Constitutional Arguments on D.C. Statehood
What does the Constitution say about a 51st state?
Washington D.C. is the United States’ capital. It was created in 1790 with land surrendered by Virginia and Maryland, although the Virginia land was eventually returned. It is a federal district under the exclusive control of Congress and it has a subservient municipal government. The district is named for George Washington, our first president, and Columbia, a mythical personification of our nation. Today, Washington is a highly-visited and powerful city that personifies international power.
Whatever international power the city has, however, it lacks domestically. The government of D.C. points out that “The District of Columbia is the only political and geographical entity within the United States of America whose citizens bear the responsibilities of citizenship, including taxation and Selective Service registration, without sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship.” Ironically, D.C. is not allowed to vote for the Congress that legislates within its confines.
D.C. has a long and storied history of angling for statehood. Conservative Washington Star editor Theodore Noyes was a leading proponent for D.C. Congressional representation writing, “National representation for the capital community is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with control of the capital by the nation through Congress.” He was joined in his campaign by New Hampshire Senator Henry Blair who introduced the first D.C. voting rights in both the Congress and the Electoral College, but this attempt too failed. Attempts have continued up until the present day with the only two successful tries passing the House in 2020 and 2021, although the senate so far has not approved of the bills.
What does the Constitution have to say? Section three of article four says:
“New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union, but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Columnist Jo McGinty of the Wall Street Journal provides some analysis to help interpret that section of the Constitution. She explains, “It doesn’t stipulate a population threshold for statehood, and it makes no mention of land area, suggesting a region of any size could qualify. Residents need only make their desire known.”
A previous law, the Northwest Ordinance, which was established prior to the Constitution, established a necessary population of 60,000 people to become a state and Congress opted to take that requirement as a non-binding recommendation. For context, Washington D.C. currently has 689,545 residents, which is larger than the populations of the states of Wyoming and Vermont.
Furthermore, Steve Vladek, a University of Texas Constitutional Law professor explains that there is established precedent for new states being carved out of existing states. He explains, “Vermont was part of New York. Maine was part of Massachusetts. Kentucky was part of Virginia.” In his view, there is no Constitutional obstacle to the creation of a new state so long as there was Congressional approval.
An additional Constitutional element that impacts D.C.’s position is the 23rd Amendment. Section 1 of the 23rd Amendment states that Washington D.C. should have in Presidential elections, “A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state;…”. The fact that the District has three electoral college votes puts it ahead of every other US non-state locality including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Marianas Islands, and American Samoa.
Some historians have argued that if the solution proposed, to isolate the Federal buildings and the national mall as a Capital seat were maintained and declaring a separate state of Washington D.C., that it would put a tremendous amount of power for the three electoral votes in the hands of the President and their family as they would be one of a handful of people who would live within the newly incorporated federal territory.
While a statutory law and not a Constitutional imperative, the Home Rule Act allowed D.C. to have a mayor and a city council, but it allowed Congress to retain control over its budget, the ability to veto pass laws, and its judges. Additionally, the District of Columbia Delegate Act allowed them to elect a single non-voting member of the House of Representatives. As a law and not a Constitutional mandate, Congress is free to change these terms at any time.
Conclusion
The question of whether D.C. should become a state is multifaceted. Some will argue that tradition dictates that we should allow it to remain disenfranchised, others feel that taxation without representation should be forbidden, as D.C. license plates point out. Some have even gone so far as to question the sincerity of the passions of those in favor of its statehood, as it would almost certainly vote in favor of the Democratic party. Whatever decision is made, however, one answer is clear. The Constitution does not forbid D.C. statehood in any way.
Sources
