DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[7,052,770]

This thread in a nutshell:

Peak Harry/Brucejoel/Badger: We must pass DC statehood, it’s a matter of equal representation! We would tooootally want to admit a GOP territory if they were underrepresented! This is certainly not about the Democratic senators we have said we wanted, no sireee!”

OSR: “The right thing to do is 100% to leave hundreds of thousands of tax paying Americans unrepresented because I want to keep the Reagan/Trump-cultists in power. Also can we find a way to keep those scary brown people in Georgia from voting, that would be great...

MillenialModerate: “Oh my god it’s been two days and DC isn’t a state yet with two senators. This is proof Schumer sucks and I am so ANGRY! The Democrats should have passed DC statehood five milliseconds after they took the majority, screw you Schumer and Markey! Kennedy would have passed it by now.”

OC: “Hahahaha Progmod told me Schumer pass DC statehood, but he was wrong just like about Georgia. Schumer doesn’t have votes to break filibuster and reconciliation, DC statehood won’t happen until 2023 when Democrats will win in a landslide because of recovering economy and get a filibuster proof MAJORITY 😎😎😎”

Yes, except that first position espoused by me Harry and Bruce Joel isn't ironic. Kindly stick a cork in your unnecessarily smug attitude, because you really missed the boat on this.

I don't think any of us would deny appreciating the political advantage of the two additional Democratic senators, and that we would probably be more grudging about it if it was an overwhelmingly Republican territory. But I daresay over 90% of us would still back it because it's the right thing to do.

You see, belief in equality and fairness is a fundamental Hallmark of progressive liberal thought. Belief in those things makes us progressives, and in turn and that's what makes us Democrats, which in turn makes us want to extend the franchise to  the near three quarter of a million  unrepresented DC residents. Trying to project Republican obsession with self-dealing and power hording over basic principles of fairness onto the rest of us is just 2 + 2 = 5 factually incorrect.

Exactly. I hate how Wyoming sends Republicans to Congress, but I still think they have the right to representation. I would vehemently oppose a bill that reverted Wyoming to a territory against their will.

[7,052,770]

Is there a way DC gets 2 senators without becoming a state?

It would take a constitutional amendment and might even need to get over the entrenched clause. Practically impossible.

I never considered the potential equal suffrage implications, but now that I think about it, yeah, I'm sure some butthurt right-winger would've made a court case about it had the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment ever been ratified.

Each State would still have the same number of Senators, and the provision was clearly intended to prevent the Senate being switched to some other form of apportionment.  I think it would survive any court challenge and if not, Statehood would remain an option.  However, politically, there's zero chance of the Amendment being revived by Congress, let alone ratified by the States. (At most, I could see perhaps Manchin insisting a revival be tried first, with him supporting DC Statehood if not enough Republicans agreed to resend it to the States.)

A fair compromise would have been: The national capital gets 3 electoral votes, 1 Senator and 2 House members. It would save the GOP from 1 Dem Senator and give the capital the representation. I’d be in favor of a bill that said STATEHOOD becomes official on this date if this amendment wasn’t adopted sooner.

Of course none of that will happen but hey

That's not remotely "fair" and seems to be something you just made up. Americans living in DC should be represented in Congress just like any other American, not overrepresented in the House and underrepresented in the Senate.

[7,052,770]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

Schumer hasn't personally called MM to give the exact timetable for the bill, therefore it's not a priority and won't happen...

[7,052,770]

Safe to say this is now dead?

God you are insufferable. You know there are DC statehood bills in both Houses as we speak.

Lol if there are bills in both houses wasn’t the question

So then you know it's not dead. The House is holding hearings next month. There is a 100% chance this passes by the summer, unless Democrats somehow lose control of one of the houses by deaths/resignations.

As we've already directly told you, just because Schumer isn't giving you personal daily updates on something doesn't mean it's randomly off the table.

[7,052,770]

Awesome that partisan power grabs are being shot down!

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

[7,052,770]

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

Maybe we're wrong that it's dead, but how are you so confident that it's a given?

Because it's been listed as a major priority by Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer and not a single Democrat has indicated they're opposed.

The process is currently working in the House, and even Merrick Garland was talking about it this week. There's no reason at all to think it's "dead." The numbers are there, it's just not getting all the media attention with the stimulus going on, and that's OK. It will be a state either way by this summer.

[7,052,770]

Awesome that partisan power grabs are being shot down!

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

It’s pretty obvious this is a power grab. Maybe the Republicans opposing it also a power grab, but if this was really about giving the people of DC representation, it would’ve been done all the other times the Democrats held power. Now that they realize that their old coalition isn’t working, they’re trying to find ways to get back power.

Not admitting it during Obama's trifecta is bad in hindsight, but the DC statehood movement wasn't as strong then. Times change. People realize that not letting them have representation in Congress is a new Jim Crow these days. It wasn't as apparent to everyone then.

There really isn't another time when it could have been admitted. It was voted down by the Blue Dogs when Clinton had his trifecta.

[7,052,770]

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

Maybe we're wrong that it's dead, but how are you so confident that it's a given?

Because it's been listed as a major priority by Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer and not a single Democrat has indicated they're opposed.

The process is currently working in the House, and even Merrick Garland was talking about it this week. There's no reason at all to think it's "dead." The numbers are there, it's just not getting all the media attention with the stimulus going on, and that's OK. It will be a state either way by this summer.

I mean, the issue that people are having is that one Senator has spent the last two weeks beating it into everyone's head how much she loves the filibuster.
It's hard to see her backing down after making it her brand.

Over the last 2 months we've documented a number of ways DC can be admitted without abolishing the filibuster. Sinema may be a grandstander, but she's not going to perpetuate Jim Crow, and she may not have even to make that call.

[7,052,770]

The Americans living in DC not getting to have Congressional representation just because Republicans don't want them electing Democrats is the partisan power grab. And yes, it is nice that Jim Crow II will finally end for DC later this year.

Next up are the territories - their Jim Crow will come to an end soon too.

Maybe we're wrong that it's dead, but how are you so confident that it's a given?

Because it's been listed as a major priority by Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer and not a single Democrat has indicated they're opposed.

The process is currently working in the House, and even Merrick Garland was talking about it this week. There's no reason at all to think it's "dead." The numbers are there, it's just not getting all the media attention with the stimulus going on, and that's OK. It will be a state either way by this summer.

I mean, the issue that people are having is that one Senator has spent the last two weeks beating it into everyone's head how much she loves the filibuster.
It's hard to see her backing down after making it her brand.

Over the last 2 months we've documented a number of ways DC can be admitted without abolishing the filibuster. Sinema may be a grandstander, but she's not going to perpetuate Jim Crow, and she may not have even to make that call.

All of which would take 50 affirmative votes, something that there is zero indication exists for this issue.

Keep dreaming. It's far more likely that Murkowski votes yes than Sinema votes no.

[7,052,770]

Yeah if the argument is that Sinema is going to eventually back down on the filibuster, ok I guess it can happen. But it's obviously not going to wind up in a reconciliation bill if the minimum wage can't.

There's a pretty strong legal argument that admission of new states is not subject to the filibuster in the first place since the process is described in the Constitution. All it would take is for 50 Senators to decide that (Courts would not be involved), and Sinema doesn't even have to look inconsistent. I think that's the best bet, although there are plenty of other plausible paths.

[7,052,770]

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1374051310262046723


There just aren't any good arguments against DC statehood, so this is what Republicans are resorting to.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1374043601085300738

[7,052,770]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District. 

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

[7,052,770]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

So the 23rd Amendment shouldn't have been passed because it only addressed part of the DC taxation without representation issue?

It was that or nothing then. If it were "House vote or nothing" today, I'd take the House vote, but all signs point to full statehood happening this year, so why even entertain less?

[7,052,770]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

[7,052,770]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

0% chance either of them derail it. It's happening.

Unless it’s filibustered...

It won't be. DC will be a state using whatever method or trick helps the grandstanders sleep at night.

[7,052,770]

And 0 senators. The taxpaying American citizens who live in DC (as is the case in any other part of America) deserve to have their interests represented in both Houses of Congress, and anything less than that is a non-starter. We should not have any second class citizens.

This is another funny thing about this debate.  Many Democrats (including this particular red avatar) will talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the 'one man, one vote' principle while simultaneously arguing that a small, unpopulated exclave should be thrown into the mix to only further exacerbate this inequality.   

If Americans living in the current 50 states get representation in the Senate, so should Americans living in DC. It's really not that hard of a concept.

Ideally, we would reform the Senate to allocate seats by population, but it's incredibly unlikely that will ever happen. In the meantime, we can increase the fairness even if we can't maximize it. Again, not that hard of a concept, and one that I doubt you're sincerely struggling to grasp.



ETA - I've never "talk out of both sides of their head about how the Senate is an undemocratic body that flagrantly violates the "one man, one vote" principle," as for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, I don't think it's productive. Yes, I do think the Senate ought to be apportioned differently, but of my many soapboxes (we all know I'm a fan of those), this is not one of them. But I guess you're not one to let facts get in the way of narrative these days, sadly.

[7,052,770]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

To use his own words, he's "carrying water"

[7,052,770]

"Solving" the taxation without representation issue by making DC a state is like "solving" it by exempting DC residents from federal taxation and keeping the status quo. Highly cynical, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being cute like the tax exemption.

For that matter, it's like "solving" school shootings by closing down schools.

DC voted to become a state, overwhelmingly. This isn't just some scheme we made up without consulting the Americans living there.

[7,052,770]

So I have an interesting possible compromise...  

If Virginia were to secede Arlington County and Alexandria back to DC, that would push Virginia back to being purplish and give the GOP a shot at their senate seats again.

Doubt they would agree, but I wish it was possible.

That is the worst proposal I have ever heard of.

Chill dude, it’s his 7th post in 14 years

That doesn't mean it's still not a terrible idea.

If the people in those counties wanted to join Douglass and the rest of Virginia approved it, I would be fine with it. But neither of those things appear to even be close to true.

[7,052,770]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

According to Peak Harry, 100%.

I'm a lot more dubious. It requires Manchin and Sinema agreeing the filibuster should not apply to statehood. And Sinema says everything should require a 60 vote threshold.

**100% minus whatever the probability Dems lose control of a House later this year somehow.

[7,052,770]

If she votes against statehood arguing that it needs the filibuster (it doesnt), she'll be seeing her 39% approval rating plummet even further.

I don't think she'd vote against statehood, just the procedural steps.

I don't think she'll vote against either. She obviously has a lot of fun grandstanding but she's not going to tell 700,000 Americans they don't deserve representation when she is the deciding vote.

[7,052,770]

Crossposting from the other thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/dc-statehood-voting-rights.html

Senate Democrats are getting pressured to add DC statehood into this bill.

And, like, duhhhh, right? Why the hell would you pass a law that provides "support" for DC statehood but doesn't actually enact it? If you're going to go to such lengths to pass voting rights protection, presumably killing or heavily nerfing the filibuster for this bill, why not put everything in there rather than having yet another huge fight? If Manchin, Sinema, and the rest are willing to do what it takes to pass HR1 (and I think they are), they'll also pass DC statehood.

In fact, they should go ahead and pre-admit Puerto Rico, Marianas, and the Virgin Islands as states as well. When Hawaii and Alaska were admitted by Congress, the admission was preconditioned on having a positive statewide referendum, a state constitution transmitted to the president, and a presidential proclamation to declare them to be a state. Thus, use this act to admit 54 states, effective when all of that happens. DC has already had their referendum and will transmit their constitution to Biden immediately. PR has had their referendum, and can transmit their constitution when the territorial government is ready. The other 2 aren't nearly as far along in the process, but this will allow them to become states immediately once they're ready.

[7,052,770]

All systems go

[7,052,770]

All systems go

Is this happening, or?

It's happening. It would be such a huge humiliation for a Democratic trifecta to let it get this far and then fail. If the votes aren't going to be there in the Senate, Democrats would have quietly scuttled it before letting it come to a Committee vote, much less a full House vote.