Byron York’s Daily Memo: DC statehood: House Democrats take up an old cause anew

DC STATEHOOD: HOUSE DEMOCRATS TAKE UP AN OLD CAUSE ANEW. The drive to make Washington DC a state has been a favorite of some Democrats for years. Why wouldn’t it be? If enacted, it would create two Democratic senators and one new Democratic member of the House. For a Democrat, what’s not to like?

But while there have been lots of DC statehood bills over the years, it has only been voted on once before. In 1993, it failed badly in the House, losing 277 to 153. Back then, moderate Democrats put their judgment before partisan interest, splitting on whether statehood was really necessary. Democratic stalwart Rep. John Dingell, for example, opposed it, saying residents of the District of Columbia “can leave any time they want” if they don’t like the political arrangement.

But times have changed. Pro-statehood leaders have portrayed statehood as a civil rights issue. That’s not new, but it is particularly resonant for Democrats with Black Lives Matter protests going on around the country. So on Friday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put statehood to a second-ever vote, the measure passed with every Democrat, with one exception — Minnesota moderate Rep. Colin Peterson — voting for it. Every Republican voted against it. That’s where things stand until the Republican-controlled Senate stops it cold.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

“This is not just an issue of local governance and fairness,” House number-two Democrat Steny Hoyer said. “It is a major civil rights issue as well.” That was boilerplate, but some supporters’ rhetoric got far more heated. “Residents in our nation’s capital cannot be who we dream to be because Republicans in Congress won’t get their knees of our necks,” wrote longtime Washington Post columnist Colbert King.

IF PASSED, DC STATEHOOD WOULD BE COMPLICATED. The Constitution specifically calls for a seat of national government that is not part of any state and that is under the complete jurisdiction of Congress. The original ten-mile square District of Columbia was taken from Maryland and Virginia and straddled the Potomac River. In 1846, Congress returned the part south and west of the Potomac to Virginia. That was known as retrocession.

Now, some suggest that if residents of the District want full voting representation, they should do the same thing with Maryland — that is, shrink the current District of Columbia down to the federal areas and return the rest to Maryland. That way, residents of the largest part of DC would become residents of Maryland and have full voting rights and representation. The much-smaller District of Columbia would cover mostly the White House, the Mall, federal buildings, and the Capitol.

It would be complicated, but it has been done before with Virginia. The problem is, DC statehood advocates don’t want it. Why? Because retrocession to Maryland would not create a new state with two new Democratic senators and one new Democratic representative.

To be clear: If Democratic statehood advocates were concerned only with winning full voting rights for District residents, they would likely support retrocession. There is a precedent, and the voting-rights argument would be untainted by partisan motive. No, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser would not become Governor Bowser, as she would in the Democrats’ bill, but hundreds of thousands of District residents, the vast majority of them Democrats, would win the right to elect voting representatives in the House and Senate in their new home state of Maryland.

A lot of Republicans dismiss the statehood effort as impossible. It will never pass in the Senate, they say. But what if a Democrat is elected to the White House this November, and the party wins a majority in the Senate? If that happens, there’s a very good bet that Senate Democrats will use the nuclear option to kill the legislative filibuster. And what happens to DC statehood then?