Two-Thirds Of Americans Oppose DC Statehood

[Santander]

Why would the majority of Democrats/liberals oppose DC statehood?

Probably because literal "statehood" for a city (a city supposed to be for all 50 states) doesn't make sense. Yes, it gets it voting representation which Im not opposed to ... but actual statehood for a city is dumb. If this poll was flawed for not being a push polls telling respondents about the poor plight of DC then its also flawed for not presenting voting representation without statehood as an option.

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia) When it comes to Constitutional issues, you have to do things right, not just whatever's expedient.

I am also not opposed to voting representation, but statehood is the wrong solution to the problem. DC statehood means that one (sovereign) state will have control over the infrastructure, laws, and planning, and thus undue influence and control, of the national capital, which is a place that exists solely do the work of all 50 states. (the rump DC idea ignores this fact) It would also raise taxation and fairness issues, with the DC government currently receiving 40% of its annual revenues from direct federal funding.

[Santander]

Why would the majority of Democrats/liberals oppose DC statehood?

Probably because literal "statehood" for a city (a city supposed to be for all 50 states) doesn't make sense. Yes, it gets it voting representation which Im not opposed to ... but actual statehood for a city is dumb. If this poll was flawed for not being a push polls telling respondents about the poor plight of DC then its also flawed for not presenting voting representation without statehood as an option.

Why is this stupid? Is it because it's way smaller geographically than other states? That doesn't make much sense, if that's it.

And what's the mechanism for providing DC voting representation in Congress without statehood?

A Constitutional amendment.

[Santander]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

[Santander]

This is the most important point. DC is the capital district of a massive, sprawling federal democracy, which must not belong to any single state. (you see a similar setup in other countries with strong federalism, such as Brazil and Australia)

I guess the issue is the residential areas. "DC" could just be the land with all the relevant federal buildings where there are almost no residents. The residential areas could potentially be a state or absorbed into other states.

A federal district has to encompass a functional city that can support the government's business in order to make sense. A rump district of government buildings resembling the Vatican is not suitable for that purpose, as it would still be subject to all of the same issues of the capital being in one state, just without the capital legally being in the state.

While DC getting voting representation is fine, the status quo is not that bad either. Residence in DC is completely voluntary, and they enjoy some privileges like lower taxes, particularly at the lower end, and better infrastructure, thanks to direct federal government funding and the economic behemoth that is the US federal government.

What exactly are the issues of the federal capital being located within one state?

Yeah. Most other federal countries either have the federal capital be a state by itself (Germany and Land Berlin; Australia and the ACT; etc) or they have the federal capital inside one state (a great example being Ottawa in Canada, which even if it sits right at the border is still firmly in Ontario)

Canada is a much less federal country than Australia or the US, so it's not that contentious. (provinces instead of states) Again, there is no problem with having representation for DC residents, the problem is statehood itself, what statehood means, why a federal district was created in the first place, and why it is needed today.

I have already explained in my previous posts the main reasons.

[Santander]

You haven’t explained any reasons though

You should learn to read, then.

[Santander]

I think the concerns about a federal district being a state (or within a state) itself are extremely overblown. Maybe they would have made sense closer to the beginning of the country, when they worried that having the federal district within its boundaries would have given a state special status AND there were only 12 other states. But if DC were admitted as a state, it would be one of 51+. Its power to exert status as the home of the federal government would extend only so far as 1/51 of the votes in the Senate and 1/435+ votes in the House.

The problem has nothing to do with the level of influence that DC would have in Congress. States are Constitutionally sovereign, with power over anything not delegated to the federal government, giving a hypothetical DC state government undue influence over the federal government and inherently unequal status among the states. The only way to mitigate such conflicts to a Constitutionally and legally tenable level would be to, ironically, pass a Constitutional amendment, at which point you might as well have done it properly in the first place and given them the representation without statehood.

I suppose in theory, you could do something crazy, like having the federal government expropriate 100% of the land in DC, leasing it back to local authorities/businesses/residents, and then establishing a token state, purely to create the legal fiction required for DC representation in Congress, but that is obviously not realistic. Perhaps something even more exotic could be devised to get around the statehood problems, but none of the oversimplistic proposals I've seen (e.g. rump district for government buildings) have addressed any of the real concerns.

[Santander]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

[Santander]

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

Provinces aren't states. Australia is a much closer analogue to the US than Canada.

[Santander]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

[Santander]

The Democrats should do it anyway, along with Puerto Rico and Guam. If Washington citizens have to pay income taxes, they should also chose two senators and representatives.

Puerto Rico and Guam don't pay federal taxes. They are also colonial holdings with a very different history acquisition than the US. DC residents also don't pay full taxes, since their local government is subsidized by the federal government.

[Santander]

Canada does just fine with Ottawa in Ontario.

Provinces aren't states. Australia is a much closer analogue to the US than Canada.

And the Australian Capital Territory has representation in parliament unlike here in the US. Granted, the ACT only has two senators as opposed to the 12 that states have. I believe that it has proportional represenation in the House of Represenatives though. I know they just got a third seat in the most recent election.

And again, no problem with representation. Only a problem with statehood.

[Santander]

What precisely are you claiming? Like what things would the DC state government have control over that would mean it would have undue influence over the federal government? I'm not tracking what the argument is here.

I've already explained - the law, infrastructure, city planning, to start. If this were not a serious issue that logical people had already considered before, why have countries around the world even bothered with capital districts?

But like, how? Can you give one concrete example?

The law

It doesn't take any imagination to figure that one out.

But what does this mean? Do you mean that DC will be able to make laws that will what, become federal laws? Impact federal laws? Impact the federal government's ability to make laws? All I'm asking for is one concrete example of what you mean.

I don't understand how this is so difficult to figure out. Congress maintains authority over DC, even after Home Rule was instituted, so that the laws of the city will not be against the interests of running the business of the 50 United States. The interests of the residents are heard, but must ultimately be balanced against the interests of the rest of the nation.

Obviously, this means DC statehood is open to political blackmail, but even ignoring that, the federal government would be powerless to stop the DC government from creating new taxes, set zoning regulations, or set infrastructure priorities that would hinder the operation of the government. Things as "simple" in other cities such as closing/moving a road/bridge (I don't mean Bridgegate, I mean regular infrastructure), permitting tall buildings to be built downtown, and commuter taxes, would directly affect the operations of the federal government, and by extension the residents of the 50 states, which is unacceptable. These are just examples of very innocent, politics-free decisions that would hinder the federal government. With any degree of political animus, the powers of a state government are vast.

A "cute" solution to the taxation without representation issue would be to exempt DC residents from federal income tax and perhaps even repeal the city government's taxation authority and fund DC directly from the federal government.

[Santander]

None of the laws you mention could be applied against the federal government. States can’t tax the federal government. States can’t tell the federal government how high to build buildings on federal land. So what exactly is the scenario you fear?

The states can tax the federal government...  what do you think sales taxes and commuter taxes would be? And most of DC is not federal land.

[Santander]

The federal government has facilities all over the place. In all kinds of states. Most concentrated in DC, obviously, but why would these same concerns not manifest about Pennsylvania or Massachusetts or Georgia?

There is only one seat of government. Only one city has Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, foreign embassies, etc.

The only logically and historically coherent argument for ignoring the need for a capital territory is that statehood has been so eroded over time that statehood itself needs to be redefined (though Constitutional amendment), at which point DC's political status would basically resolve itself. DC's political representation problems are far narrower in scope than statehood and should be resolved in the appropriate manner.