What Will Statehood Mean for Washington?

On Thursday, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed bill HR 51 , which aims to give the capital of the country state status. The possibility of adding 51 states would send a seismic shake-up to the structure of US policy and tip the balance of power in the Senate towards Democrats.

Although two states with smaller populations than Washington, D.C. – Wyoming and Vermont – already have full representation in Congress, the encouraging bill appears to be poised to die upon arriving in the Senate, where Republicans (and even West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin) are more than likely to vote against statehood.

DC statehood is hardly a new idea from political radicals; rather, it is the old legislative chestnut, which was previously voted for by Congress in 1993, 2009 and the House of Representatives only last June, only to avoid going through both houses all three times. In January, the issue was given a new lease of life thanks to the only (non-voting) representative of the Washington, DC House of Representatives, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, who introduced HR 51, also known as the Washington, DC Admissions Act.

Following the submission of the bill totaled 202 collaborator and received voice support by returning the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , Mayor District of Columbia Muriel Bowser, and a plurality of online fans . While granting state status to a new municipality is a daunting task – and hasn’t happened since Alaska and Hawaii were annexed to the Union in 1959 – it’s long been a problem that Democrats in Congress have pledged to enthusiastically tackle when it comes to the nation’s capital. …

Here’s how this process could unfold if the Senate did indeed ratify the movement, as well as a little about the motives behind striving for Washington state status, and how it will affect the political landscape if it does happen.

How do states become states?

It is a process deeply rooted in the Constitution. In a general sense, the granting of statehood is usually determined by Congress in accordance with the admission clause of the Constitution. Sixty years after we added the last stars to the flag, it’s easy to forget that the United States is indeed an ongoing project that has gradually expanded its territory since the early 18th century. However, the adoption of new states did not follow a predetermined pattern for centuries.

But, as legal scholars Eric Bieber and Thomas B. Colby write for the National Constitutional Center, despite the peculiarities of different situations, the admission of new states has always deserved oversight from Congress:

The admission clause provides that at least one Act of Congress is required to admit a state. However, Congress often followed a more complex process. For many admitted states, Congress first passed the Permit Act, which allowed the people of the territory to call a constitutional convention to draft a constitution for the new proposed state and apply for congressional admission. Often in the Authorization Act, Congress specified a number of conditions that a proposed state must meet in order for admission to take place. These conditions varied widely depending on time and condition.

It is easy to get bogged down in constitutional minutiae, and the authors openly admit that “the Constitution provides little guidance on how Congress should implement” the Admission Regulation. This, like much else in constitutional science, is a complex issue open to interpretation. But generally speaking, there are rules that govern how states become states. According to the current text of the article:

New states may be admitted by Congress to the present Union; but no new state can be formed or built within the jurisdiction of any other state; no state can be formed by the amalgamation of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the legislatures of the respective states, as well as Congress.

How is Washington DC different?

Washington, DC has been the country’s capital since 1790. It is a city, and therefore distinctly different from the vast, sprawling wilderness of Alaska and Hawaii, or even the relative borders of Rhode Island. To make District of Columbia a state, the current bill passed by Congress aims to effectively reduce the geographic size of the city to meet the requirements of the enclave clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress complete control over federal districts no larger than 10 square miles. … As you may have guessed, this is a process largely dictated by constitutional doctrine.

Robinson Woodward-Burns, assistant professor of political science at Howard University, detailed Lifehacker about the broader process in an email:

The anticipated DC statehood bill will reduce the current county boundaries to a much smaller county, covering the national mall and surrounding federal buildings, while meeting the requirements of the clause. The bill then transfers the remaining territory to the new state of Washington, the Commonwealth of Douglas, which will approve the state’s constitution and elect federal senators and representative, delegates to the Electoral College, governor, and state legislators.

Woodward-Burns explains that existing legal barriers can be easily overcome because “the Supreme Court affirmed that the enclave clause gives Congress the power to change county boundaries and cede county land.”

How much of the statehood of the District of Columbia would change national policy?

Quite a lot, actually. The District of Columbia has won three Electoral College votes since the 23rd Amendment in 1961, but joining the Union as a state would help Democrats reclaim more permanent territory in the Senate – historically DC residents voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates for presidential post. … As Woodward-Burns explains, at first glance this may seem like an overt seizure of power, but such a move is not unprecedented.

He wrote to Lifehacker:

As Republicans gain traction with rural voters in low-population states, the GOP has gained disproportionate power in the Senate, gaining a narrow Senate majority over the past few years and pushing Democrats to recognize D.C. as a state and get two Democratic senators. … While this may seem like overtly party tactics on the part of Democrats, it is the norm in the statehood process – in 1889/90, the Republican Party added six new states to claim 12 new Senate seats.

Turning the District of Columbia into a state would give a population of nearly 700,000 taxpayers Americans a representation in Congress that they have never enjoyed before. The city’s population exceeds that of Wyoming and Vermont, each with two democratically elected senators.

In fact, the argument is to give the residents of the nation’s capital a level playing field with everyone else in America. And it looks more and more like it could have happened. This article was originally published in January 2021 and was updated on April 22, 2021 to add additional context surrounding Congressional voting to promote DC statehood.