The last 12 months may have been the most volatile for the District of Columbia since the Civil War.
But as activists seek statehood for the nation’s capital, they’re showing a preference for partisanship over democratic values. Put another way, push for statehood is merely about securing a Democratic Party stronghold in Congress, rather than securing democratic autonomy or home rule for D.C. residents.
Rebutting these efforts, the first point to note is that the District of Columbia exists to serve as a legally neutral/unique seat of government, outside of the purview of a respective state. This is found in the Constitution’s Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII: “[Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States …”
James Madison echoes the need for an independent federal seat in Federalist No. 43, citing that “the indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.” The evidence on which Madison reflected came during post-Revolutionary War Philadelphia. In June 1783, the Continental Congress was interrupted by several hundred war-weary veterans who were unpaid and demanded back pay. The soldiers’ physical intimidation and verbal attacks upon Congress compelled members to appeal to Pennsylvania governing council to deploy militiamen to protect them, but Pennsylvania refused to comply or assist. This led to the Continental Congress adjourning and fleeing to New Jersey and eventually vacating Philadelphia altogether. This embarrassing episode of congressional security being fruitlessly reliant upon state authority led to the desire for a federal seat of government that would not be dependent upon or beholden to any particular state.
Consider, also, that while voting rights advocates in D.C. might be vocal, outside of these activist circles, nationwide support for D.C. statehood is less evident. A 2019 Gallup poll showed that two-thirds of Americans do not support D.C. statehood. A more recent poll shows some growth in support since 2019, with a slight majority of 54% in favor. However, support laid along partisan viewpoints — 74% of Democrats polled support D.C. statehood against only 34% of Republicans.
That’s not surprising.
Were the capital to become the “State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” it would be represented by one seat in the House and two in the Senate, as prescribed by the Constitution. With its current partisan demography, D.C. would most certainly elect Democrats to its entire congressional delegation. And with the standing gridlock in Congress, these hypothetical seats would undoubtedly become the tipping points in the balance of power. As much as Democratic leaders cite proper representation as their altruistic motive for passing D.C. statehood, this simply is not so. D.C. is a legislative means to a political end. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Thomas Peterson is a research associate with a political consulting firm in the Washington, D.C., area. He has previous experience on Republican political campaigns, serving in management roles and spearheading grassroots efforts.
