Do you think we’ll get DC statehood next time the Democrats have a trifecta?

[VBM]

One of the most disappointing things about the Biden presidency is that we didn’t get DC statehood because of Sinema and Manchin. Do you think we’ll get it next time Dems hold a trifecta, or will some new DINOs pop up to put a stop to it?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Yes, but I don't know if it'll hold up in court. There are some thorny legal issues to sort out - I don't think granting statehood was intended to be this simple - but I doubt this Supreme Court will see anything but the chance to neutralize a potential Dem gain.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It should, as with any other territory that wants in. I just don't know if it will ever realistically happen.

[emailking]

I think it was more than just Manchin and Sinema. But yeah I think more likely than not it will happen. If a Constitutional Amendment passes concurrently to remove the EVs the federal district is granted (which will be a "rump" district) then I don't think there will be any issues with it going through.

[7,052,770]

Yes, without Manchin or Sinema, it should safely pass in the next D trifecta. And I bet at least Murkowski also votes for it, maybe a few other Republicans.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

At the very least they need a fully voting House seat.  That's just outrageous that they've have Eleanor Holmes Norton in there for years, and she can't vote on final legislation.  There's a lot of people living in DC - just too many - to just keep on ignoring them.  I'm surprised that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it's unconstitutional to tax them without the representation that taxpayers in other areas of the United States receive.

Also, yes it is a partisan issue because DC will be electing Democrats to Congress so I don't think it would ever come to pass unless Democrats are in control of the government and can find a way to lower the threshold from 60 to something that's more achievable than that.

I think if there was an area of the country that was 90% Republican that was being taxed but not getting any real representation in Congress the Republicans would certainly make that a key part of their platform to give it to them.

[7,052,770]

Yes, but I don't know if it'll hold up in court. There are some thorny legal issues to sort out - I don't think granting statehood was intended to be this simple - but I doubt this Supreme Court will see anything but the chance to neutralize a potential Dem gain.

It shouldn't be an issue, since it carves out a piece of the current federal district to make the state and still leaves behind a federal district with all the federal buildings no population, other than the White House (and potentially some homeless?).

Sure, there would be at least 2 Supreme Court votes against it for partisan reasons, but I really don't think there's any way Roberts lets the Supreme Court de-unionize a state. That would be completely unprecedented.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes that's why Gallego is running to get rid of the Filibuster

It will be there as the first issue in Congress , it's most likely gonna be a 51/49 S anyways if the Rs don't approve an organization resolution it will remain D anyways

[Dan the Roman]

I think there is a lack of understanding of how negatively DC is perceived.  Without exception Republicans, including 90% of those who live and pay taxes in DC would consider it an effort by Democrats to carve out a corrupt rotten borough. And I think Democratic support is a whole lot weaker in 2024 than in 2021 with the narrative shift away from the George Floyd case to concerns about out of control crime. It would be akin to giving two Senators to Portland Oregon, and momentum will stall when the focus shifts to the sort of elected officials common to the city as it always has. I think there is a high chance someone like Fetterman wouldn't go for it.

It is not even that it is Democratic.  It is that DC is viewed as corrupt.

DC pretty much lost any chance for statehood for a generation in 1994 when they reelected Marion Barry over a liberal Republican endorsed by every major liberal group and media outlet. Had it been shown that it was possible for a convicted drug dealer to lose an election people might have considered it.

This wouldn't be a 60-40 issue or even 50-50. It would be 40-60 by the end of the debate and that would be the political climate in which the Supreme Court would make any ruling.

[PSOL]

No, Democrats don’t like the idea of an independent DC and were frightened by the mayoralty of Marion Barry to do whatever it takes to weaken black power in the city. There’s still a lot of black power left even with a targeted migration strategy, they’ll probably divide the city up into a capitol district while most of the city gets unfairly sent to Virginia or Maryland.

[VBM]

No, Democrats don’t like the idea of an independent DC and were frightened by the mayoralty of Marion Barry to do whatever it takes to weaken black power in the city. There’s still a lot of black power left even with a targeted migration strategy, they’ll probably divide the city up into a capitol district while most of the city gets unfairly sent to Virginia or Maryland.

Democrats don’t like the idea of getting two extra Senators? I get that sh**tting on the Democrats is a core part of your persona, but try to make it make sense

[PSOL]

No, Democrats don’t like the idea of an independent DC and were frightened by the mayoralty of Marion Barry to do whatever it takes to weaken black power in the city. There’s still a lot of black power left even with a targeted migration strategy, they’ll probably divide the city up into a capitol district while most of the city gets unfairly sent to Virginia or Maryland.

Democrats don’t like the idea of getting two extra Senators? I get that sh**tting on the Democrats is a core part of your persona, but try to make it make sense

It’s two senators in a city constantly f•••ed by the federal government.

[7,052,770]

It would be fundamentally and intentionally dishonest for anyone to call DC a "rotten borough." Rotten boroughs in English history literally would have a few dozen voters. DC is larger in population than multiple states. It's just not a comparable situation.

Additionally, Washington DC has over 0.2% of the population of the whole United States. We've admitted states with less than that several times - Nevada and Wyoming were less than half of that. Alaska was barely over half that. Montana and Idaho were below that too. In fact, it took over 100 years of statehood before Nevada reached 0.2% of the US population - was it a rotten borough for a century?

[ProudModerate2]

I hope so.
They should start with a DC-wide vote if the people want it.
This way the push will have some weight to it.

[Storr]

note: I 100% support DC statehood, this is simply my opinion about the question OP posted.

Probably not, due to the Constitutional issues involved. Is there any realistic possibility of getting 3/4 of states to agree to repeal the 23rd Amendment in order to allow DC statehood? If that doesn't happen, while rest of current DC received statehood and its own 3 electoral votes, the rump federal district of the White House, the Capitol, etc. would continue to have 3 electoral votes. Who would decide who those electoral votes went to, just the President and his family? That and other issues (such as DC not having its own prison system for felons and using the Federal one) are a whole can of Constitutional worms that I'm sure would get stuck in the courts. Knowing the current composition the Supreme Court, DC statehood, if it passed, could even end up being struck down.

Imo, Puerto Rican statehood is much more likely. Since the US doesn't have an official language, it shouldn't be too legally difficult to simply let Puerto Rico continue to use Spanish.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I hope so.
They should start with a DC-wide vote if the people want it.
This way the push will have some weight to it.

There’s already been one. I don’t think opinions have changed since then.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

note: I 100% support DC statehood, this is simply my opinion about the question OP posted.

Probably not, due to the Constitutional issues involved. Is there any realistic possibility of getting 3/4 of states to agree to repeal the 23rd Amendment in order to allow DC statehood? If that doesn't happen, while rest of current DC received statehood and its own 3 electoral votes, the rump federal district of the White House, the Capitol, etc. would continue to have 3 electoral votes. Who would decide who those electoral votes went to, just the President and his family? That and other issues (such as DC not having its own prison system for felons and using the Federal one) are a whole can of Constitutional worms that I'm sure would get stuck in the courts. Knowing the current composition the Supreme Court, DC statehood, if it passed, could even end up being struck down.

Imo, Puerto Rican statehood is much more likely. Since the US doesn't have an official language, it shouldn't be too legally difficult to simply let Puerto Rico continue to use Spanish.

Honestly if you pass the dc statehood first and then the repeal you’d kind of force states to ratify it or let the president have three electoral votes.

[7,052,770]

I hope so.
They should start with a DC-wide vote if the people want it.
This way the push will have some weight to it.

There’s already been one. I don’t think opinions have changed since then.

Correct. Both DC and Puerto Rico have voted for statehood, and given dozens of precedents of territories asking to take the next step and be upgraded to statehood, should be admitted as states.

[Dan the Roman]

There is another issue that may trigger a pause. DC, unlike states, is not allowed to tax non-residents for its income tax. That means anyone who earns money in DC or works within it but maintains a domicile for less than 183 days is exempt. As is anyone who works for a member of Congress from their own state, and any Presidential appointee requiring confirmation and every elected official.

In short, DC statehood would involve every member of Congress imposing an 8.5% income tax on themselves and a lot of their staff. It would also cause significant economic disruption in terms of where operations are based, and quite possibly crash parts of the real estate market.

This may sound minor in the grand scheme of things, but it will provide a nice motivation for anyone who wants to come up with other excuses.

Also regarding my statement it would be a rotten borough, which is less a remark about the number of voters and more about how they behave. Portland, Oregon would not be a rotten borough in the 19th-century sense, and it would provide 2 left-wing senators. But the electorate in question is so unrepresentative and noncompetitive - it is a city without a hinterland whose electorate will be viewed as hostile on principle not just to Republicans but to rural and suburban interests - that the "representation" arguments fail. DC is a city. It is not what Americans think of as a "State". By definition, a State has multiple cities, areas that are not a city, and different types of groups.

It is not, as PSOL notes, purely racial anymore. It is that the rest of the electorate is composed of the most obnoxious rich college kids on the planet. Perceptions of the white population of DC would are arguably just as toxic in much of the country as the stereotypes that were thrown at the city in the Barry years.  It also would be anti-family, as it is an extremely single city due to almost everyone who can leave departing when they have kids to access the schools outside.

What DC really needs for there to be a consensus for statehood is a realignment where the African American vote goes Republican, in which case DC would feature a contest between more socially conservative black Republicans and woke rich white single professionals.

Puerto Rico by contrast is an incredibly easy sell, and one Republicans can only oppose on procedural grounds. However it votes, it represents a distinct geographic and cultural region with diverse groups of people and issues that are not artificial creations of the federal government.

People need to reckon with the fact that providing two Democratic Senators is the main argument for DC to receive statehood, and that argument is only compelling to partisan Democrats. And even they don't think those would be two particularly good Senators.

[wnwnwn]

Maryland should take most of DC. It would help dems on the House at least.

[wesmoorenerd]

Maryland should take most of DC. It would help dems on the House at least.

As someone who has lived in both MD and DC, it irritates me to no end to hear people with no connection to either speaking over the residents of both on this issue.

Maryland doesn't want it. DC doesn't want it. Stop trying to make this Sykes-Picot-ass "compromise" happen.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They'd have to get rid of the filibuster. Seems unlikely.

[Pres Mike]

No

The same reason why the Supreme Court will never be expanded. Americans are used to things. 50 nifty states.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

The American Revolution was waged by the colonists, in part, due to the fact that they had to pay taxes but had no representation in the British government. Washington DC residents, however, are subject to the EXACT SAME "taxation without representation" that the country was founded to combat: DC residents pay federal income taxes but receive no representation in the US Congress. It's completely hypocritical and unjust. Conservatives seem especially hypocritical in opposing DC statehood considering how obsessed they are with principles set forth by the "founding fathers" on most other issues.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I know OSR isn't gonna comment he hates Statehood, let's win the Trifecta and show him otherwise