DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[7,052,770]

All systems go

[Hope For A New Era]

All systems go

Is this happening, or?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All systems go

Is this happening, or?

No, Manchin supports DC Statehood not PR Statehood but Ds don't have the votes to lift the Filibuster, only in the H it's all systems go

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Actually, no. While the 2020 Puerto Rican referendum was finally an unambiguous referendum in favor of Statehood in the abstract. There wasn't a referendum on the specific terms of Statehood.  In previous admissions, the order has been adoption of a State Constitution, followed by acceptance thereof by the Territory and the Congress under such terms as set by Congress.  There's no certainty that terms offered by Congress will be acceptable to the people of Puerto Rico. As I've mentioned before, it's uncertain how much of the recent increase in support there in Puerto Rico is based upon the hope it would prove a way out of the Puerto Rican debt crisis, but I see zero chance that a Puerto Rican statehood bill can pass this Congress without the new State assuming all current Commonwealth debt.

Terms or no terms - the people voted for statehood. They didn’t vote for “statehood if the terms are right”. They voted for statehood. And that’s what they should get. Period. Or at minimum have the state be pre-accepted dependent on once the statehood ratified a constitution or whatever they have to do. The point is to pass the congressional/presidential hurdle asap so it’s a done deal when ready.

As for DC. It should’ve been a state by now and the fact it isn’t is repulsive, color me skeptical that will happen but hey. At least it’s going to pass the house which could put the issue in the national spotlight.

I’m curious if PR statehood could be pushed through reconciliation - making PR a state would require residents to pay federal INCOME taxes which would have an impact on the budget... I know it’s a reach but just curious.

If only statehood didn’t require fillibuster proof votes. This and gerrymander prevention are critical but the Democrats seem content on letting the GOP con their way back into power so

Are you seriously proposing that Congress should be able to write a Puerto Rican Constitution without being subjected to a referendum and saddle the new State with as much debt as it wants just because in one referendum a slight majority finally stated a preference for Statehood in the abstract?

Yes, Congress should get off its duff and present terms for Statehood to Puerto Rico for a referendum that would decide whether to accept them or not.  But what you're proposing is akin to, tho not nearly as bad as, the effort prior to the Civil War to admit Kansas as a slave state.

[Former President tack50]

Terms or no terms - the people voted for statehood. They didn’t vote for “statehood if the terms are right”. They voted for statehood. And that’s what they should get. Period. Or at minimum have the state be pre-accepted dependent on once the statehood ratified a constitution or whatever they have to do. The point is to pass the congressional/presidential hurdle asap so it’s a done deal when ready.

Like I always remember people (and statehood hacks fail to mention) is that the very same day Puerto Rico voted in favour of statehood, they voted in anti-statehood majorities to both houses of their territorial legislature!

And while they did elect a pro-statehood governor, his mandate is insanely weak, getting under 1/3 of the vote.

In a worst case scenario, you'd get the US Congress voting in favour of statehood, only for PR's legislature to sit down and do nothing, refusing to write a state constitution, setting up a constitutional crisis.

[American2020]

DC Statehood Bill Set for Key Committee Vote in US House

A bill that would make Washington, D.C., the nation’s 51st state faces a key committee vote on Wednesday.

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform will mark up and vote on H.R. 51, a bill that would give the District’s 700,000 residents voting representation in the legislature.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-statehood-bill-set-for-key-committee-vote-in-us-house/2639664/

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/51for51/status/1382062175691345924

https://twitter.com/SenatorHick/status/1382105346097971203

[MillennialModerate]

Terms or no terms - the people voted for statehood. They didn’t vote for “statehood if the terms are right”. They voted for statehood. And that’s what they should get. Period. Or at minimum have the state be pre-accepted dependent on once the statehood ratified a constitution or whatever they have to do. The point is to pass the congressional/presidential hurdle asap so it’s a done deal when ready.

Like I always remember people (and statehood hacks fail to mention) is that the very same day Puerto Rico voted in favour of statehood, they voted in anti-statehood majorities to both houses of their territorial legislature!

And while they did elect a pro-statehood governor, his mandate is insanely weak, getting under 1/3 of the vote.

In a worst case scenario, you'd get the US Congress voting in favour of statehood, only for PR's legislature to sit down and do nothing, refusing to write a state constitution, setting up a constitutional crisis.

A majority is a majority. Period. All’s that shows is they want statehood but elected a legislature that will still be cognizant of potential pitfalls for the island.

Let’s not over complicate things. They currently get federal funding while not paying income taxes - which is not fair to other Americans and I suspect is the reason behind those who favor status quo terms.

[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.

[MillennialModerate]

All systems go

Is this happening, or?

I tend to doubt it. I would be beyond shocked.

The Dems have been borderline negligent to their futures electoral chances and the civil rights of DC residents with their lack luster pursuit of statehood

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

They have to get rid of the Fillibuster and they don't yet don't have the votes to lift it yet due to Sinema and Manchin

Manchin isn't buying OR Statehood because is against Amnesty for Latinos as I said previously due to Mexico wants Entitlements and we have a 26T deficits

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Do we know how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

[Sir Mohamed]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Someone correct me if that is outdated, but Manchin said he's open to DC statehood on Meet the press and CNN some weeks ago. Problem is that you need to abolish or change the filibuster rules, which he opposes. And I'm not optimistic there will be 10 GOP votes for statehood.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/SenBobCasey/status/1382137887366516737

[Hope For A New Era]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Someone correct me if that is outdated, but Manchin said he's open to DC statehood on Meet the press and CNN some weeks ago. Problem is that you need to abolish or change the filibuster rules, which he opposes. And I'm not optimistic there will be 10 GOP votes for statehood.

They'll make it so there's no filibuster for admission of states, or something.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Someone correct me if that is outdated, but Manchin said he's open to DC statehood on Meet the press and CNN some weeks ago. Problem is that you need to abolish or change the filibuster rules, which he opposes. And I'm not optimistic there will be 10 GOP votes for statehood.

It's possible that the parliamentarian could rule that the filibuster does not apply to statehood admission.   This would not actually require a change to the filibuster, since this ruling would imply that the filibuster has never applied to statehood, and thus Manchin would be keeping his promise not to change it.

[CookieDamage]

Purrrrr

[CookieDamage]

Also

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

[MT Treasurer]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Do we know how Toomey & Rubio feel about DC statehood?

[WD]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Do we know how Toomey & Rubio feel about DC statehood?

Those 2 are definitely more likely to support it than Manchin, tbh.

[Not Me, Us]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Do we know how Toomey & Rubio feel about DC statehood?

Those 2 are definitely more likely to support it than Manchin, tbh.

There's absolutely no way Toomey would vote for it.

[7,052,770]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Do we know how Toomey & Rubio feel about DC statehood?

Toomey - Tossup
Rubio - Likely No

It's one thing for Republicans to oppose statehood if they can actually block it. But once it's a done deal that's happening regardless, the strategic calculus changes. It's really bad for Republican attempts to appeal more to minorities to vote no party-line on this. It really illustrates to black voters what the GOP thinks of them.

I would expect Yes votes from Romney, Murkowski, and maybe a few others.

[7,052,770]

Let's imagine a hypothetical:

In an alternate world, Guantanamo Bay is a little larger and home to 700,000 Cubans who've escaped there. They are American citizens. This Guantanamo Territory votes overwhelmingly for statehood, and everyone knows it's going to be a Republican state. I wouldn't expect Democrats to be very excited about adding 2 new Republican senators for free, and I don't think they would step in and help it become a state if Republicans didn't have the votes already. But once it was clear that Republicans had a trifecta and were going to be admitting Guantanamo as a state, Democrats aren't going to vote no en masse and kill their inroads with Cubans in the current 50 states. The 2 Republican senators from Guantanamo are a sunk cost - don't sink your chances in other states by fighting the inevitable.

It's not a perfect analogy, since some Republican politicians are happy to make racist appeals to keep some of their base happy, and it's not Democrats have an anti-Cuban base to placate. But the overall strategic situation still translates.

[CookieDamage]

Let's imagine a hypothetical:

In an alternate world, Guantanamo Bay is a little larger and home to 700,000 Cubans who've escaped there. They are American citizens. This Guantanamo Territory votes overwhelmingly for statehood, and everyone knows it's going to be a Republican state. I wouldn't expect Democrats to be very excited about adding 2 new Republican senators for free, and I don't think they would step in and help it become a state if Republicans didn't have the votes already. But once it was clear that Republicans had a trifecta and were going to be admitting Guantanamo as a state, Democrats aren't going to vote no en masse and kill their inroads with Cubans in the current 50 states. The 2 Republican senators from Guantanamo are a sunk cost - don't sink your chances in other states by fighting the inevitable.

Good point. I think its still going to be a near party line vote in the senate. MAYBE Murkowski. Could be wrong.

[Malarkey Decider]

Do we know the how Manchin & Sinema feel about DC statehood?

Do we know how Toomey & Rubio feel about DC statehood?

Toomey - Tossup
Rubio - Likely No

It's one thing for Republicans to oppose statehood if they can actually block it. But once it's a done deal that's happening regardless, the strategic calculus changes. It's really bad for Republican attempts to appeal more to minorities to vote no party-line on this. It really illustrates to black voters what the GOP thinks of them.

I would expect Yes votes from Romney, Murkowski, and maybe a few others.

I admire your optimism, but I feel that you (and many others in this thread), will be disappointed in a couple years.