DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[7,052,770]

Admitting DC as a state is one of the most obvious decisions anyone can make. 700,000 people have no say in the federal government.

It's a done deal, and will happen in a few weeks.

[7,052,770]

No current US territories meet the requirements to become a state in my opinion.

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. Additionally, Puerto Rico is corrupt, and I feel like they just want the feds to bail them out.

DC is too small territorially. That’s a problem because then it will be compromised of only a single city. That leads to issues with separations of powers- I’m not comfortable with allowing an entire state to be controlled by one city. Not to mention there’s an explicit reason the founders were opposed to this.

All other territories have too small populations, among other issues.

Not to mention that these are being done for political reasons. If they voted differently, we all know most Atlasians would be completely opposed to this.

There are so many counterexamples of multilingual countries.

Outrageously false statement. I support representation of ALL Americans, even if I don't like the way they're going to vote. If Puerto Rico sends Republicans to the Senate, which they very well might, that's fine. They have every right to do so. If America is 52% Republican, 48% Democrat, then ideally the Senate would be that way too while my side figures out how to appeal to more people. Politics is NOT a game.

[7,052,770]

But let’s not act like, at this point, most people aren’t willing to give a single INCH to other side.

What compromise is even out there? DC gets to be a state in even months but not odd ones? Anything less than the current 50 states keeps the Americans who live there second-class citizens.

I hate it when states like Texas elect treasonous morons like Ted Cruz to the Senate, but I still support the right of Americans who live in Texas to elect people to Congress to represent them, just as I support that right for Americans who live in DC, Puerto Rico, or any other territory that has affirmatively shown in wants statehood. If they want to elect someone I don't like, I'll deal with it.

On this issue, Democrats legitimately have the moral high ground, while any Republican who opposes it is being nakedly partisan. Thankfully at least DC will be settled in a few weeks.

[7,052,770]

I'll do one further: Admit 3 states as a package deal: Douglass (D), Marianas/Guam (R-ish), Puerto Rico (swing/D-ish?). There's a good chance that the parties can split 3-3 in the Senate, and if they don't, so be it. We don't really know for sure how the non-DC territories will vote when they know it's for voting representation, just like 1950s Congress whiffed on their predictions for both Hawaii and Alaska.

[7,052,770]

But let’s not act like, at this point, most people aren’t willing to give a single INCH to other side.

What compromise is even out there? DC gets to be a state in even months but not odd ones? Anything less than the current 50 states keeps the Americans who live there second-class citizens.

I hate it when states like Texas elect treasonous morons like Ted Cruz to the Senate, but I still support the right of Americans who live in Texas to elect people to Congress to represent them, just as I support that right for Americans who live in DC, Puerto Rico, or any other territory that has affirmatively shown in wants statehood. If they want to elect someone I don't like, I'll deal with it.

On this issue, Democrats legitimately have the moral high ground, while any Republican who opposes it is being nakedly partisan. Thankfully at least DC will be settled in a few weeks.

Would you support statehood for Wake Island, with its population of 100 residents?

Wake Island is uninhabited aside from military, so it's a moot point. However, I did discuss statehood for the Virgin Islands (population 100,000) in another thread, and came to the conclusion that it's small, but that's not a good enough reason to keep it out of statehood if it wants it.

After all, why is OK for Wyoming to be a state at 1.5% the population of California, but not OK for a state to be 18% of Wyoming's population?

If we stick to the organized territories, we could admit Douglass, Puerto Rico, Marianas, and the Virgin Islands and cap out at 54 states unless someone wants annexation or something. I left out American Samoa (57,000), because I just don't really know what to do with them, and they don't appear to really want statehood anyway because the chiefs would have to give up their special hereditary powers.

[7,052,770]

No, because there are only 4 more territories out there.

Splitting up states is a whole different thing than upgrading territories to states, which we've already done over 30 times in our history.

[7,052,770]

I just merged 6 threads on this same topic. 

There are also PR and DC megathreads, both of which discuss the other some.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[7,052,770]

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?

This is a really great point, that it's standard all around the world for countries that have a capital district to still let that district have equal representation in the country's legislature. It's a point that Democrats should make publicly, though I doubt it will change any minds. There's a whole lot of overlap in people who oppose DC statehood and people who think that when America does something different than the rest of the world it always or generally means the rest of the world is wrong.

[7,052,770]

I've thought about it, and it's actually not so much the small states that are the problem for Senate Democrats. Yes, Wyoming, Idaho and the Dakotas are all solidly Republican. But Democrats are dominant in small states like Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii.

The real problem for them is that they keep falling short in Florida and North Carolina, and have largely lost the ability to compete in medium-sized states like Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. If Bill Nelson had reached out to Hispanics or Cal Cunningham hadn't had his affair, there would be a lot fewer calls for DC statehood.

Wrong. Like, unbelievably wrong. All Americans should be represented in Congress, period, and anything short of that is the same thing as Jim Crow.

[7,052,770]

Please. Get it done. Please. Schumer should be talking to Sinema and Manchin. Are you in or not?

Get it out of the way.

Give Bowser Governor powers with immediate effect.
Statehood official July 4th. Senators take office at that time.

No need to wait that long. They could realistically have elections for House and Senate by March and seat them immediately upon certification.

[7,052,770]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

[7,052,770]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

Than the new capitol should have 0 electoral votes

It will, as soon as the 23rd Amendment is repealed.

DC statehood should only happen via an amendment that repeals the 23rd amendment

Statehood doesn't require an amendment, that'd be legally superfluous.

no but DC shouldn't get statehood until we can guarantee the remaining parts of DC gets 0 electoral votes

A simple act of Congress can do that.

[7,052,770]

1. Why isn’t PR just lumped in with this?
2. Why haven’t we heard reporting on how high on the priority list this is for leadership?
3. And Sinema/Manchin.....? Anything?

If the stimulus bill is going to take weeks of wrangling then this should be up on the priority list

The PR governor and representative are working on it, but this stuff takes a little more than a week:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/535909-puerto-rico-officials-hopeful-of-progress-on-statehood

[7,052,770]

request changing the name of the thread to "DC Statehood Megathread".

That one already exists a couple pages back. This was supposed to be for frivolous posts about new states, but the mods started putting the serious DC stuff here instead of the real DC megathread for whatever reason.

[7,052,770]

So...what is the chance DC get statehood? I say around 20%.

100%. The only way it wouldn't happen is if Manchin, sinema, or King decide to betray basic American values and human decency.

If all 50 Democrats are on board, there is no way Republicans can stop it.

[7,052,770]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Why would those things be connected? If Georgia Republicans think that "Maine-ruling" Georgia is in their best interest, they'll do it.

[7,052,770]

So...what is the chance DC get statehood? I say around 20%.

Unless there’s a major counter-offer, it’s going to happen.

HIGHLY doubt it happens.

I wish I hadn't already said 100% so I could raise my percentage in response to this "prediction"

[7,052,770]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Why would those things be connected? If Georgia Republicans think that "Maine-ruling" Georgia is in their best interest, they'll do it.

It’s called both sides using this as leverage against each other to make sure the other thing doesn’t happen .

Again, they're totally unconnected. If enough Republicans in Georgia want to do that, they will, regardless of what happened to DC statehood.

And even if they did, they're still not equivalent. DC statehood is a moral imperative, and opposing it is literally the same thing as supporting Jim Crow, since it's about people being subject to the rules of the federal government but having no say in that federal government.

Georgia adopting a rule that 2 states already use isn't as big of a deal. Yes, the idea that a state could gerrymander electoral college votes isn't great, but it's not even clear how much that would hurt Democrats going forward. They're just not equivalencies.

The better threat would be "Democrats better not admit DC or Republicans will admit Guam in retaliation!!" Except Democrats would do that on their own anyway if Guam requested it, because we actually believe in American principles and making people's lives better, instead of just seeing politics as a zero-sum game.

[7,052,770]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

There's literally not been a single setback in the push for DC statehood. Calm the f*** down.

[7,052,770]

Prediction: They put DC statehood into the COVID relief reconciliation bill. A few Republicans vote for it (Murkowski, Romney, maybe Collins), giving Democrats cover when Republicans claim the admission of DC was "partisan." Also, a whole bunch of Republicans vote no, making terrible optics for voting against COVID relief.

[7,052,770]

Prediction: They put DC statehood into the COVID relief reconciliation bill. A few Republicans vote for it (Murkowski, Romney, maybe Collins), giving Democrats cover when Republicans claim the admission of DC was "partisan." Also, a whole bunch of Republicans vote no, making terrible optics for voting against COVID relief.

Are you high?

For one you can’t put DC Statehood into a reconciliation vote.

For two, no way in HELL are they getting 3 Republican votes on a $1.9T bill OR Statehood (You might get Murkowski on Statehood by itself but not this way; and Romney already said you wouldn’t see a single Republican vote on $1.9T)

It's been extensively discussed that you probably can put it through reconciliation since Congress controls the DC budget.

But even if you can't, you can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes, so if all 50 Democrats are committed to DC statehood (which they appear to be), there are many different paths to enacting it, none of which Republicans can stop.

[7,052,770]

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!”

Don't project your hackery onto others.

Right...you are being driven primarily by morality and not partisan desires.

Yes?

Jim Crow is morally wrong and antithetical to American values, period. And make no mistake, not letting certain citizens have any say in the government, despite being subject to what that government decides, is Jim Crow all over again.