Government
The statehood movement needs a widely visible symbol
The District-owned light poles in front of the Senate and House office buildings provide an excellent venue to remind Congressmen daily of the continued injustice the capital's residents face.
Several DC councilmembers have taken to sitting down on Constitution Avenue by the Capitol to protest the District's colonial status, but the issue requires a broader, full-time campaign.
I'd suggest putting the above imagery on banners attached to street lamps on streets surrounding the Capitol and Congressional office buildings on Capitol Hill.
Actual face-to-face lobbying is important and is something the District has woefully neglected. However, a graphic campaign on the street lamps near the Capitol This particular graphic is subtle enough to force anyone who views it to think about it for moment. Suddenly, the inequity becomes clear.
Eric Fidler has lived in DC and suburban Maryland his entire life. He likes long walks along the Potomac and considers the L'Enfant Plan an elegant work of art. He also blogs at Left for LeDroit, LeDroit Park's (only) blog of record. 
Comments
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
by Keith Ivey on May 10, 2011 12:45 pm
NCPC has the legal purview over anything hung on light poles throughout the District. And while they don't usually interfere with what the DC government is allowing to ne hung from the poles, I suspect this is one case where they would .
by Lance on May 10, 2011 12:47 pm
It seems as if this poster thing is advocating statehood. I'm all for that. It won't require a constitutional amendment, because the constitution doesn't require a federal district, it only allows it. It would only need a regular bill through Congress to invite DC as a state.
But first, let's settle on what we actually want.
by Tim on May 10, 2011 12:48 pm
Congress could even take away District funding for lobbying or any other DC rights efforts if it wanted to.
by Tim on May 10, 2011 12:52 pm
Also, it's not true that DC could become a state with a simple vote. We still have the 23rd Amendment to deal with.
by TM on May 10, 2011 12:54 pm
It also differentiates the district from states, and DC would in fact be a state.
by Tim on May 10, 2011 1:02 pm
DC will become a state as soon as it can put enough money in the re-election campaigns of enough members of congress.
by Jasper on May 10, 2011 1:07 pm
The problem is that the people that elect Congress don't care because they don't know. Hell, we don't even know what we want. Here's my three-step plan for this whole thing:
1) Develop a consistent list of demands and what we'd settle for (i.e., statehood's best, but we'd also be okay with federal income tax exemption).
2) Hire a campaign management team to build our message.
3) Hammer that message home in targeted members' districts while educating the tourists that come here.
Gimmicks just make us look silly, and there aren't enough of us for the gimmickry to rise above itself into a movement. Seriously, folks? Light-pole banners of a local internet meme?
by OctaviusIII on May 10, 2011 1:13 pm
The District is no longer 100 square miles due to the retrocession of the southwestern portion of the District back to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1846. The District's current area consists only of territory ceded by the state of Maryland.
The most common sense solution would be to keep the city as one (minus the Federal land) and reunify it with Maryland. The majority of services such as the city council, police, schools, etc. would then cease to be under the scrutiny of Congress or any type of control board.
The city of Washington (New Columbia?) would enjoy full benefits of taxation AND representation in Annapolis and probably on the Hill if Maryland's Congressional districts are amended to reflect the significant population increase.
by Ash on May 10, 2011 1:40 pm
Could just move over the orange, and then we'd be in the non-circle along with PR, Guam and USVI. Face it, if anyone's winning the 51st statehood race, it'll be PR before its DC.
by Andrew in DC on May 10, 2011 1:41 pm
We should have full representation. I personally don't think DC should be a state. DC was established to be unique, and I think we need to preserve that while ensuring full enfranchisement, but that's not going to happen from our Councilmembers wasting their time getting arrested. And it's not going to happen from anything we do IN DC. It needs to start in sympathetic Congressional districts that will actually push their representatives to action.
But it's not going to happen with a Republican majority, and it's not going to happen with egomaniacal morons like Marion Barry on the Council.
by Dave on May 10, 2011 1:48 pm
That retrocession was made possible by the amendment to the Residence Act which prohibited the building of federal buildings on the Virginia-side of the Potomac. The situation of mostly-farm-land Arlington + the shunned City of Alexandria pre-1846 vs. the non-federal-land part of the rest of DC now is a pretty inaccurate analogy.
by Andrew in DC on May 10, 2011 1:49 pm
1. The District should sue the Federal Gov't in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in these cases and would bring significant attention to the issue (win or lose).
2. The District should consider suing the Federal Gov't in an international court, like the Hauge. I'm no expert here, but international pressure could help bring about quicker change.
by Anony on May 10, 2011 2:02 pm
by TGEoA on May 10, 2011 2:14 pm
So far so America's support for International Law, less than a year after 9/11.
by Jasper on May 10, 2011 2:17 pm
Any legal or national or international campaign will take LOTS of money....or really bad pro-bono activities. Any solutions?
Marion Barry, whether alive or lying in repose at the Wilson Building a la Lenin or Mao, will continue to be a drag on our efforts. His current and past antics haunt us.
There are too many cooks in the kitchen....statehood, voting rights, human rights, no taxation, budget autonomy etc. One comment is so correct. We need to make up our minds and unite behind it regardless of our personal opinions. So...let's have an advisory referendum at the next regular election or special election asking people their top 3 or 4 choices.
by DC John on May 10, 2011 2:22 pm
Retrocession is the best that DC can hope for, and that's what it should aim for. It's not quite as sexy -- Washington, MD as opposed to Washington, DC -- but it gets DC's population what it needs, which is a vote, and it would be far more understandable to the average American. Whether it would be acceptable to MD is an open question, but DC's becoming a far more desirable asset with every year, so my guess is that there are reasonable terms under which MD would agree.
MD + DC would have a population of about 6.3mm or so, which just a tad above average for a state. DC residents would have it far better (in terms of Senate representation) than CA, TX, NY, FL or any of the other larger states.
by enplaned on May 10, 2011 2:24 pm
If you're going to hang banners on lamp posts, it should be branded well, and branded the same as that ad campaign.
by OctaviusIII on May 10, 2011 2:27 pm
hmmm ... given that practically all streets in the District are titled to the federal government, how do you propose we get around in our 'city ... minus the Federal land'. I do think though that your post gives light to largest misconception out there ... i.e., that the federal government only has an interest in those buildings and roads down around the National Mall. Actually, the federal interest extends far beyond there across the entire District and isn't so neatly separable from local interests as people might want it to be. For example, embassies can be located in many different parts of the District ... and they get protected by federal police (Uniformed Secret Service). Security extends from one corner to the other ... Etc. Etc.
by Lance on May 10, 2011 2:34 pm
That's a false argument. The federal government does hold title to the streets, yes, however were they to retrocede DC to Maryland or to allow it to become a state, they would likely either donate the roads to the local government or would sell them for a nominal fee ($1).
This has been done in the past, including in Alexandria County, DC when it was retroceded to Virginia. More recently, they did it in Greenbelt, when the federal government sold the town in 1951.
And even if the federal government kept title to the streets, it wouldn't be too much different than the current situation.
by Matt Johnson on May 10, 2011 2:38 pm
by Lance on May 10, 2011 2:53 pm
I see.
So, by your logic, the federal government should be able to regulate things like overhead wires today in Arlington County and the City of Alexandria?
Because, if DC outside the Federal Core was retroceded (or granted statehood), it would no longer be the federal capital and would therefore no longer be necessary for the federal government to care about the wires. The retroceded (or statehood) city would be no different than Arlington County is today (as far as the federal interest is concerned).
And that would seem to render moot the point about who owns the streets.
by Matt Johnson on May 10, 2011 2:56 pm
RE: the design, if I didn't live in DC, I would look at it and have no earthly idea about its meaning. However, I don't think things like this are useless efforts. I also don't believe DC has been w/o a "plan." This has been talked about since before I moved to DC. I find it highly unlikely that the ideas being proposed here haven't been considered a million times over.
Let's be honest, was there any real point in students heading to the WH to celebrate Bin Laden's death? It was the imagery of the moment that mattered not that they were consumed by patriotism.
by HogWash on May 10, 2011 2:57 pm
Well that's not true either. We don't recognize that the ICC has sovereignty over US citizens, but that's a different matter than not recognizing it altogether.
Furthermore, Anony's comment was more easily responded with the observation that the ICC is a CRIMINAL court. Not for civil matters. Taking up DC's voting "right" in the ICC would make a mockery of both.
by Andrew in DC on May 10, 2011 2:57 pm
2. To get the vote, DC needs to find private funds (not taxpayer funds in this tight budget climate) to underwrite a nationwide media campaign that appeals to people, rather than lecturing them. Think using military veterans who say
"I fought in Iraq (or Afghanistan) for free elections, but I don't have a voice in Congress." And the campaign should use diverse faces (which in DC means white, Hispanic and Asian as well as African-American). You want Mr. and Mrs. Middle America to say, wait, people just like me, including those who serve their country, don't have a vote in Congress? When the country thinks of DC politics, they still think of Marion Barry and street protests. Changing that perception can only help.
by Bob on May 10, 2011 2:58 pm
Y'all retroceders don't really seem to understand that the retrocession of Alexandria and the proposed "retrocession" of the national capital are fundamentally different? Why is that?
Alexandria was in the District but was never, ever going to be a part of the national capital. The L'Enfant plan did not include them. Federal buildings were never going to be placed there. They were a mostly disregarded appendage on the wrong side of the Potomac. The only reason Alexandria was included in the first place (much to the opposition of Congress) was because George Washington wanted it that way.
by Andrew in DC on May 10, 2011 3:12 pm
I am not in favor of the route of not paying fed. taxes, as this would turn DC into a rich-mans/corporation tax haven. I love the idea, but the practice would be death for the city.
by greent on May 10, 2011 3:13 pm
Yeah. God forbid we do something to actually lure jobs here. Then what would Barry have to complain about?
by Andrew in DC on May 10, 2011 3:22 pm
by greent on May 10, 2011 3:25 pm
Statehood is probably unfeasible too, the GOP will never accept adding 2 solid Democrat votes to the senate. I think we're going to have to settle for our one representative and leave it at that.
by MLD on May 10, 2011 3:30 pm
I have no opinion on how best to grant representation to residents of DC. I don't favor retrocession over statehood.
I was merely responding to Lance's assertion that the fact that the federal government owned the streets would prevent the city from ever being free of being the national capital.
And I don't think the retrocession of Alexandria County, DC is funamentally different from the retrocession of Washington County, DC. Unincorporated Washington County was never intended to be the site of federal institutions, either. It was mostly a disregarded appendage on the wrong side of Boundary Street.
But what the unincorporated portions of the Territory of Columbia looked like in 1845 really have no bearing on the political situation today. The federal government owns more of Nevada as a percentage than it does of DC, so the mere presence of federal facilities is no reason to prevent statehood.
by Matt Johnson on May 10, 2011 3:38 pm
I love this idea: we get a single vote to use in whatever House and Senate race we wish, anywhere in the country. How great would that be? Just imagine if we decided to vote en bloc?
by oboe on May 10, 2011 3:44 pm
by DC John on May 10, 2011 3:48 pm
Thank you for listing a good example of why the feds should be concerned about areas in addition to the L'Enfant City and/or the Mall. Arlington and its skyline is a real problem. It negatively impacts the monuments and the look and feel of Washington. Additionally, while 'nice' in a Portland Oregon type of way, Arlington isn't exactly what one wants for a capital city. It is though a good example of a mistake made once by the federal government that cannot be repeated.
by Lance on May 10, 2011 4:39 pm
Are you really suggesting that the federal government should deny voting rights and everything else mentioned here that we dont have based upon the aesthetic appeal of the 'capital city'? Bad cities with terrible crime rates, high drug rates and poor education rates are just as much if not doing more to destroy the idea of America. Maybe the federal government should take them over, or how about in Detroit. I am sure you will respond with 5 other reasons for government control or intervention, but I just wanted to attempt to point out how ridiculous your logic so far has been in my opinion.
by Ryan on May 10, 2011 5:03 pm
I always bring this up as an idea... because it gives DC the vote, retains the federal city as a truly federal city, and closes the taxation issue. Retrocession is a wasted idea (DC is not Maryland, neither of us want each other), and statehood... well, it would be nice, but never gonna happen.
I fully favor budget and (local) legislative independence for the district. Home Rule the teaparty should support.
by greent on May 10, 2011 5:23 pm
by Lance on May 10, 2011 6:24 pm
NPC already has authority to limit the Rosslyn skyline.
by TGEoA on May 10, 2011 6:25 pm
http://bit.ly/mMEbNr
by David C on May 10, 2011 6:53 pm
by JeffB on May 10, 2011 7:21 pm
by Greenish on May 10, 2011 7:38 pm
As long as the U.S. has a two-party political system, and as long as D.C. lopsidedly supports one party, then statehood will never happen.
No cutesy posters, campaigning, lobbying, protests, arrests, or other acts of desperation will overcome this fundamental reality.
As far as retrocession goes, Maryland will never support it as DC would become a money-pit for the state. It would take decades to absorb DC into Maryland's laws, public services, and tax base. The only way it could concievably work is with federal assistance (and see above why this will never happen).
Statehood or retrocession could be possible if these two things changed about DC:
1. Gentrification would continue to push into DC's poorest neighborhoods; to the point where the demand for social services would become comparable to neighboring jurisdictions with a sufficient tax base to support it.
2. Gentrifiers would move DC politically towards the center; to the point where conservative candidates could at least make an effective minority in local politics.
by Smoke_Jaguar4 on May 10, 2011 7:56 pm
The fact that residents of D.C. chose to entrust Marion Barry with multiple important offices after he was filmed using crack cocaine makes many Americans doubt whether Washington could properly govern itself.
by jakeod on May 10, 2011 9:41 pm
I think the same could be said for Illinois, but few people think we should take the vote away from them.
by Matt Johnson on May 10, 2011 9:43 pm
I have to keep pointing this out. This isn't true. Puerto Ricans do pay federal taxes. SOME Puerto Ricans avoid federal income tax. There are three important things here.
1. They pay all the other taxes (non-income tax revenue makes up about half of all revenue) including Social Secruity, gas, other excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and fees...etc. While that may not be much for some people, it still means taxation and no representation.
2. Puerto Ricans who work for the Federal Government DO pay income taxes. Considering how many people in DC work for the Feds, that means a lot of people will give away their right to vote for nothing.
3. Half of all Americans don't make enough to pay income tax. So that's another group of losers under the PR plan.
It would cut 50-70% of the tax burden for non-Federal employees who are in the top half of earners. Hardly a deal.
by David C on May 10, 2011 10:19 pm
The obvious difference is that Chicago isn't the capital of the U.S. ... owing it's very existence (and continued sustenance) to that role.
by Lance on May 10, 2011 10:29 pm
Would you really want Washington to be another Indianapolis, at best, or Detroit, at worst?
Face facts, if we can't fulfill our role as national capital, we won't be the capital for long. And while we could have voting rights and still maintain our unique relationship with the federal government, I don't see how we could get statehood and do so. Imagine ... with statehood we'd probably have shortsighted folks out there placing stupid signs on lampposts outside of Congress ... and the feds couldn't do anything about it.
by Lance on May 10, 2011 10:43 pm
But it's not like Illinois first re-elected Blagojevich as governor, and then later mayor of a small city. They actually barred him from ever holding office again. And I'm not saying poor political choices warrant disenfranchisement, but those unfamiliar with the city may get the impression that crackheads would be overseeing the care of national treasures.
@Lance:
I think that regardless of what political unit it wound up as a part of, Washington would still be the capital of the country. In fact, this is one aspect of retrocession that should be very appealing to Annapolis - imagine one of the most important cities in the world being Washington, Maryland!
by jakeod on May 10, 2011 10:54 pm
by Lance on May 10, 2011 11:14 pm
I like the 51 flag, though.
@Lance Congress has the right to shrink the borders of the Capitol under the District Clause ("not exceeding ten miles square"), as they did when they retroceded part of SW DC back to Virginia in 1846. Congress could then admit New Columbia (the residential neighborhoods surrounding the White House, The National Mall, Supreme Court and the U.S. Capitol) as New Columbia. Two states currently surrounding the nation's capitol. Under this scenario, only one state would. The Founders had no intention of having 600,000 people in neighborhoods ringing the Capitol grounds who were disenfranchised. This path fulfills the spirit of their intent to have land set aside for these core federal functions to operate while the rest of the citizenry occupies states.
by Alan Page on May 11, 2011 12:38 am
Admission of states into the union has often involved political controversy, but there is no historical precedent that demonstrates that the political proclivities of a certain future state would obviate its membership in the Union. Even the Missouri Compromise indicates that admission to the union, even in light of political ramifications in an issue as highly charged as slavery, is still possible despite political misgivings from one party or another. If the Democrats had the political will to get it done, they'd trade the appropriate horses to get it done. If your position is that Democrats never provide any policy that benefits people who vote overwhelmingly for them, you'd have to come up with some evidence that would set this pattern in stone somehow (Democrat supporter + supporter's issue - Democratic party support always = frustrated Democratic supporter would have to be an algebraic law or something for your statement to make sense as a historical constant). If your position is that Republicans can block any action that would create an entity where they would not get the majority of the vote, into perpetuity, you would find that proposition equally difficult to prove (what historical precedent would you find for it?). (that equation would look like Goal Republicans Oppose + Republican Opposition always = Goal is Never Ever Accomplished...LOL)
In short, you're speaking in hypotheticals. The problem facing the statehood movement is far more nuanced than the popular "You guys vote Democratic too much" argument. A bigger challenge is inertia: it takes a lot to change things in this country that are long-established. Look how long it took to abolish slavery.
by Alan Page on May 11, 2011 1:00 am
That's not true. Peter L'Enfant was asked to design a city that could accommodate 1 million people. And the spirit of the intest had nothing to do with setting aside land for 'core federal functions to operate'. No, it had to do with providing a place for the government and those supporting it that was not subject to the rules and influences of any one state. The pre-Constitutional government had experienced issues in NYC and other capitals where the powers of those states had been used to try to influence decisions from the federal government including the threat of the imposition of taxes on the government and those that supported it. I.e., with the establishment of the District of Columbia, the government sought to establish a pocket of land that provided to the government, and the citizens that supported it, a land free from the meddling of any one state ... A place that was unique in that the people living and working there were citizens of the United States first, foremost, and only. I look at that as a priviledge. Now should we have full national voting rights as such citizens? Of course. That's the issue that needs correcting. Period.
by Lance on May 11, 2011 8:44 am
Something like this:
http://tinyurl.com/6dvc6rr
by Michael on May 11, 2011 9:51 am
by Pete Witte on May 11, 2011 9:52 am
Talk about strawmen.
by David C on May 11, 2011 9:53 am
by Michael on May 11, 2011 9:55 am
I need a source for your claim that DC was designed to have one million disenfranchised residents.
by Alan Page on May 11, 2011 11:30 am
by Bob on May 11, 2011 11:30 am
Oh wow.
I hear the tooth fairy is selling cupcakes and Cabi memberships on 295N between Greenbelt and Laurel.
by HogWash on May 11, 2011 11:56 am
Logistically, such a state should also include the Virginia counties the Beltway runs through (and Arlington), but Richmond would put up a greater fight to keep their ATM than Annapolis may and there would be an issue about who gets Dulles Airport with the Fairfax/Loudoun line running through it.
by Jason on May 11, 2011 3:55 pm
That leaves Statehood, a Constitutional Amendment providing representation, or adding representation through a bill in Congress (e.g. the DC VRA).
Each of these requires a *national movement* (led by DC). We can't get there by appealing to Congress directly; other concerns, however slight, always trump the concerns of non-constituents. We need to organize ourselves and then appeal to state residents for assistance in our quest.
by Tim H on May 11, 2011 4:58 pm
I didn't say one million disenfranchised residents. I said one million residents.
Just five square miles of DC was designed to accomodate 1 million residents (L'Enfant Plan)...
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/01/urban-health-nasty-cities-broken.html
And I said I think we deserve voting representation at the federal level ... and don't 'need' a state standing between us and the federal government.
by Lance on May 11, 2011 5:12 pm
Or, that there are NO voting rights in DC?
what about those three electoral votes in presidential elections?
...I'm no consitutional scholar, but I believe that there was a reason for the creation of a federal district-- I think it is called 'federalism'... and it was meant to be a place for the federal govt to be kept unbeholden from local interests. (Federalist Paper #43 ...)
I think everyone touched upon the agreed upon options- retrocession or some sort of additional voting admendment (similar to 23rd(?) amentdment.
Besides, this is a site for real and fake planners,freemasons ranting against overhead wires, etc....We're not all lawyers,here right?
Isn't the whole purpose of the site to be a place for talking about new urbanism and architecture, and ranting against NIMBYism and evil bicyclists?
by ed on May 11, 2011 5:17 pm
by David C on May 11, 2011 5:22 pm
Retrocession is a wasted idea (DC is not Maryland, neither of us want each other) - greent
What could possibly persuade the state of Maryland to accept an urban core and all the problems that come with it? They have basically nothing to gain from accepting DC into their borders. - MLD
As far as retrocession goes, Maryland will never support it as DC would become a money-pit for the state. It would take decades to absorb DC into Maryland's laws, public services, and tax base. - Smoke_Jaguar4
The 800 lb guerilla in MD politics is the outsized role Baltimore and the Baltimore area plays in setting and deciding the state's agenda. I'd go so far as to say that we'd have fewer rights of self-determination as a MD county than we do as the one and only USA-direct. - Lance
There may be some intellectual reasons why it makes sense, but since it is massively unpopular in both DC and MD, with good reason, it just can't happen. - Tim H
by Ash on May 11, 2011 5:27 pm
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/levey/bob0303b.htm
by David C on May 11, 2011 5:52 pm
Let's recap our discussion (1) I said the Founders had no intention of disenfranchising 600,000 people living around the Capitol grounds (2) You said what I said about the Founders was not true and L'Enfant was told (by unknown persons) to design a city that could house one million people (3) I asked for a source (4) You provided a source saying L'Enfant designed the city for one million people
Your source doesn't say "The Founders told L'Enfant to build a city to house one million people and intended to disenfranchise them all". The crux of my statement is the Founder had no intention to have over half a million have no say in the representative government. To refute that claim, you'd need to find a source that said "The Founders discussed this and agreed, hey we definitely want to disenfranchise half a million people, for sure! Pull out the quill so I can write L'Enfant a letter!"
Which brings us back to square one, my contention that the Founders had no intention of disenfranchising 600,000 people when they wrote the District Clause. Find a source that says the exact opposite and you're off to the races. But you won't because they didn't. Ha.
by Alan Page on May 11, 2011 7:50 pm
by Alan Page on May 11, 2011 7:51 pm
by Doug on May 11, 2011 9:07 pm
Cause I do. Then again, I don't expect the Tea Partiers to be too knowledgeable about things, or be able to grasp irony.
by Michael on May 12, 2011 9:13 am
That leaves only a constitutional amendment or law (DC VRA). The latter may not be constitutional; so in the end the best answer in an amendment.
This is not something that can be decided in a poll. I think most residents just want representation and are not fussy about that is done. Also the finer detail discussed here that have helped to convince me, are not something that can be explained over the phone while the voter is trying to get dinner on the table.
by goldfish on May 12, 2011 9:51 am
by Sivad on May 12, 2011 8:45 pm
by David C on May 12, 2011 10:14 pm
by David Alpert on May 12, 2011 10:17 pm
by David C on May 12, 2011 10:53 pm
Washington, DC would still be Washington, DC. DC residents would vote as a Congressional district of Maryland. Electoral college would not be affected because that is only in relation to presidential elections. Again its about the people. This is a Federal issue and has nothing to do with local politics, that chaos with continue anyway. There are issues with the approach. For example, does Maryland gain more seats in the house of representatives as a result of DC resident inclusion? Is DC a new congressional district or is it included into MD4 for instance? This Federal territory versus new state bantering goes nowhere because both are right to a degree. A severe injustice is occurring right now with relatively simple remedies. I personally agree that DC is not a state, nor should it be; however, Congress certainly can not collect revenue from citizens with no voting rights. That is truly anti-American.
by Sivad on May 12, 2011 11:04 pm
by David C on May 12, 2011 11:09 pm
I think you have serious argument, but I think it is wrong.
Although it's true I don't have hard data to prove retrocession is unviable, I am basing my above statement on the results of speaking with hundreds of Maryland and DC residents over the years about paths to representation for DC. Retrocession lands with a resounding thud. In my experience, residents overwhelmingly reject the idea. Furthermore, some of those who reject it fervently hate it, whereas those who accept it feel only mildly acquiescent. That's the exact opposite of what you need to make something like this happen.
Also, you made the remark
>DC is hardly an impoverished 'money pit' that some might still (incorrectly) believe. Likewise, MD is consistently in the top 3 wealthiest states, if recent surveys are to be believed.
Perhaps you included it only as a rebuttal to another comment, but I think these kind of arguments miss the point. Ultimately, it isn't on financial grounds that MD and DC don't want to merge. Each locale has a deep and longstanding identity. Imagine a proposal to add Fairfax County to DC, or PG County. Or a proposal to move St. Louis from MO to IL. Maryland has no interest in growing or shrinking, DC the same. It's a matter of identity.
You write:
>Historical and cultural ties still bind MD and DC
which is true, but not nearly as close as the ties necessary to form a combined political entity. North and South Dakota residents have a lot in common, but would never think of merging. It would require cultural ties at such a high level that it's hard to think of a suitable comparison. We don't have sufficient cultural ties or anywhere close.
Sadly, the debate over methods and the red herring of retrocession divide us when we need to unite in organizing for DC Voting Rights and sparking a national movement.
by Tim H on May 12, 2011 11:48 pm
So you would like to continue to pay taxes to the US Government without representation instead? Those are all special circumstances. I didn't say it was the prettiest solution. Making DC a state is against the constitutional framework. The only other real option is for DC residents to be exempted from Federal taxes. I suppose the only way for this issue to get traction is for a DC resident to not pay Federal taxes on the basis of the points in the Gohmert bill, have the IRS take them to court and let the issue be decided there. There are radical options: Congress to buy all residential property and evict all residents from DC; DC, except for basically the mall, to be retroceeded to Maryland; DC residents to have domicile in other states (like the military).
by Sivad on May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. The Supreme Court has already decided that.
by David C on May 13, 2011 12:09 am
The answer is in your own post but you missed it. You said two things:
"Making DC a state is against the constitutional framework" and "DC, except for basically the mall, to be retroceeded to Maryland"
The former is not true (there is no prohibition against the size of the District being shrunken to "basically the (M)all" and Congress voting to admit the surrounding neighborhoods as the state of New Columbia). The latter has consistently been shown to be distasteful to residents of DC and MD in polls...a Google search interestingly turned up a Republican blog entry from an author in Illinois pushing for retrocession: http://www.illinoisforgrowth.com/2010/06/why-republicans-should-support-d-c-retrocession/
by Alan Page on May 13, 2011 12:43 am
If a later Court decided that it was unconstitutional to deny representation in Congress, then striking the offending provisions would leave DC within Maryland for purposes of Congressional representation, since that is where it was before 1800. DC would be like all the other enclaves. Of course, Congress could prevent that by making DC a state, but the US Senate is very unlikely to pass such a bill. It would take another case to determine whether DC residents would also be allowed to vote in Maryland elections.
It seems at least possible that (unlike the other options) DC could actually get this deal. Maryland would probably not object strongly to allowing DC residents to vote for Maryland Senator, since it would have little impact on election prospects of any existing Senator or Congressman. Congress could probably exert its authority to gerrymander a DC district and leave the rest to Maryland. The Republicants have often stated that they are OK with letting DC vote with Maryland. (As a PG resident I would be happy to dilute my vote).
This leaves two questions: Would full Congressional representation for Washington, DC help or hinder the ability of DC to achieve eventual statehood and home rule--or it is probably a wash? And secondly, is that a tradeoff worth making? Is the dream of having two Senators all to yourself one day worth more than having full representation now?
by Jim T on May 13, 2011 10:24 am
by David C on May 13, 2011 11:17 am
I am not saying I would do it or not. All it takes is one man. Look what Heller did. There is a solid constitutional backing for taxation of an American citizen without federal representation to be illegal.
"(12) In keeping with the early history and democratic traditions of the United States, the principles established in the Constitution, and in conformance with the other territories of the United States which have delegates but no Representative, the residents of the District of Columbia should be exempt from paying United States Federal income taxes."
But think about it, once the treasury looses 20 billion in revenue, the issue of some kind of full voting rights will come up really quickly afterward.
@Jim T
I absolutely think it should be revisited, but David C does bring up good points in the special circumstances where local government controls federal representation. Those would have to be worked out.
by Sivad on May 13, 2011 11:12 pm
by David C on May 13, 2011 11:22 pm
by Mike on May 16, 2011 11:39 pm
by Sivad on May 21, 2011 12:27 am
Add a Comment