Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, is home to nearly 700,000 residents who, despite being American citizens, paying federal taxes, and serving in the military, are denied full voting representation in Congress. This lack of political voice for the District of Columbia, a city with a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming and a significant historical Black population, highlights a critical flaw in the U.S. political system – the disenfranchisement and underrepresentation of voters of color. Furthermore, the federal government wields considerable control over the district, often without accountability to the very people who live there.
For years, advocates have been fighting to rectify this democratic deficit. Their efforts gained significant momentum recently. In both 2020 and 2021, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, known as the Washington, DC Admission Act. If this bill were to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President, it would pave the way for the creation of “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” the 51st state, finally granting the residents of the nation’s capital the full participation in democracy they deserve.
The Constitutional Origins of DC’s Representation Problem
The roots of Washington D.C.’s lack of full voting representation are embedded in the U.S. Constitution itself. The District Clause, specifically Article I, empowers Congress to establish a federal capital district, intended to be “not exceeding ten miles square,” where Congress would “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.”
Alt text: Historical map illustrating the original boundaries of the District of Columbia, highlighting land contributions from Maryland and Virginia.
However, the Founding Fathers made a critical oversight: they failed to include provisions for the representation of the future inhabitants of this district. The Constitution allocates seats in Congress and Electoral College votes based on statehood, a status explicitly denied to the district.
In the early years of the United States, the capital was not permanently located, with Congress convening in several different cities. Once President George Washington selected a site on the Potomac River for the permanent capital, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 solidified Congress’s exclusive jurisdiction over the district’s territory. This act effectively stripped residents of the voting rights they had previously held as citizens of Maryland and Virginia.
A History of Advocacy: The Movement for DC Statehood
The residents of the District of Columbia have a long and rich history of campaigning for the same voting rights enjoyed by citizens of the states. This movement gained significant traction during the Civil Rights era, achieving its first major victory in 1960 with the Congressional approval of the 23rd Amendment. Ratified by the states in 1961, this amendment granted DC citizens the right to vote in presidential elections. An earlier version of this amendment, which passed the Senate, even aimed to include voting representation in the House, demonstrating the early momentum for broader representation.
Building upon this success, reformers focused on two primary objectives: securing representation in Congress and regaining local control over district affairs. The District of Columbia Delegate Act of 1970 enabled DC residents to elect a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives, providing a symbolic but limited voice. Subsequently, the Home Rule Act of 1973 went further, allowing residents to elect their own mayor and a 13-member city council, granting some measure of self-governance.
In 1979, the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment, a significant milestone, passed both houses of Congress with the necessary two-thirds majority. This amendment sought to grant DC the full status of a state, including representation in both the House and Senate, as well as participation in the constitutional amendment process. However, despite this Congressional success, the amendment fell short of ratification, being approved by only 16 states, significantly less than the 38 required for it to take effect.
Today, Washington D.C. still lacks voting representation in Congress and is deprived of other benefits and autonomies associated with statehood and full control over its own governance.
The Real-World Impact of DC’s Status on its Residents
The slogan “Taxation Without Representation,” prominently displayed on DC license plates, powerfully encapsulates one of the core injustices resulting from the lack of voting representation in Congress. DC residents bear a heavier federal tax burden per person than residents of any state in the United States and contribute more in aggregate federal taxes than over 20 individual states.
Alt text: Image of a Washington D.C. license plate displaying the motto “Taxation Without Representation,” highlighting the city’s disenfranchisement.
Furthermore, Congress maintains significant control over DC’s budget, retaining the power under the Home Rule Act to review and even nullify legislation passed by the district’s local government. This oversight has tangible consequences for DC residents. For example, Congress continues to block the district from regulating and taxing the cannabis market, despite legalization by DC voters in 2014. Historically, Congress has also intervened to block other crucial DC policies, including a needle-exchange public health program and health insurance coverage for domestic partnerships.
The lack of voting representation also hinders the district from receiving its fair share of federal resources. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when Congress passed a coronavirus relief package in March 2020, DC was significantly underfunded, receiving millions of dollars less in federal aid because it was classified as a U.S. territory rather than a state.
An additional area of disparity lies in the command structure of the DC National Guard. Unlike National Guard units in states and territories that report to their respective governors, the DC National Guard reports directly to the President. This unique arrangement became particularly problematic during the protests following the murder of George Floyd in June 2020. President Trump’s deployment of DC National Guard troops to suppress a peaceful Black Lives Matter rally was perceived by many DC residents as an overreach and a “hostile invasion.” Months later, during the delayed response to the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, the absence of mayoral control over the DC National Guard likely contributed to the delayed arrival of crucial support.
The Washington, DC Admission Act: A Path to Statehood
The Washington, DC Admission Act represents a legislative solution to these long-standing issues. This bill proposes to transform the majority of present-day Washington, DC, into a new state named Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. This new state would be granted equal footing with the existing 50 states, possessing the same level of control over its internal affairs and full voting representation in Congress, including two senators and one representative. Crucially, a smaller federal district, encompassing the Capitol complex, White House, National Mall, and other essential federal grounds, would remain under the direct authority of Congress as the seat of the federal government.
The Constitutionality of DC Statehood
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to admit new states through legislation under Article IV. This power is subject to only two limitations: new states cannot be formed from the territory of existing states without their consent, and any jurisdiction seeking statehood must have a republican form of government. Historically, Congress has also considered two additional factors: whether the petition for statehood reflects the will of the people in the territory and whether the proposed state possesses sufficient population and resources to be self-sustaining and contribute to the federal system.
Admitting Washington, Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state through ordinary legislation aligns perfectly with the process by which the 37 non-original states, from Vermont in 1791 to Hawaii in 1959, were admitted to the Union. Assertions that the Washington, DC Admission Act is procedurally or politically distinct are unfounded.
Furthermore, Congress’s exclusive authority over the district, as outlined in Article I, includes the power to modify its boundaries. This power was exercised in 1846 when Congress adjusted the district’s original “ten miles square” boundary, returning land previously ceded by Virginia. Court interpretations of the District Clause have affirmed its “sweeping and inclusive” nature, recognizing Congress’s broad authority to alter the federal district’s borders.
Debunking Arguments Against DC Statehood
Opponents of DC statehood have raised several arguments challenging its constitutionality and viability. One common argument claims that statehood requires the consent of Maryland, the state that originally ceded the land. However, historical records contradict this claim, demonstrating that Maryland’s cession of territory was “forever ceded and relinquished . . . in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction.”
Another argument wrongly suggests that the 23rd Amendment, which grants electoral votes to the district, prohibits statehood. Nearly 40 prominent constitutional scholars have refuted this claim, arguing that while repealing the 23rd Amendment might be appropriate after statehood, its existence does not prevent DC from becoming a state.
Some opponents also mistakenly argue that previous attempts to grant DC residents full voting representation through constitutional amendments preclude achieving statehood through legislation. There is no historical, constitutional, or legal basis for this assertion. Many societal changes, such as the fight for equal rights regardless of sex and gender, initially pursued through unsuccessful amendments, have later been achieved through legislation.
It is crucial to distinguish between the unsuccessful 1979 statehood amendment effort, which aimed to grant DC residents certain aspects of statehood (congressional representation) without actually making DC a state, and the current legislative effort to admit a new state through established constitutional processes. The failure of the former does not undermine the validity of the latter.
Finally, some opponents contend that DC lacks the population and resources necessary for statehood. However, with a population exceeding 670,000 as of 2021, DC’s population is comparable to that of seven existing states. Moreover, the district has consistently demonstrated its capacity for self-governance and economic viability.
DC Statehood: A Matter of Civil Rights and Racial Justice
Granting statehood to Washington, D.C. is fundamentally a civil rights issue. If admitted, DC would have the highest proportion of Black residents of any state in the Union. For decades, starting in the 1960s, the city had a Black majority population, and Black residents still constitute nearly half of its population.
Alt text: Demonstrators advocating for DC Statehood, holding signs promoting “DC Statehood Now” and “51st State,” symbolizing the ongoing fight for representation.
Historically, the disenfranchisement of Black voters has been both explicitly and implicitly woven into arguments against expanding voting rights and representation in America. Scholars have documented the persistent connection between debates surrounding DC disenfranchisement and the city’s racial demographics and Black political power. Past arguments against DC representation have often been overtly racist, ranging from a senator in the 1890s comparing Black voters to “rats” to a political commentator in the 1970s labeling DC congressional representation as an “affirmative action program.”
The denial of a voice in Congress to DC residents contributes to the broader underrepresentation of voters of color within the American political system. A New York Times analysis revealed that, based on the voting power of each U.S. senator, the average Black American receives only 75% of the representation of the average white American.
Much of the contemporary opposition to DC statehood is driven by partisan politics and unfortunately echoes outdated and racially biased arguments. Even in 1978, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized that resistance to DC representation stemmed from “the fear that Senators elected from the District of Columbia may be too liberal, too urban, too Black or too Democratic.”
The Future Outlook for DC Statehood
Supporters of DC statehood achieved a significant milestone in June 2020 when the House of Representatives voted for the first time to admit Douglass Commonwealth as a state, passing H.R. 51 by a vote of 232 to 180. The House passed the measure again in April 2021, though by a narrower margin of 216 to 208. Both votes were largely along party lines, with no Republican support. The Senate has yet to consider the measure, and significant Republican opposition exists there as well. The Senate bill is co-sponsored only by Democrats, and Republican senators voiced strong criticism during a June 2021 committee hearing, often using overtly partisan language.
However, it is important to remember that partisan division on this issue is not historically consistent. Extending voting representation to the district has garnered bipartisan support in the past, including from prominent Republican leaders. In 1968, President Richard Nixon himself argued that denying DC residents a voice in Congress “should offend the democratic sense of this nation.” As the political demographics of the district became increasingly Democratic, Republican support began to wane. However, as broader voting patterns continue to evolve, this political calculus could potentially shift again, as it has in other states.
Ultimately, the fundamental principle remains: voting rights for DC residents should not be contingent on their political preferences. DC statehood is essential to guaranteeing the full franchise to all eligible Americans. Alongside other crucial democratic reforms at the federal level, it is a vital step toward ensuring every American has a meaningful voice in shaping the rules that govern their lives.
