DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy on the rules of reconciliation, but is the idea that this could be done through that process one with actual momentum in the caucus (and any chance of persuading Manchin and Sinema to vote for it if so)?

This is objectively good, in any case. American citizens deserve congressional representation and Carper's shows that bold action is more mainstream among the party than some defeatists feel. If this succeeds, a great deal more might be possible as a result.

That's really a known unknown, but it's being quietly discussed at the very least.

[Person Man]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy on the rules of reconciliation, but is the idea that this could be done through that process one with actual momentum in the caucus (and any chance of persuading Manchin and Sinema to vote for it if so)?

This is objectively good, in any case. American citizens deserve congressional representation and Carper's shows that bold action is more mainstream among the party than some defeatists feel. If this succeeds, a great deal more might be possible as a result.

That's really a known unknown, but it's being quietly discussed at the very least.

They could just nuke it through if Manchin doesn’t get in the way.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy on the rules of reconciliation, but is the idea that this could be done through that process one with actual momentum in the caucus (and any chance of persuading Manchin and Sinema to vote for it if so)?

This is objectively good, in any case. American citizens deserve congressional representation and Carper's shows that bold action is more mainstream among the party than some defeatists feel. If this succeeds, a great deal more might be possible as a result.

That's really a known unknown, but it's being quietly discussed at the very least.

They could just nuke it through if Manchin doesn’t get in the way.

But Manchin isn't the only vote Democrats need to worry about. Neither Sinema or King has ever co-sponsored DC Statehood legislation despite literally every other D except the newcomers co-sponsoring it. Carper never did either but considering he's introducing it, I think we can assume where he stands.

[7,052,770]

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."

[KaiserDave]

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

DC was also meant to be a few blocks of government buildings in which representatives would deliberate in and then go home.

Now it's a city bigger than some states.

[YE]

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

I’d be fine with that.

[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)

[Person Man]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy on the rules of reconciliation, but is the idea that this could be done through that process one with actual momentum in the caucus (and any chance of persuading Manchin and Sinema to vote for it if so)?

This is objectively good, in any case. American citizens deserve congressional representation and Carper's shows that bold action is more mainstream among the party than some defeatists feel. If this succeeds, a great deal more might be possible as a result.

That's really a known unknown, but it's being quietly discussed at the very least.

They could just nuke it through if Manchin doesn’t get in the way.

But Manchin isn't the only vote Democrats need to worry about. Neither Sinema or King has ever co-sponsored DC Statehood legislation despite literally every other D except the newcomers co-sponsoring it. Carper never did either but considering he's introducing it, I think we can assume where he stands.

Im sure we will hear more soon. We at least know it will be attempted by 50 votes. Not having most of DC under direct Federal jurisdiction would save the Feds money. They can already use the Byrd bath to pass it.

[rhg2052]

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

How many times do we have to have this conversation? Let's review the arguments.

The people of DC do not want to merge with Maryland, they have voted for statehood.

The government of DC does not want to merge with Maryland, they support statehood.

The people and government of Maryland do not want a merger.

DC has been its own independent entity for centuries.

It does not matter that Alexandria was returned to Virginia in the 19th Century. The context was very different.

It would not be unconstitutional, as there would still be a federal district containing the main institutions of the federal government.

To make DC a state, all that would really need to happen is a few title changes and representation in Congress, while a merger would require a long, arduous process of combining two separate governments with different laws and structures.

To provide some kind of exception that gives DC representation without making it a state, a constitutional amendment would need to pass. This has a very low chance of happening in a politically polarized environment, and is pointless if Congress can easily just make it a state.

This specific statehood bill gets the ball rolling on repealing the 23rd Amendment. With DC already a state, this would be a very easy and non-contentious process, but would be absolutely doomed if attempted before statehood went through.

DC is not too small, it has a larger population than multiple states, and there is no minimum required area for a place to be a state.

And most importantly, there is a states worth of population that is currently not represented in the US government, and does not have self-determination over their own laws. This needs to be corrected, regardless of political consequences.

[It’s so Joever]

Yes this is a Democratic power grab.
And I for one wholeheartedly endorse it.

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

Yes this is a Democratic power grab.
And I for one wholeheartedly endorse it.

It’s really the Republican’s fault for buying into, and becoming dependent upon, being a part of a decades’ long problem.

[ProgressiveModerate]

For reference, this is where we currently are.

There's a small chance ceratin Rs vote for it but they are unlikely to do that unless it has already passed.

The lighter green means they have indicated support but aren't an official co-sponsor. Carper for instance is a sponsor and the one who has introduced the bill but is technically not a co-sponsor.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Waste of time.

[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.

[rhg2052]

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

I think that in the event of statehood happening, a constitutional amendment repealing the 23rd would go through pretty easily. If it were a precondition for statehood, I could see Republicans legislatures blocking it as a way to block statehood. But since it would happen after, there's not much political benefit for either party to fight to keep those electoral votes around.

[Badger]

Waste of time.

Over 700,000 DC residents, or at least close to 90% of them, wholeheartedly disagree.

[Badger]

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.

[YE]

Also can we make PR a state as well? I don't like how the focus has been on admitting DC yet PR is larger and encountered far more hardships in recent decades and also have voted for statehood on 3 separate occasions in the last decade.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy on the rules of reconciliation, but is the idea that this could be done through that process one with actual momentum in the caucus (and any chance of persuading Manchin and Sinema to vote for it if so)?

This is objectively good, in any case. American citizens deserve congressional representation and Carper's shows that bold action is more mainstream among the party than some defeatists feel. If this succeeds, a great deal more might be possible as a result.

That's really a known unknown, but it's being quietly discussed at the very least.

They could just nuke it through if Manchin doesn’t get in the way.

But Manchin isn't the only vote Democrats need to worry about. Neither Sinema or King has ever co-sponsored DC Statehood legislation despite literally every other D except the newcomers co-sponsoring it. Carper never did either but considering he's introducing it, I think we can assume where he stands.

King is one of the folks who quietly flipped from "no" to some version of "you'll have my vote to nuke the filibuster if/when you really need it" because of McConnell's organizing resolution stunt.

I've thought about it, and it's actually not so much the small states that are the problem for Senate Democrats. Yes, Wyoming, Idaho and the Dakotas are all solidly Republican. But Democrats are dominant in small states like Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii.

The real problem for them is that they keep falling short in Florida and North Carolina, and have largely lost the ability to compete in medium-sized states like Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. If Bill Nelson had reached out to Hispanics or Cal Cunningham hadn't had his affair, there would be a lot fewer calls for DC statehood.

This is just plain wrong.  Republican opposition to DC statehood is entirely politically-motivated, but - aside from a handful of hacks in the professional political class - rank-and-file Democratic support for DC statehood is primarily driven by the idea that it's fundamentally wrong for over 700,000 taxpaying American citizens to be deprived of congressional representation just because one political party wants to keep imposing taxation without representation upon people it thinks are unlikely to vote for it.  

There is a school of thought in many Republican (or perhaps more accurately, southern) political circles that it is better to eliminate - or failing that, restrict - Democratic-leaning groups' voting rights when Republicans are struggling electorally as opposed to running on a policy platform that appeals to a greater share of the electorate.  Thus, the Republican solution to DC's voters not supporting the party's policies is taxation without representation.

Puerto Rico is admittedly more complicated and reasonable minds can differ on that one.  I personally support Puerto Rican statehood (even though I actually think it'll help Senate Republicans long-term by electing IDC-style de facto Republicans to the Senate), but it's fair to point out that the island's voters haven't exactly been overwhelmingly supportive of statehood the way DC's voters are, it's a pretty divisive issue in Puerto Rico.  

By contrast, the DC statehood question really just comes down to whether one supports subjecting over 700,000 American citizens (more than the total population of multiple states) to taxation without representation simply because they're unlikely to vote Republican.  If someone thinks only people who vote Republican should get congressional representation then of course they'll oppose DC statehood.  But if you don't believe that, then there's really no argument against DC statehood at this point.  I mean, folks can rationalize away their opposition, but we all know Republicans would be fine with admitting DC if it voted like Wyoming.  The difference is that many Democrats would still support DC statehood even if that were the case.

TL;DR: The Republican opposition to DC statehood reflects the party's unspoken belief that voters who don't typically vote Republican shouldn't get congressional representation whereas the Democratic support for DC statehood - while far from apolitical in its motivation - is largely in good-faith.  Unlike Puerto Rico, there's really not even a reasonable, good-faith argument against DC statehood at this point.  It just comes down to whether you think increasing a political party's chances of controlling the Senate is an end that justifies subjecting over 700,00 American citizens to permanent taxation without representation.

[Roronoa D. Law]

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

Should Mexico City not be a state because it used to be in a similar position as DC?