Are there any legitimate reasons why someone would oppose DC statehood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

It's not as if this is a secret. They are welcome to move to an existing state if they want Congressional representation.

Would you be okay with treating DC residents as residents of Maryland for the purpose of Congressional representation? Or are you just opposed to these people having representation?

[Anonymous]

I would be fine with DC not being a state if we were exempt from federal income taxes. Also Maryland ceded land for the capital, not to have another state next to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

Welcome to the club. I haven't had representation in Congress since Connie Morella got redistricted out of office by the Dems in 2002.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not economically viable.

Can you give me one could reason why DC SHOULD be a state, other than liking the way DC residents might vote?

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

Welcome to the club. I haven't had representation in Congress since Connie Morella got redistricted out of office by the Dems in 2002.

You can vote for a Senators and a member of the House. Your complaint is that not enough of your neighbors voter the same way as you. We in DC have no such opportunity to vote for Senators or House members.

I think most opposition to statehood is due to fears of two Democratic Senators and another Democratic House member being elected. However, beyond that, there is a failure to realize that voting rights belong to people, not real estate. DC has more residents than Vermont and Wyoming and may soon catch Alaska. There is a lot of land in Alaska that has nothing but snow, but voting rights are not granted to those acres.

The idea that we should just move in order to obtain fundamental rights is undemocratic. Should that be the rule for all political issues? Should the PP above move in order to vote for a Republican? If you live in a state that has laws that you don't like, should you move rather than try to change them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

+100

You are actually only 1 person. One person one vote. Unless you are from DC.

The problem is Maryland does not want retrocession. So you would need a constitutional amendment to do it (and you would also need to repeal the 23rd amendment). What is wrong with simply treating DC residents as Maryland residents for the purpose of Congressional Representation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have no representation in Congress. No voice. Isn't that good enough?

It's not as if this is a secret. They are welcome to move to an existing state if they want Congressional representation.

King George III could have said that to the colonists, while we're at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

Given that Maryland doesn't want to annex DC, I'm going to answer this question with: No.

[Anonymous]

The insane political polarization today just makes this a non-starter. I simply do not feel like hearing the country arguing like mad and tearing itself apart over another partisan issue.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The insane political polarization today just makes this a non-starter. I simply do not feel like hearing the country arguing like mad and tearing itself apart over another partisan issue.

I'm sorry that our desire to have the same rights as other Americans may ruin your day. "No taxation without representation" is a fundamental American value. It should not be a partisan issue.

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with simply treating DC residents as Maryland residents for the purpose of Congressional Representation?

What would be the Constitutional basis for this?

[Anonymous]

I think Pps are right that the political powers have no incentive to do it. I don't think it's in tge public's radar. I think there's a lot of inertia to fight against. 50 states is such a nice round number and everybody's used to the 50 star flag.

Personally, I think DC is in an untenable situation and either needs to be given statehood, be annexed into another state, or be exempted from federal taxes and given more authority for self governance.

I think if there's any shot at all for statehood, DC needs to join forces with the territories. Puerto Rico's profile is raised right now as people have seen how badly Trump treated it after the hurricane. American Samoans aren't even citizens but are classified as American nationals.

America no longer has imperialist tendencies, so they tend to think of the country as complete. I think a lot of people don't even know about the territories, let alone their legal statuses which were established during in the early 20th century based on the fact that they were inhabited by "alien races". This is shameful unfinished business, but these territories are too easy for us not to think about.

John Oliver had an excellent story about the territories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE

I think DC and the territories should join forces so that it's not about one city or one territory complaining, but that America understands that this is an injustice that must be redressed. Yes, it will mean a new flag, new maps, schoolchildren will need to revise the "Fifty Nifty States" song, etc., but this time we'll be complete, once and for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is wrong with simply treating DC residents as Maryland residents for the purpose of Congressional Representation?

What would be the Constitutional basis for this?

What is the ethical basis for disenfranchisement of 700,000 people?

[Anonymous]

What is the ethical basis for disenfranchisement of 700,000 people?

The idea that this is a nation governed by laws and not men. Congress's power is limited to what the Constitution provides.

As I asked above: what is the Constitutional basis for DC statehood?

(If you want to advocate for amending the Constition to allow it, that is fine.)

[Anonymous]

For those of you who are new to this issue, there’s a good and not very long thread here with a lot of background:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/779636.page