DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[GeneralMacArthur]

The arguments against DC I can certainly understand.  It's kind of silly to make a state out of our capital city, when it's so small.  But then again, it's kind of silly that DC is what it is in the first place.  Why is it its own thing and not part of any state?  Why does it get electoral votes, but no representation in Congress?  The whole thing doesn't really make any sense.  DC is more populous than Vermont and Wyoming, but those states get 7 congressmen making laws, yet the people of DC have no control over the laws of their own country.  Makes no sense.

That said, there is no cohesive argument against making Puerto Rico a state.  It's a large enough state population-wise that it would have 6 congressmen, same as Iowa, and in terms of area it is 80x bigger than DC and about the same size as Connecticut.  Puerto Ricans are at the mercy of U.S. rule, as we found out so painfully during Hurricane Maria.  They absolutely deserve representation.

If you want to argue against DC being a state, that's fine, but as soon as someone starts arguing against Puerto Rico being a state, you know it's just bad-faith with political motivations.

[Tintrlvr]

Please split California in half.

Just so long as you guys have to keep Newsom.

Deal. You can have Kevin McCarthy.

Bakersfield goes with NorCal. Sorry, the Tehachapis are the border.

Bulldinky. This should be the map:



Or if you want more states, this:

If you want five states, the next split is San Diego/Imperial as a separate state from the rest of SoCal before you split up the Bay Area (why?).

[Brittain33]

It’s politically advantageous to Democrats and it’s the right thing to do for balancing our democracy and for equal rights. The two are not exclusive.

The problem Republicans have is that there are no valid arguments, assuming you believe in democracy and equal rights, for opposing it. That’s why their arguments are purely transactional and about a zero sum game for representation, and disregard ethics or constitutional values.

[MT Treasurer]

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

It’s going to be so hilarious if you people add DC (and maybe even PR) and still lose the Senate in 2022. The next R trifecta is going to be glorious beyond words.

[Brittain33]

What’s critical here: our system is slanted against Democrats through gerrymandering and Senate apportionment, so necessarily any reform which makes our system more democratic and inclusive and balanced will also benefit the Democratic Party.

That’s an indictment of current conditions, not an argument against reform or its advocates.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

It’s going to be so hilarious if you people add DC (and maybe even PR) and still lose the Senate in 2022. The next R trifecta is going to be glorious beyond words.

What, glorious like the last one that did practically nothing?

[MT Treasurer]

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

It’s going to be so hilarious if you people add DC (and maybe even PR) and still lose the Senate in 2022. The next R trifecta is going to be glorious beyond words.

What, glorious like the last one that did practically nothing?

Oh, the next one won’t be as incompetent as this one, trust me.

[7,052,770]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

Wrong. I believe that all Americans should be represented I'm Congress. You apparently don't if they might not vote the way you want them to. (And funny how quickly you concede Puerto Rico when lots of Republicans want to compete and win there.)

[Hammy]

PR is too different, a very small percentage of its population can actually speak English. If the average Puerto Rican can’t communicate with the average North Carolinian, then that’s a problem, because citizens of the same country need to be able to communicate.

First off, most people are bilingual, including most Puerto Ricans. Second, the US does not have an official language.

And most importantly, the "too different' is veering dangerously close to "separate and unequal" as they are citizens--based on this, what's to stop citizens from being excluded in other ways as well because they are "too different"?

[It’s so Joever]

And you are lying to yourself when you say you aren’t politically motivated against DC statehood.
Yeah I admit it, we want DC statehood for the senators, deal with it, your side is far worse and this is payback for your destruction of the country. I don’t care how you feel.

It’s going to be so hilarious if you people add DC (and maybe even PR) and still lose the Senate in 2022. The next R trifecta is going to be glorious beyond words.

Yeah yeah, you hate America and want to continue to kill it slowly, we get it.
No need to gloat about it.

[kwabbit]

What’s critical here: our system is slanted against Democrats through gerrymandering and Senate apportionment, so necessarily any reform which makes our system more democratic and inclusive and balanced will also benefit the Democratic Party.

That’s an indictment of current conditions, not an argument against reform or its advocates.

What's critical as well: Republicans having a temporary advantage in senate apportionment is not sufficient reason to add states. This has been going on 5-10 years at most. Perhaps if it lasted 50 years it might, but not at the moment.

The same things is true for the Electoral College. You can argue that the EC should be abolished because it is not the direct will of the American people at large, but you can't argue that it should be abolished because it currently favors Republicans. Trump had an EC advantage in 2016 and 2020, but Democrats had it 2004-2012. A temporary advantage caused by the cyclical nature of politics is not a reason to blow up the system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The arguments against DC I can certainly understand.  It's kind of silly to make a state out of our capital city, when it's so small.  But then again, it's kind of silly that DC is what it is in the first place.  Why is it its own thing and not part of any state?  Why does it get electoral votes, but no representation in Congress?  The whole thing doesn't really make any sense.  DC is more populous than Vermont and Wyoming, but those states get 7 congressmen making laws, yet the people of DC have no control over the laws of their own country.  Makes no sense.

That said, there is no cohesive argument against making Puerto Rico a state.  It's a large enough state population-wise that it would have 6 congressmen, same as Iowa, and in terms of area it is 80x bigger than DC and about the same size as Connecticut.  Puerto Ricans are at the mercy of U.S. rule, as we found out so painfully during Hurricane Maria.  They absolutely deserve representation.

If you want to argue against DC being a state, that's fine, but as soon as someone starts arguing against Puerto Rico being a state, you know it's just bad-faith with political motivations.

I wonder if Puerto Rico's declining population will help it gain Statehood.  In the 2000 Census, it would have been entitled to 8 Electors; in the 2010 Census, 7 Electors; and if estimates are correct, now only 6 Electors.  A lot of Puerto Rican are already able to vote for Congress and President, they just did so by moving to the mainland.

[kwabbit]

I think most reds avatar are lying to themselves when they say they are not politically motivated in supporting DC and PR statehood so strongly. It's obvious that adding them would essentially guarantee an extra four Democratic senators, and no one is without this knowledge. When you advocate their statehood as a means to balance out the Senate, that is completely politically motivated. There was a lot less vocal support for statehood when Democrats were winning tons of senate seats in small, rural states and seemed to have a strong structural advantage in the Senate.  Adding states to change what is likely a temporary Republican structural advantage in the Senate is misguided. There are strong arguments for admitting both PR and DC, but they are not slam dunk, which is why adding them appears so politically motivated.

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

For Puerto Rico, the case for statehood is weaker. For one, they are pretty autonomous in their governance and do not pay federal taxes. Thus is there isn't the no taxation without representation argument for them. They did just have their statehood referendum pass, but it did so with 52% of the vote. Only about 20% of the island's population voted for statehood, and about 28% of registered voters. I don't know what the threshold should be, but PR seems much too divided on statehood to be admitted. Perhaps a majority of RVs should be needed, or 60% or 66.7% support in a referendum, but 52% support in a 54% turnout election is simply not enough for a drastic change in governance like statehood. It should require consensus. When Democrats are much more enthusiastic about admitting PR as a state than PR itself, then it appears to be politically motivated.

Wrong. I believe that all Americans should be represented I'm Congress. You apparently don't if they might not vote the way you want them to. (And funny how quickly you concede Puerto Rico when lots of Republicans want to compete and win there.)

I don't think PR has any real chance of electing a Republican to the Senate. Trump had something like a 20% approval rating there. If PR can muster anything close to a consensus on statehood, they should be admitted as a state ASAP.

[Stockdale for Veep]

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...

[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

[Brittain33]

What’s critical here: our system is slanted against Democrats through gerrymandering and Senate apportionment, so necessarily any reform which makes our system more democratic and inclusive and balanced will also benefit the Democratic Party.

That’s an indictment of current conditions, not an argument against reform or its advocates.

What's critical as well: Republicans having a temporary advantage in senate apportionment is not sufficient reason to add states. This has been going on 5-10 years at most. Perhaps if it lasted 50 years it might, but not at the moment.

That’s right that it’s not sufficient, but it has the additional merits of bringing equal federal representation and rights to the 700,000 taxpaying, war-fighting, hard-working Americans of the district (which has been a separate entity for over 200 years) and bringing Puerto Rico out of a political purgatory that had it in a demographic and economic death spiral before the hurricane hit. It’s also important to bring balance not for partisan reasons, but for cities to have the kind of representation rural areas take for granted. So many good reasons to make this reform.

[Ferguson97]

It just makes sense for Manchin to vote for DC statehood. Democrats will be able to pass progressive legislation without him that way, so he can vote however he likes to keep his WV constituents pleased.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

There’s been a lot of talk about adding these states to the Union, on this forum and elsewhere, and with Democrats controlling all 3 branches, its seeming more possible than ever.

But it’s clear most Republicans think of this as being a political move to expand Democrats control over the senate, and increase their chances in the EC.

Is it possible that next time the Republicans are in charge, they could create new states as well to expand their power? I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making every single Oklahoma County a new state, technically.

All hell could break loose.

The most obvious check is that state governors would not want to give up power by ceding territory to new states. This also applies to the 'split California' proposals and is a reason why the 'add NoVA to DC with statehood' compromise could fail.

It might make it politically easier for a future administration to add other, smaller territories as states, but all of these have more autonomy than PR and DC.

[TheReckoning]

There’s been a lot of talk about adding these states to the Union, on this forum and elsewhere, and with Democrats controlling all 3 branches, its seeming more possible than ever.

But it’s clear most Republicans think of this as being a political move to expand Democrats control over the senate, and increase their chances in the EC.

Is it possible that next time the Republicans are in charge, they could create new states as well to expand their power? I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making every single Oklahoma County a new state, technically.

All hell could break loose.

The most obvious check is that state governors would not want to give up power by ceding territory to new states. This also applies to the 'split California' proposals and is a reason why the 'add NoVA to DC with statehood' compromise could fail.

It might make it politically easier for a future administration to add other, smaller territories as states, but all of these have more autonomy than PR and DC.

If those State governors were Trumpists who believed that Biden would destroy the country, I think they’d do anything they could.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

There’s been a lot of talk about adding these states to the Union, on this forum and elsewhere, and with Democrats controlling all 3 branches, its seeming more possible than ever.

But it’s clear most Republicans think of this as being a political move to expand Democrats control over the senate, and increase their chances in the EC.

Is it possible that next time the Republicans are in charge, they could create new states as well to expand their power? I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making every single Oklahoma County a new state, technically.

All hell could break loose.

The most obvious check is that state governors would not want to give up power by ceding territory to new states. This also applies to the 'split California' proposals and is a reason why the 'add NoVA to DC with statehood' compromise could fail.

It might make it politically easier for a future administration to add other, smaller territories as states, but all of these have more autonomy than PR and DC.

If those State governors were Trumpists who believed that Biden would destroy the country, I think they’d do anything they could.

They'd need federal approval and so probably couldn't achieve it under an administration partly or fully controlled by their political opposition (this goes for Democratic Governors with a Republican president as well).* This is only feasible with a trifecta in the current political era and Governors probably couldn't be persuaded to do it in their political "good years."

*The exception here is Texas, which may be able to divide itself into up to 5 states without federal approval. One to watch, in my opinion.

[7,052,770]

This article argues that new states are already not subject to the filibuster and can be admitted with by simple majority without changing any rules.

https://theweek.com/articles/960235/statehood-dc-puerto-rico-only-needs-50-votes

Of course, the Senate can decide to interpret the rules or change the rules with the same majority vote either way, but successfully arguing that it's not a rule change may help with any institutionalist stragglers.

[MT Treasurer]

It just makes sense for Manchin to vote for DC statehood. Democrats will be able to pass progressive legislation without him that way, so he can vote however he likes to keep his WV constituents pleased.

Hahaha, he’s not going to get away with this.

[7,052,770]

It just makes sense for Manchin to vote for DC statehood. Democrats will be able to pass progressive legislation without him that way, so he can vote however he likes to keep his WV constituents pleased.

Hahaha, he’s not going to get away with this.

He still has 4 years to go out in an extended blaze of glory.

[Former President tack50]

Having a distinct capital area with different functions than other provinces/administrative areas is very common. That is what DC is. Now, they should definitely be represented in the House. The Senate, however, exists specifically for the states. Admitting them as a state and ensuring senate representation is a different matter. I'm not sure the capital area should be in any specific state, and thus have Senate representation, although they should be represented in the House

I agree with the PR criticism, and even with the fact that DC statehood is, at least in part, partisanly motivated (it's not like there are no non-partisan reasons to admit DC though, like you yourself admit)

However the bolded part is factually wrong. Yes, it is very common for the capital city of many countries to be a separate part from all the constituent entities. However, no country other than the US (to my knowledge) fully deprives said "capital region" from representation in the upper chamber.

The closest you can get is Australia, where the regular states get 12 Senators, while Canberra (and the Northern Territory) only get 2 Senators each. That's a very heavy difference, but 2 isn't quite 0.

And other than Australia, I can't think of any place where the capital region even gets deliberately less representation than it should.

> The German Bundesrat gives Berlin representation like every other state (partially, but not fully based on population), though it is worth noting Berlin (alongside Hamburg and Bremen) are city-states equal to the standard states
> The Austrian Bundesrat operates similar to the German one, giving Vienna the amount of representation it deserves though much like in Germany, Vienna is a city state equal to all the others

> The Brazilian Senate gives the Federal District (Brasilia) 3 Senators just like every other state
> The Argentine Senate gives CABA (Buenos Aires city) 3 Senators just like every other state
> The Mexican Senate is somewhat more complicated, but it still gives DF (Mexico City) equal representation. 3 Senators get elected in each state and in DF for a total of 96 (2 for the largest party, 1 for the runner up); and then there is a separate national list worth 32 Senators

What this would do is to copy the German/Austrian model, and make DC into a proper state like any other. Of course it could also get solved with a constitutional amendment but why shouldn't the citizens of DC have equal representation to all other Americans?

[Former President tack50]

The arguments against DC I can certainly understand.  It's kind of silly to make a state out of our capital city, when it's so small.  But then again, it's kind of silly that DC is what it is in the first place.  Why is it its own thing and not part of any state?  Why does it get electoral votes, but no representation in Congress?  The whole thing doesn't really make any sense.  DC is more populous than Vermont and Wyoming, but those states get 7 congressmen making laws, yet the people of DC have no control over the laws of their own country.  Makes no sense.

That said, there is no cohesive argument against making Puerto Rico a state.  It's a large enough state population-wise that it would have 6 congressmen, same as Iowa, and in terms of area it is 80x bigger than DC and about the same size as Connecticut.  Puerto Ricans are at the mercy of U.S. rule, as we found out so painfully during Hurricane Maria.  They absolutely deserve representation.

If you want to argue against DC being a state, that's fine, but as soon as someone starts arguing against Puerto Rico being a state, you know it's just bad-faith with political motivations.

I'd actually argue the exact opposite.

In DC the people inequivocally want it (the referendum was what, 77-23?) and there is no reason why a bunch of Americans should go unrepresented

As for PR however there just plain isn't a mandate in favour of statehood. Yes, the referendum (narrowly) passed. But there is no mandate to actually implement statehood. PR did elect a pro statehood governor sure; but that was in an election with tons of candidates where the winner got under 1/3 of the vote.

And like I always mention when talking about PR, the anti-statehood parties have majorities in both chambers of the territorial legislature. If the US Congress makes PR a state against PR's will, don't be surprised then PR just refuses to write a state constitution, setting up a constitutional crisis