Jump to content


Statehood for Washington, D.C.


42 replies to this topic

#1 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34909 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2020 - 03:25 PM

Color me skeptical but if 2020 is a blue landslide could this actually happen?

Quote

If the House of Representatives passes a bill granting statehood to the District of Columbia on June 26, as is expected, it will be the first time in the nation’s history that either house of Congress approved legislation granting full statehood and congressional representation to DC’s more than 700,000 residents.

For at least the next several months, the bill is highly unlikely to travel far beyond the House. There’s little chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will agree to give two senators to an overwhelmingly Democratic city. And even if the bill somehow managed to pass the Senate, President Donald Trump has said that Republicans would be “very, very stupid” to allow DC statehood. He’s all but certain to veto the bill.

But statehood for the District of Columbia, whose residents pay federal taxes but have no vote in Congress, is arguably closer than it’s ever been. Trump trails Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who endorsed DC statehood in 2015, by more than 8 points, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Polls now indicate that Democrats have a good chance to regain the Senate as well, despite malapportionment that gives Republicans an unfair advantage in the fight for control of Congress’ upper house.

Not that long ago, DC statehood found little support within the halls of Congress. The last time the House voted on statehood, in 1993, the bill failed 153-277. Democrats, in what now looks like an extraordinary act of political malpractice, did not push statehood when they last controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009-2010. President Barack Obama did not endorse DC statehood until 2014.

But Democratic support for statehood swelled as the party was forced to confront the impact of a malapportioned Senate that overrepresents white and rural states, effectively giving extra seats to Republicans. Among other things, that malapportionment cost Democrats control of the Supreme Court. If the Senate were fairly apportioned, Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland would be a justice right now.


If DC becomes a state will red states start trying to divide up simply to maintain control of the Senate? Sure DC has a much greater intellectual case since they pay the same taxes but receive no representation (Hmmmm. What's that phrase about people having no representation but they are subject to taxation?) but then again when was the last time an intellectual / reality based argument meant a thing to the Republican Party?
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#2 Bact PhD

    Frustrated, Thoughtful Independent

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2306 posts
  • LocationDrifting on the Exxon Covid

Posted 23 June 2020 - 04:27 PM

View PostLFC, on 23 June 2020 - 03:25 PM, said:

Color me skeptical but if 2020 is a blue landslide could this actually happen?

Hmmmm. What's that phrase about people having no representation but they are subject to taxation?

The one that, at least for a time (I don't know about at present), was on their license plates. :)
Politics these days is show business. Elections are Dancing with the Stars with consequences. ~Rue Bella

(About fame) Living for likes, shares and follows is a form of validation. The question is whether it is also the source of our self esteem. If it is, we’re screwed. And, culturally, it seems as if it’s become more and more our shared value. ... Meringue is no longer a sweet and pretty topping but the body itself. ~Charles Perez

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384, via LFC, 12/1/2016

Competent people go in one of a few directions. But incompetence is infinite. ~David Brooks, NY Times

#3 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2155 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 23 June 2020 - 07:38 PM

Not real likely the red states are going to agree to two more Democratic senators. There used to be an offer open from Maryland to have the District's population become part of that state. They've declined, thinking they could get those two senators they can't have.

#4 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:15 PM

Why can't they have them? Biden has already supported it. If Biden is elected, Dems hold the house and take the senate, that's all that is required. Of course, you are right, as long as the senate requires 60 votes for cloture, they'll never get it. But then the senate make its own rules too. So never is too strong.

#5 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5508 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:16 PM

View Postindy, on 23 June 2020 - 08:15 PM, said:

Why can't they have them? Biden has already supported it. If Biden is elected, Dems hold the house and take the senate, that's all that is required. Of course, you are right, as long as the senate requires 60 votes for cloture, they'll never get it. But then the senate make its own rules too. So never is too strong.

It's the 38 state ratification that's the issue.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#6 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2155 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:35 PM

It's the 38 state ratification that's the issue: Yep!

#7 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:37 PM

I admit I'm no expert since this doesn't come up too frequently, but what ratification?

Section 3 of the constitution imparts on congress the power to admit states to the union.

ETA: Section 3, clause 1: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

#8 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2155 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:48 PM

I was in error. It's not ratification but it does require passage in both houses and the senate has the filibuster. I was thinking of amendments to the constitution. Sorry.

#9 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5508 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 23 June 2020 - 08:59 PM

OK, I was thinking of giving DC congressional representation, as opposed to making it a state.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#10 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 23 June 2020 - 09:04 PM

It's definitely an uphill climb and you risk a cascading effect. Next time Rs control everything, we'll get north and south Texas. Then north, central, and south California. Also, I believe congress enjoys their little fiefdom, and would rather not give it away and have a state underfoot all the time.

#11 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34909 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2020 - 09:09 PM

View Postindy, on 23 June 2020 - 09:04 PM, said:

It's definitely an uphill climb and you risk a cascading effect. Next time Rs control everything, we'll get north and south Texas. Then north, central, and south California. Also, I believe congress enjoys their little fiefdom, and would rather not give it away and have a state underfoot all the time.

Not a chance on California. The Dems will never allow it. And Texass going back to being a few smaller states? I don't see it. The physical size of their state seems to help a lot of people cope with other ... inadequacies. If Virginia ever slides back to R control I could see the red part wanting to split.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#12 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 23 June 2020 - 09:17 PM

Actually, I don't think any state would willingly subdivide themselves over this. But what I think might happen and what actually happens aren't always related to one another.

#13 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5508 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 23 June 2020 - 09:36 PM

View PostLFC, on 23 June 2020 - 09:09 PM, said:

If Virginia ever slides back to R control I could see the red part wanting to split.

Didn't that already happen in 1861?
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#14 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34909 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 24 June 2020 - 09:09 AM

 baw1064, on 23 June 2020 - 09:36 PM, said:

Didn't that already happen in 1861?

I seem to remember an offer to reunite being made by VA Republicans. If it had happened then "Big Virginia" would probably still be Republican controlled. Opportunity missed.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#15 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34909 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 26 June 2020 - 01:00 PM

It looks like DC statehood will actually pass the House. They are setting up in hopes of a Democratically controlled Senate and President Biden.

Quote

Legislation to make the District of Columbia a state is poised to pass the House on Friday, a major advance from the last time the measure came before Congress 27 years ago and 40 percent of Democrats joined with all but one Republican to defeat D.C. statehood.

After decades of benign neglect, the movement to make D.C. the 51st state has gained new life with Black Lives Matter and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s heightened profile. President Trump’s efforts to use federal force to dominate streets around the White House exposed the subservient status of a city that must answer to Congress for how it spends money while its 706,000 residents are without full voting representation in the House or Senate.

Racist d-bag Tom Cotton, being Tom Cotton, gave a speech. The Esquire piece about it is entitled Nuttier Than a Bag of Squirrels.

Quote

A while back, the proprietors of this shebeen determined to keep an eye on Senator Tom Cotton, the bobble-throated slapdick from Arkansas. The proprietors determined that, once El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has passed from the scene, and the Republican effort got rolling to pretend their politics hadn’t spent the past 40 years making this president* inevitable, Cotton was a prime candidate on whom that newly shined sneaker would fit. And it was the determination of the proprietors that this would be something devoutly to be avoided because, not only is Cotton a bobble-throated slapdick, but he is a dangerous monger of war. He’s also supremely arrogant. On Thursday, however, he rose in the Senate to speak on the subject of statehood for the District of Columbia, and he revealed to us yet another reason to keep an eye on him.

He’s nuttier than a bag of squirrels.

Cotton blew through the customary bargain-bin of historical references—Jacobins! The Philadelphia Mutiny!—and he trotted out the name of Marion Barry, of whom I had not thought in a decade, as a demonstration that DC can’t be a state because the residents can’t be trusted to govern themselves. (Dips into bargain-bin of historical references and comes up with a small box labelled, “Redeemers.”) There was some lengthy mendacity on the subject of, if Washington can be a state, why can’t Jacksonville or New York? And, of course, the cat peeped from the bag; this is all about two additional Democratic senators elected by a population to whom the Republicans would rather not appeal.

But just as one's interest began to flag, Cotton let the pigeons loose.

Quote

Yes, Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population, but it has three times as many workers in mining, logging and construction, and ten times as many workers in manufacturing. In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded working-class state. A new state of Washington would not be...What vital industries would the new state of Washington represent? Lobbying? Bureaucracy? Give me a break. By far, the largest group of workers in the city are bureaucrats and other white-collar professionals. This state would be nothing more than an appendage of the federal government.

What the fck is this? I mean, besides the obvious dogwhistles that can be heard beyond the orbit of Neptune. Miners and loggers and hardhats apparently count for more as “workers” than do street-cleaners, and hotel maids, and cops, and cabbies, and sanitation workers, and bodega clerks who make Washington a better place for Tom Cotton to live than back home in Bugtussle is.

Hey, Lincoln Project. I got your next assignment right here.

I read elsewhere that the Wyoming state government is dependent upon the federal government for more than half of its operating budget. For that the rest of us don't seem to get a whole lot back as compared to, say, running a city that our federal government is housed in. That piece then asked the question, if Wyoming is so dependent then isn't it an "appendage" of the federal government?
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#16 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 27 June 2020 - 06:50 AM

House passes the bill 232-180. Of course, it lies dormant for now. It looks---at the moment---Dems will win the senate with 52 or 53, but that is nowhere near the number needed to overcome resistance under the current rules. They have carved out exceptions for judges and SCOTUS nominees, so why not another exception?

#17 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5508 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 01 July 2020 - 02:38 PM

I'd say making the Senate a simple majority (even if it comes back to bite the Democrats later) should be worth it to them since it will produce two more blue Senators pretty much in perpetuity.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#18 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3844 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 01 July 2020 - 02:50 PM

And why not four with Puerto Rico? Or more? They're 31st in population of American states and territories. I mean, if the Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming and Alaska get to send 10 senators for their population total...
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

#19 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9476 posts

Posted 01 July 2020 - 03:12 PM

What a way to make Republicans howl. That sounds like fun.

#20 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5508 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 01 July 2020 - 04:18 PM

Don't forget Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users