Would you support a compromise to grant DC statehood in exchange for merging Democratic states?

[Reaganfan Democrat]

Just abolish all elections. Problem solved.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Also it is just me or have calls for DC statehood quieted down a lot since the midterms?

I'm convinced that the DC statehood movement only became a big thing because some Democrats legitimately thought Republicans would get a filibuster-proof Senate majority after 2024. It would not have been a thing if Bill Nelson had at least tried to look like he cared or if Cal Cunningham just had a bit more discipline.

It became clear early on that Sinema and Manchin weren't going to budge on removing the filibuster or carving out a path for statehood exclusion. Plus they kind of don't have the house right now and not like Republicans are interested.

[Blue3]

Also it is just me or have calls for DC statehood quieted down a lot since the midterms?

I'm convinced that the DC statehood movement only became a big thing because some Democrats legitimately thought Republicans would get a filibuster-proof Senate majority after 2024. It would not have been a thing if Bill Nelson had at least tried to look like he cared or if Cal Cunningham just had a bit more discipline.

No, it's just quited because people know it's most likely during a (D) trifecta.

[Del Tachi]

How do you gerrymander a Senate seat? THERE ARE DRAWN BY DISTRICT! If you didn't realize that you shouldn't be discussing this. DC being a state has advantages for Democrats, but on principle it is the right thing to do. It already has electoral votes like states do.

I use "gerrymander"  to mean any political play that relies on geography to create a partisan advantage.  Motivatingly splitting up or adding new states to create more Democrat senators is a gerrymander, just like it would be a gerrymander to, for the same reason, create new states from other blue cities like NYC, LA, SF, etc.  

I don't give a care about your small-state, large state argument, because that's all arbitrary.

Is it "arbitrary" that small states have an undue advantage in the Senate?  D.C. would be the 3rd-smallest state by population, meaning that giving it 2 senators further shifts representation away from 48 more populous states in favor of a smaller one.  Creating a new state with such an advantage is unfair, and especially when D.C. already has so much influence over our national politics (i.e., all 535 members of Congress and their staffs are either part- or full-time residents of the District, for example.)      

If Loving County, Texas wanted statehood today, you'd be for it. Let's not pretend this is about anything other than far-right partisanship.

The bad faith continues!  When has anyone seriously suggested this?  LOL

[Del Tachi]

Also it is just me or have calls for DC statehood quieted down a lot since the midterms?

I'm convinced that the DC statehood movement only became a big thing because some Democrats legitimately thought Republicans would get a filibuster-proof Senate majority after 2024. It would not have been a thing if Bill Nelson had at least tried to look like he cared or if Cal Cunningham just had a bit more discipline.

It became clear early on that Sinema and Manchin weren't going to budge on removing the filibuster or carving out a path for statehood exclusion. Plus they kind of don't have the house right now and not like Republicans are interested.

There were other bills brought up by Schumer that were allowed to fail 48-52 (with Manchin and Sinema defecting) in order for Democrats to generate their preferred messaging.  That D.C. statehood was not among them suggests more widespread Democrat opposition. 

The D.C. statehood bill has 46 co-sponsors in the Senate, all Democrats.  Missing among them were Manchin, Sinema, Kelly, and King. 

[Del Tachi]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.


I wouldn't neccesarily be against DC getting a voting rep in the house via constituional amendment.

You'd have to give Dems something, though, not just making Maryland even more of a vote-sink.  Letting DC residents vote in Virginia would probably pick up enough Dem votes without full-blown statehood.

But the current population and area of D.C. aren't formed from Virginia.  They're formed from Maryland!  Simply acknowledging this fact should be non-controversial. 

[Storr]

Also it is just me or have calls for DC statehood quieted down a lot since the midterms?

I'm convinced that the DC statehood movement only became a big thing because some Democrats legitimately thought Republicans would get a filibuster-proof Senate majority after 2024. It would not have been a thing if Bill Nelson had at least tried to look like he cared or if Cal Cunningham just had a bit more discipline.

It was a big thing because the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time since 2010. It's not some ploy conjured up solely by Democratic Party just to get more Senate seats.

The people of DC want to have their own state and do not want to retrocede back into Maryland or be counted as Maryland residents for Congressional reapportionment or elections.

Tangent thought:

I'd be okay with a compromise solution of approving DC statehood, which helps Democrats, while also approving Lincoln statehood (the part of Washington state east of the Cascades), which helps Republicans. This would keep the current partisan balance in the Senate since DC would almost certainly vote for two Democratic Senators, while Lincoln would almost certainly vote for two Republican Senators.

Alas, I know it will never happen. Even if Washington would approve giving up more than half of its landmass, I doubt national Republicans would be on board. That's because DC statehood would still give Democrats 1 additional House seat, while Republicans would not gain a House seat if Lincoln was to split off from Washington. The eastern Washington Congressional districts already vote for Republican representatives.

[GALeftist]

Y'all, it is really not worth arguing on this with DT or anyone else. The fact of the matter is that DC functions like a state in practice right now, so making it a state in fact is simply the most reasonable solution, which anyone who has ever been to DC knows. Shrinking the federal district to just the federal buildings totally addresses his ostensible reservations, and the fact that he continues to twist himself into rhetorical pretzels to avoid the obvious solution here indicates that his thinking is 100% partisan. As such, you will never get him to admit to any solution that results in a net gain of expected Democratic senators.

[7,052,770]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.

No, we are against it because DC and Maryland don't want that and there is no precedent for forcing a territory that requests statehood to merge into another state instead.

Yes, every time the US has elevated a territory to statehood, there is a partisan impact on the Senate. It's unavoidable. That's why it's very important to stick with precedents. More than 30 times, a territory has asked to be elevated to a state and been granted. DC and Puerto Rico should be admitted as states to follow this precedent.

There is a single precedent of 2 territories (Indian Territory and Oklahoma in the early 1900s) having to combine into a single state, a precedent that could be applied to Guam and the Northern Marianas should they ever request it, but never has a territory been forced into an existing state to preserve partisan feelings.

[Del Tachi]

Y'all, it is really not worth arguing on this with DT or anyone else. The fact of the matter is that DC functions like a state in practice right now, so making it a state in fact is simply the most reasonable solution, which anyone who has ever been to DC knows. Shrinking the federal district to just the federal buildings totally addresses his ostensible reservations, and the fact that he continues to twist himself into rhetorical pretzels to avoid the obvious solution here indicates that his thinking is 100% partisan. As such, you will never get him to admit to any solution that results in a net gain of expected Democratic senators.

You do know I lived in DC for 2.5 years, right?  LOL

No one on the D.C. statehood train can adaquetely respond to the primary issue I bring up every time this issue is discussed:  well before there were any Republicans or Democrats, D.C. was created for a specific reason and that reason remains relevant today. 

That D.C. "functions" like a state is immaterial to whether or not it should actually be one.  Being a state is more about carrying-out the daily functions of government, it is about becoming a constituent federal entity with plenary powers.  The latter for D.C. is simply incongruent with the notion of an independent seat for our national government. 

Shrinking D.C. is the National Mall is not a serious solution.  Rump D.C. would still be heavily dependent on a "Douglass Commonwealth" for police, infrastructure, etc.  It would still violate the principle of having a capital not under the undue authority of any particular state. 

I do support voting rights for residents of D.C., either as recognized citizens of Maryland or by being given voting representation in the House.  Statehood and representation do not have to be linked together, either legally or morally. 

And once again, I'll reiterate:  that you're unable to engage with anything I'm actually saying, and just fall back into lame attacks of "partisan hackery" only demonstrate that you're the one operating in bad faith.  This is the biggest problem with the Forum today.   

[Skill and Chance]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.


I wouldn't neccesarily be against DC getting a voting rep in the house via constituional amendment.

You'd have to give Dems something, though, not just making Maryland even more of a vote-sink.  Letting DC residents vote in Virginia would probably pick up enough Dem votes without full-blown statehood.

But the current population and area of D.C. aren't formed from Virginia.  They're formed from Maryland!  Simply acknowledging this fact should be non-controversial. 

People who are in DC on federal business (president, VP, cabinet secretaries, etc.) are generally allowed to vote in their previous state of residence.  Why doesn't congress just apply this to all DC residents and have them vote at their (or their ancestors') last known state of residence before they moved to DC?

[GALeftist]

You do know I lived in DC for 2.5 years, right?  LOL

That's my point.

Shrinking D.C. is the National Mall is not a serious solution.  Rump D.C. would still be heavily dependent on a "Douglass Commonwealth" for police, infrastructure, etc.  It would still violate the principle of having a capital not under the undue authority of any particular state. 

DC is already heavily reliant on Maryland and Virginia as it stands. We say this on January 6 when it had to rely on the National Guard of those two states. It's also true for other stuff like WMATA. Geographically, it is inevitable that the federal district will be to some extent reliant on nearby states. This hasn't been a problem until now and I don't see any reason why it would become one.

I do support voting rights for residents of D.C., either as recognized citizens of Maryland or by being given voting representation in the House.  Statehood and representation do not have to be linked together, either legally or morally. 

The fact that you omit the Senate here is very revealing. The notion that your objection to DC senators is some principled objection to small states having undue Senate representation is laughable – if it were true, you'd be agitating for a unified state of Dakota. The arguments against such a unification – namely, that it would needlessly upset the status quo – apply just as much, if not more so, to this whole Maryland pipe dream. There's no more sense in unifying two historically separated jurisdictions in the one case than in the other.

And once again, I'll reiterate:  that you're unable to engage with anything I'm actually saying, and just fall back into lame attacks of "partisan hackery" only demonstrate that you're the one operating in bad faith.  This is the biggest problem with the Forum today.   

I'm totally able to engage, as I just showed, but it's frankly a waste of everyone's time, since you're being dishonest about your reasons for believing the things you believe. The problem with the forum today isn't accusations of partisan hackery, as you put it – if anything, it's the willingness to be so dishonest with your peers.

[DrScholl]

How do you gerrymander a Senate seat? THERE ARE DRAWN BY DISTRICT! If you didn't realize that you shouldn't be discussing this. DC being a state has advantages for Democrats, but on principle it is the right thing to do. It already has electoral votes like states do.

I use "gerrymander"  to mean any political play that relies on geography to create a partisan advantage.  Motivatingly splitting up or adding new states to create more Democrat senators is a gerrymander, just like it would be a gerrymander to, for the same reason, create new states from other blue cities like NYC, LA, SF, etc.  

I don't give a care about your small-state, large state argument, because that's all arbitrary.

Is it "arbitrary" that small states have an undue advantage in the Senate?  D.C. would be the 3rd-smallest state by population, meaning that giving it 2 senators further shifts representation away from 48 more populous states in favor of a smaller one.  Creating a new state with such an advantage is unfair, and especially when D.C. already has so much influence over our national politics (i.e., all 535 members of Congress and their staffs are either part- or full-time residents of the District, for example.)      

If Loving County, Texas wanted statehood today, you'd be for it. Let's not pretend this is about anything other than far-right partisanship.

The bad faith continues!  When has anyone seriously suggested this?  LOL

I never said NYC should be it's own state. And if you want to make the argument about small states having undue influence just look at Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Ideally the US Senate should be abolished, but clearly that's not going to happen. My overall point is that if DC was Republican leaning there would be no question about making it a state. You are too cowardly to admit your opposition is purely partisan. You are devoted to a party above principle.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The proper compromise is DC for the likely center-right Reedy Creek as state #53.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

People do know there was a time there wasn't 50 state? Like why is this even a discussion? DC cant become a state because of aesthetic numbering is one of the most stupidest argument I've heard in a while.

"DC can't become a state because that might threaten Republicans ability to abuse their fellow citizens" is a little too on the mark. If there's one thing Republicans hate more than freedom, it's truth.

[Agonized-Statism]

Why not just give most of DC to Maryland at that point? Its the simplest approach, but the reason Dems are against it is because they want 2 new safe D senators.

Retrocession may seem like common sense to outsiders, but neither Washingtonians nor Marylanders want it. Those proposals have long been associated with racism, first as an attempt to preserve the slave trade in the city before abolitionists had it banned and later to dilute the voting power of the black population- not to mention DC has a unique identity going back centuries now and wants to be represented by its own. And Maryland certainly doesn't want to be saddled with all DC's expenses.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

[7,052,770]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

I wouldn't vote no, but that would likely take a constitutional amendment that 14 red states could kill, and it also wouldn't address the issue of DC's lack of home rule.

[Ferguson97]

“Give DC to Maryland” is an awful suggestion for several reasons, least of all that it is not what the people of DC or Maryland want.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would support DC statehood on the condition that the entire DC metro area joins it

[Reaganfan Democrat]

“Give DC to Maryland” is an awful suggestion for several reasons, least of all that it is not what the people of DC or Maryland want.

What people want has nothing to do with what is right.

[Storr]

Idea: pass a law that decrees that DC gets treated as a state for purpose of congressional representation. No need to split the district...

I'd completely support that. Though, I believe it would require a Constitutional Amendment since it was necessary to pass the 23rd Amendment to give the district electoral college votes.

I'd also like DC to be added to the nation's flag, whether or not it becomes a state. It's an integral part of the nation, so I believe it but deserves a star. Of course, that's not as important as DC voting rights.

[7,052,770]

I would support DC statehood on the condition that the entire DC metro area joins it

And if the government of Virginia says no, the rest of the unrepresented people of DC are just out of luck?

[Ferguson97]

“Give DC to Maryland” is an awful suggestion for several reasons, least of all that it is not what the people of DC or Maryland want.

What people want has nothing to do with what is right.

Correct. Luckily, giving DC to Maryland is also wrong.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No, that effectively accomplishes nothing. Maybe if it was something like merging a blue state with a swing state I'd be more open to it. Giving Delaware to Pennsylvania would probably make the state lean D at worst even if that's at the expense of netting two Senate seats.