If the Democrats firmly control the Senate, the House and the Preseidency, is DC statehood far off?

[Gore1FL]

It seems like right thing to do for DC, for the Country, and for that matter the party (2 Democratic Senators, and a Democratic House seat can;t hurt).

[DarthDem]

1. Takes a Constitutional Amendment

. . . I believe. So it's a little more complex than just controlling Congress, IIRC. Possible, though. And a damn good idea.

[Gore1FL]

2. Why?

We never needed one for any other non-state territory.

I understood that the vote just never made it through congress.

[DarthDem]

3. I Was Wrong; Sorry

It takes a vote of Congress - - you're right. The House brought it up in 1993 when Clinton was in office and the Dems controlled both houses, but it was soundly defeated by over 100 votes. So there must be some Democratic opposition to the idea as well. Perhaps things have changed in the last 15 years or so, though.

[Gore1FL]

5. No need for apologies!!

You responded with with a reasonable guess!

[adamuu]

4. My limited understanding of the issue

Is that UT would have to get a 4th Rep. There was some kind of compromise. Whatever the facts, I think it is potentially fair to make a compromise such as giving a red state with a high pop to rep ratio another Rep if it means DC finally gets a 1st Rep.

Looking at the numbers, it appears things may have changed since this was last discussed. It looks like Montana now is due more for a 2nd Rep than Utah is for a 4th Rep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population If they are giving out House seats, next in line are Delaware's 2nd and Nevada's 4th Reps.

As for the question of Statehood, that would mean DC would get 2 Senators. Why not? Wyoming gets 2, and its population is less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Since this issue was last discussed, the numbers supporting DC statehood have only improved. I don't see how it can be denied, even if it requires a Constitutional amendment as a certain Constitutional scholar suggests.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_vote_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._statehood_movement
http://www.dcvote.org/advocacy/dcvralegal.cfm

"In November 2000, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation".<3> Former President Bill Clinton had these plates placed on the presidential limousines during the last few months of his administration. However, President George W. Bush, in one of his first official acts as president, had the tags removed.<4>"

[Gore1FL]

6. I think that was giving DC a vote in the House

rather than giving it statehood.

[lonestarnot]

7. I think they already did that didn't they?

:shrug:

[adamuu]

8. Did What?

They get their proper number of electoral votes. But that's all. It's literally taxation without representation in the original sense. By way of illustration, Puerto Rican residents don't pay income tax.

[Gore1FL]

9. They tried, but it didn't get out of the congress

they have no voting representation in the House or the Senate. They would be the 51st state.

[lonestarnot]

10. Well sheet! I must have gone on vacation, because I was under the impression all this

time that they had achieved success at getting representation! Stupid me!

[Aristus]

11. I must be the only liberal Democrat who thinks D.C. should not become a state.

The Federal District was created for a reason: so that no state could claim the U.S. capital as its own. It's supposed to be that way. However, I believe 100% that D.C. should have a voting representative in the House. If the city's budget is controlled by the Federal Government (and it's the only city in the nation for which that is the case) then they should have a vote in Congress.

But don't make the city into a state...

[YankmeCrankme]

12. No, you're not the only one.

I think it's a terrible idea for, basically, the same reasons. For goodness sake, it's just a tiny plot of land that houses our federal government. If they want to put the US capital in a state then give the land back to the original states that it was partitioned from or, if you want to, you can just keep the official government buildings on federal land independent of any state and return all the surrounding land, where the people live, to the neighboring states. Problem solved. There is absolutely no reason to create a 51st state from Washington, DC.

[Gore1FL]

13. I can live with that

They should be represented in the Senate though, IMO.

[DonCoquixote]

14. Here's a thought

Northern Virginia, that part called 'communist" by Johnnie Mac's brtoher, is VERY liberal, and pays most of the taxes collected in the state. They are VERY sick of being hated by the rest of Virginia while they fund the rest of the state. Since they are the DC suburbs, let them take DC with them, and Virginia's tax base goes bye bye.