DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[MillennialModerate]

This is the second most important thing that can be done in 100 days.

It will ensure the party that is most often on the side of middle class Americans has a fair shot at power in the Senate.

Please tell me it’s true

[MillennialModerate]

Even if Dems got 4 Senators for life, they would still need 48 under the current map, just to break even correct?

Making the 90% rigged system 80% rigged is clearly overreach...

Those four would still make a massive difference

It gives Dems a fighting shot to keep the majority till 2024, if everything broke right even beyond

[MillennialModerate]

Please. Get it done. Please. Schumer should be talking to Sinema and Manchin. Are you in or not?

Get it out of the way.

Give Bowser Governor powers with immediate effect.
Statehood official July 4th. Senators take office at that time.

[MillennialModerate]

And do Puerto Rico too.

Unlike Puerto Rico, you can arguably do DC through reconciliation depending on how cute you want to get with the Senate rules.

Why can DC be done through reconciliation but PR can’t?

[MillennialModerate]

1. If passed, what happens to those electors?

2. Also, does anyone actually think this is going to happen?

3. See (2)

[MillennialModerate]

1. If passed, what happens to those electors?

2. Also, does anyone actually think this is going to happen?

3. See (2)

They stay electors. The only difference is that the Mayor becomes the Governor maybe and we go to 102 senators and 536 representatives. 538.

Well the 23rd states the capital gets 3 electors. With DC technically not being the capital, and the President being the only resident of the capital - without an constitutional amendment you could see the incumbent Presidents party get a 3 elector advantage in a POTUS election unless the amendment is changed

[MillennialModerate]

Also while DC might save the Senate...

With redistricting, PR honestly might be the difference between saving the House.

[MillennialModerate]

1. If passed, what happens to those electors?

The chatter I've heard has been that they'll support a bipartisan repeal of the now obsolete 23rd Amendment. However, there's also the possibility that they pass legislation allocating the "DC" three electors given by the 23rd to the winner of the popular vote instead of the winner of the district. Dangerous though, as a future (Republican) congress could scheme to allocate those anywhere else.

I’d be against the popular vote part of the bill - not only because the GOP could then allocate them elsewhere but it’s against the spirit of the law and if we’re going to have the EC - it’s format should remain the same.

[MillennialModerate]

I can't wait for the Republicans to filibuster this. If the nuclear option is gonna be invoked on anything, it'll be this.

It would be nice if we can just get Sinema and Manchin on the the record here.

[MillennialModerate]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

Than the new capitol should have 0 electoral votes

It will, as soon as the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

It would never happen under those terms cause GOP led states would block it

Once statehood is a thing taking those electors back would be easier

[MillennialModerate]

100% chance this will go to the Supreme Court.

And pass easily. Congress can make the federal district the size and shape it wants, and admit new states at its own will.

Lol... are you sure about that

[MillennialModerate]

Again can we get any reporting on Manchin and Sinema feeling about the constitutional option?

They are coincidentally enough my two favorite Senators. However that will change if they prevent this from happening

[MillennialModerate]

1. Why isn’t PR just lumped in with this?
2. Why haven’t we heard reporting on how high on the priority list this is for leadership?
3. And Sinema/Manchin.....? Anything?

If the stimulus bill is going to take weeks of wrangling then this should be up on the priority list

[MillennialModerate]

This should have been done the first week and I’m nervous it’s not even being discussed amongst Schumer and the swing votes.

Also, PR should be included with this as well.

DC statehood could take effect within weeks or months and seat Senators at that point.
PR statehood could take effect on July 4, 2024 - to give them time to get ducks in a row.

This is one of the few progressive wish lists that even moderate Dems want


DAMN IT.

[MillennialModerate]

In a 50/50 Senate, each individual senator has a unique motivation to not add new members to the body.  That's not going to be lost on Sinema, Manchin, Collins or Murkowski, especially.

OR...

Murkowski - Grew up in a territory fighting for statehood. Also, without statehood for DC the GOP taking the majority is a sure thing. So making it NOT a sure thing makes her position a lot stronger

Collins - She’s a hack, she won’t vote for anything important

Sinema and Manchin can leverage their vote for a lot of different benefits to their state. Manchin for instance stays as chair of energy committee which is huge in WV.

[MillennialModerate]

So...what is the chance DC get statehood? I say around 20%.

Unless there’s a major counter-offer, it’s going to happen.

HIGHLY doubt it happens.

Just two weeks ago I was thinking maybe 80%

Now it’s clear it’s not a high priority and between health scares and all the flimsy nature of the majority.. I’d say 10%. This issue is dead for another decade

[MillennialModerate]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Just merge Maryland and DC together

What part of MARYLAND DOESNT WANT THAT is so hard to understand?

[MillennialModerate]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

[MillennialModerate]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until
As late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... Tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

I don't make any claims to know what will happen, but the fact that you've been proven wrong so many times while 100% confident yet still persist in speaking as if you know anything with certainty is mesmerizing.

Well I’ve put my money where my mouth is, again.

I’d be willing to change that to a 4 to 1 odds bet.

Would love to be wrong as I think this should be second highest priority for Dems

[MillennialModerate]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until
As late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... Tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

I don't make any claims to know what will happen, but the fact that you've been proven wrong so many times while 100% confident yet still persist in speaking as if you know anything with certainty is mesmerizing.

Well I’ve put my money where my mouth is, again.

I’d be willing to change that to a 4 to 1 odds bet.

Would love to be wrong as I think this should be second highest priority for Dems

Did you ever pay that other poster?

Like I said, I’m not stating my belief in any outcome. Just observing that your confidence in outcomes is not very self aware.

Yes I did. There is a thread about it in the Forum Community
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=424840.0

And I was dead wrong about Georgia; twice in fact. And I was also wrong about Nevada’s Senate race in ‘18.

However I’ve been right about some things most didn’t see coming, one notable example: despite initial confidence at his victory, I was the first to call that JK3 was going to lose before any poll showed him down. Of course that was not a prediction I was happy to make but it was obvious on the ground that the liberal latte demographic was fired up in this state and motivated in ways that the traditional Dems were not at that time

The point is: every day it’s seeming more apparent I won’t be wrong about this subject and this is one I really really want because of its future implications.

[MillennialModerate]

Prediction: They put DC statehood into the COVID relief reconciliation bill. A few Republicans vote for it (Murkowski, Romney, maybe Collins), giving Democrats cover when Republicans claim the admission of DC was "partisan." Also, a whole bunch of Republicans vote no, making terrible optics for voting against COVID relief.

Are you high?

For one you can’t put DC Statehood into a reconciliation vote.

For two, no way in HELL are they getting 3 Republican votes on a $1.9T bill OR Statehood (You might get Murkowski on Statehood by itself but not this way; and Romney already said you wouldn’t see a single Republican vote on $1.9T)

[MillennialModerate]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

No, I'm very much gonna tell you that that's how legislating works, because it is, given that reconciliation isn't exactly a process which can just be rammed through in "2 seconds" (which was actually 39 days, for scale): first a budget resolution has to be written-up (which is what's happening as we speak) & then pass in both chambers, then the reconciliation bill itself has to be written-up & passed in both chambers, but before the Senate can do their part in passing it, they're obligated to hold a time-consuming amendment vote-a-rama, during which literally hundreds of amendments have to be voted on. Getting the COVID stimulus passed through the reconciliation process was always gonna be a time-consuming process. It took 6 months for the GOP to try & use the reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare (which failed), & then another 6 months to successfully use it to get their tax cuts. The fact that the Democrats will get it done this time in just ~70 days (as compared to ACB having been confirmed in 39, which you equate to "2 seconds") is a testament to how fast things are moving. If ACB was confirmed in "2 seconds," then this stimulus is being passed in 3.5.

Didn’t realize they had to go through a ridiculous amount of votes such as that. Just seems that time moves slow on things that matter and on GOP wish lists it just breezes through

[MillennialModerate]

Prediction: They put DC statehood into the COVID relief reconciliation bill. A few Republicans vote for it (Murkowski, Romney, maybe Collins), giving Democrats cover when Republicans claim the admission of DC was "partisan." Also, a whole bunch of Republicans vote no, making terrible optics for voting against COVID relief.

Are you high?

For one you can’t put DC Statehood into a reconciliation vote.

For two, no way in HELL are they getting 3 Republican votes on a $1.9T bill OR Statehood (You might get Murkowski on Statehood by itself but not this way; and Romney already said you wouldn’t see a single Republican vote on $1.9T)

It's been extensively discussed that you probably can put it through reconciliation since Congress controls the DC budget.

But even if you can't, you can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes, so if all 50 Democrats are committed to DC statehood (which they appear to be), there are many different paths to enacting it, none of which Republicans can stop.

If this is true, it’s criminal negligence by Dems if it’s not at least attempted

Not holding my breath

[MillennialModerate]

If Democrats don't use their raw power to push this through while in the majority then they've learned nothing over the last 2 decades and don't have their own constituents backs.

[MillennialModerate]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey