DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

What is actually required to make both states?

I was under the impression that if voters in the district/territory voted in favor of statehood, and if a simple majority in the House and Senate agreed, that was all it took.  What else has to happen?

(Apologies if I'm showing my stupidity.)

The Puerto Rico government which is currently anti-statehood has to draft a constitution and everything.

That too

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.

What is actually required to make both states?

I was under the impression that if voters in the district/territory voted in favor of statehood, and if a simple majority in the House and Senate agreed, that was all it took.  What else has to happen?

(Apologies if I'm showing my stupidity.)

The Puerto Rico government which is currently anti-statehood has to draft a constitution and everything.

The Puerto Rico government is pro-statehood.

IIRC, its legislature is anti-statehood

[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.

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Waste of time.

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

I meant it's not happening.  I'll be proven correct.

Do you wanna elaborate?

If the voting requirement is a majority vote it may pass, but I thought it was 2/3rds.  I don't believe there's any way it can pass by a 2/3 vote.

It's just a plain majority vote for admitting new states, the filibuster is the only real obstacle in DC's case.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would be open to the idea of PR statehood, but DC should in no scenario be admitted as a state. This is just a powergrab.

Powergrab? The citizens of the District of Columbia, which about the same as Wyoming, are supposed to pay federal income tax but have no representation in congress? How is that a powergrab? If Republicans are unhappy with their voting patterns, try to appeal to them. At least that's what Republicans say to Democrats when latter complain about small states like Wyoming or North Dakota.

Actually, DC has over 100,000 more people than Wyoming

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think this is going to come down to how 1) the showdown over the legislation dealing with gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, voter rights, etc goes down and 2) how long it takes to pass various other pieces of legislation.  While obviously not a sure thing, I think HB 1 is more likely than not to pass the Senate in a slightly paired down form that still does like 80-90% of what the current version does (including all the important stuff) and that seems to be where the big filibuster showdown will ultimately occur.  It's a major, time-sensitive issue that neither party can afford to back down on and that is about as favorable turf (in terms of popularity with the public) as Democrats are going to get for such a fight.

Unlike the final outcome of the HB 1 filibuster fight, however, it is still far from clear what the state of the legislative filibuster will be after that.  I mean, the unanimous consent rule is probably going to be neutered away to irrelevance pretty quickly given Republican threats to try to break the Senate with it if the filibuster is weakened in any way, but beyond that there's a lot which remains unclear.  

Do the Democrats just eliminate the filibuster outright?  Do they make special carve outs and if so, what are those?  Only for voting rights bills?  Only for (insert category here).  Only as a random one-off where Schumer makes a deal with Manchin and Sinema not to nuke the filibuster to pass any other non-reconciliation legislation this session if they will nuke it to pass HB 1?  Does Schumer agree to only nuke it for an agreed upon set of bills or issue categories.  Is there a new rule dramatically limiting when the filibuster can be used?  Does it get modified to require a talking filibuster in which all forty members must remain on the floor the whole time and are no longer allowed to relieve each other during a filibuster so that it becomes impossible for the older Republican Senators to remain on the floor w/o seriously endangering their health.  Does the filibuster get changed to an extended period of debate capped at a certain number of days?  Is it something else entirely?  I could go on all day b/c the possibilities are really limitless here.  

And even then, DC statehood's problem (probably) isn't going to be getting to 50 votes so much as it is it's just not a high priority for Senate Democrats right now (although it's not necessarily a low one either).  They clearly want to do it, but only if they get around to it.  Its support within the Senate Caucus seems to be a mile wide and an inch deep, especially with folks like Tester (whose recent comments on DC statehood probably sum up most of the Caucus' views on the issue pretty well).  

As a result, and unlike HB 1, this is the sort of thing that I could very easily see getting squeezed out later on in favor of other issues or even falling off the radar entirely this session.  Don't get me wrong, it could definitely happen, but only if a number of other things have already gotten passed first and the filibuster showdown also gets resolved in a favorable way (then again, state admission seems to lend itself to a carve out to a greater degree than most issues, so who knows ).  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Let’s see how he actually votes