D.C. Statehood Effort,” Maryland Matters, 31 May 2019, www.marylandmatters.org/2019/05/31/marylanders-in-congress-aiding-dc-statehood-effort/. 

18.  U.S. Const. Amend. XXIII. 

19. U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1. 

20. U.S. Const. Amend. XXIII. 

Bibliography:

“An Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States.” Ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130 (1790). 

“District of Columbia Delegate Act.” Pub. L. No. 91-405, Vol. 84 Stat. 845 (1970). 

“District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act.” Pub. L. No. 93- 198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973). 

Efrati, Maya. “DC Statehood Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, (March 2022), www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained.  

Kurtz, Josh. “Marylanders in Congress Aiding D.C. Statehood Effort.” Maryland Matters, (May 2019), www.marylandmatters.org/2019/05/31/marylanders-in-congress-aiding-d-cstatehood-effort/. 

Montgomery, David. “Mayor Signs Order for DC Democracy Plates.” The Washington Post, (August 2000), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/08/17/mayor-signs-order-for-dc-democracy-plates/33865026-42dd-4756-8076-f5b1d2280a9f/. 

 “Overview of the State - District of Columbia - 2020.” Health Resources & Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://mchb.tvisdata.hrsa.gov/Narratives/Overview/258318d0-8dbe-46fd-9a77-385b6753e1c7.

Tindall, William. The Origin and Government of the District of Columbia. Washington Government Printing Office, (1908), https://www.loc.gov/item/08035146/. 

“U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: District of Columbia.” United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/DC/PST045223. 

U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 17. 

U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1.

U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3. 

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 2, cl. 1.

U.S. Const. Amend. XXIII. 

Phillips, Joy. “District of Columbia Black Population Demographic Characteristics,” Government of the District of Columbia, D.C. Office of Planning State Data Center, (February 2012), https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/District%2520of%2520Columbia%2520Black%2520Population%2520Demographic%2520Characteristics.pdf. 

 “Washington DC Voting Rights Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/washington_dc_voting_rights_amendment.