Two-Thirds Of Americans Oppose DC Statehood

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

4 rows of 13 stars would look god awful.

The 23rd Amendment would be left hanging really awkwardly. I’ve heard some proposals of having Congress instruct the rump district to give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but that seems like putting chewing gum in a leaking dam.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 1 of the 23rd Amendment

I’d welcome them and Puerto Rico if majorities in said territories support their entrance.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

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.

Not sure about Brazil, but the Australian Capital Territory has Senators (not as many as a state would though) and Represenatives. Granted, Australia doesn’t have an executive elected by electoral college.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

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.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

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.

I work for the federal government. They throw a fit if we pay sales tax. If I go down to Napa Auto and get a $4 pack of fuses and pay 30 cents in sales tax, you better believe I’ll have to go back and ask them to take the sales tax off. It’s a massive pain in the butt.