IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT D.C., Finding political solutions for America's unrepresented people

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

August 21st, 1959, is a special date in American history. That was the last time the United States added a new state. Now over 60 years ago, this is the longest we’ve ever gone without adding a new state to the union. That streak could come to an end though after the House of Representatives passed legislation to make the District of Columbia the 51st state. The governance of the D.C. has been murky since the district was first formed. However, this issue is larger than just the District of Columbia.

In addition to D.C., the United States also has five unincorporated territories with 3.7 million residents that likewise exist in a legal limbo. Apathy has guided our policy towards these unrepresented Americans for decades. America is a Republic with citizens, not an empire with subjects. It simply isn’t acceptable to have American citizens without representation in the Federal Government.

The District of Columbia

The decision of where to put the national capital was one of the first questions America faced after the Revolution. New York was the initial capital, but Congress moved it to Philadelphia in 1790. The newly ratified Constitution allowed for the creation of a federal district to serve as the capital, but didn’t specify a location. After intense negotiation the northern states agreed to locate the District of Columbia in the south on the Potomac River. The final location was a 100 square mile site near George Washington’s Mount Vernon. The new district straddled the river with about two-thirds of it on the Maryland side and one-third on the Virginia side. Later, disappointed Virginia businessmen, who felt the Virginia side was being neglected, convinced the state to take back its portion. Interestingly it’s not clear this was actually legal, but no one challenged it so that portion reverted to Virginia.

The purpose of the federal district was to remove the capital from being under the direct influence of a single state. The Constitution states that Congress can make laws concerning the federal district but doesn’t go into any more detail. How to govern and represent the people who live there was a topic for Congress to determine later. The status of Washingtonians has evolved over time. They first gained the right to vote in Presidential elections in 1964. This law allotted the district 3 Electoral College votes, equal to the smallest state. The 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act set up a mayor-city council government to handle city administration. However, Congress can overrule local laws enacted by this government. As a result, controversial measures by the D.C. government involving reproductive rights, gun control, marijuana, marriage equality and abortion have become proxy wars in Congress.

The Politics of Statehood

The primary deficiency in the representation for Washingtonians is their lack of a voice in Congress. Given their local government is subject to Congressional review, this failing is particularly glaring. Statehood would fix this problem by giving them two senators and one congressional representative. Washington does have a non-voting representative, however without a vote this is a symbolic gesture that carries no weight. If statehood becomes a reality, D.C.’s voice in presidential elections would remain three electoral votes. It’s not clear how that would affect local governance.

D.C. statehood is largely a partisan issue because their three members of Congress would be a near lock for the Democratic party. Given that I’m a Democrat, it might surprise some to hear I oppose D.C. statehood. The Democrats won over many independents in the last election because of Trump and his Congressional supporters abandonment of political norms. Talk of expanding the Supreme Court and creating a state out of D.C. is exactly the kind of thing that could push these voters back into the welcoming arms of the Republican party. It’s pure politics. Does anyone think the Democrats would support D.C. statehood if the district was a majority Republicans?

The Case Against Statehood

I oppose D.C. statehood for a couple of reasons. It’s true that the Constitution doesn’t set a minimum size for new states. Yet, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 made it clear that the Founding Fathers expected that new states would be a certain size. When carving out states from the Ohio territory they created Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, all orders of magnitude larger than the District of Columbia. With a population of 705,000 it has more people than several states, but it is only 68 sq. miles. It’s less than 6% the size of Rhode Island. Would it have a governor and a mayor overseeing the exact same area?

I suppose they could work out the logistics of local and state government. The more fundamental problem, statehood is directly at odds with why the Founding Fathers created the District to begin with. The federal capital is to be free of state political whims. The D.C. home rule act was a compromise that gave local residents a say in local government while maintaining the principle of a federal district. I’m not the only Democrat who acknowledges the problems with D.C. statehood. There are five Democratic senators who have refused to endorse the bill. Given the political realities in the Senate this bill seems dead in the water.

D.C. statehood is problematic, but there is a legitimate problem of the residents not having real congressional representation. Some have suggested repeating what Virginia did and ceding most of the district back to Maryland. Under this solution only the relatively small area comprising the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and the associated office buildings would remain in the District. The only district residents would be the president’s family, and even they typically remain residents of their home state. The only problem to this solution is it appears that neither the residents of the district, nor Maryland support this idea.

Solutions for the District

My solution to this problem is to make D.C. a special Congressional appendage of Maryland. Maryland and the District of Columbia would share congressional representation but remain otherwise separate. Washington and Maryland would vote in the same Senate elections and D.C. would become its own congressional district. This change wouldn’t affect the 1964 law giving D.C. its own Electoral College votes and the 1973 Home Rule Act. There would still be political considerations to overcome, but they should be far less than statehood. Maryland tends to be a pretty safe Democratic state. Adding mostly Democratic D.C. wouldn’t shift the congressional balance of power in any meaningful way. Both of Maryland’s senators are Democrats. Making Washington’s current non-voting Representative into a voting member of Congress would be the only real change.

The Unincorporated Territories

So that’s that, except not really. Like I mentioned earlier, there’s still the issue of the 3.7 million citizens in a similar status in America’s five populated unincorporated territories. These include American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. These five territories exist in a weird legal gray area but are part of the United States. In many respects they are very similar to the District of Columbia. Legally they are just as much a part of America as Florida, Texas or California. Also, like D.C. they aren’t incorporated as a state, operate with limited self-rule with federal oversight, and lack Federal representation. However, because they are more distant and less integrated into the rest of the country we often treat them like colonies rather than a part of America.

Puerto Rican Statehood

Puerto Rico is the most obvious target for potential statehood. Geographically much closer to the mainland than Hawaii and with a population of 3.3 million it’s easily large enough to be a legitimate state. Culturally Puerto Rico is highly integrated with the rest of the country as well. Thousands of Puerto Ricans serve in the American military and most of their economic trade is with America. In 2020 Puerto Ricans voted for statehood by a 52.5 to 47.5 margin. That was the second time in three years they’ve voted for statehood.

There’s no objective barrier to adding Puerto Rico as our 51st state, so why hasn’t it happened? Primarily politics again. Republicans fear Puerto Rico would become a Democratic Party gain in Congress. There’s also an economic concern with the territory being deeply in debt. Long term though, I think it’s hard to predict how Puerto Ricans would vote. In fact, Republican affiliated candidates have won two of their last five gubernatorial elections. Likewise, it seems probable that Puerto Rico would be a long-term financial asset after being fully incorporated as a state.

And the Rest

The case for Puerto Rico’s statehood is pretty clear, but what about the other four unincorporated territories? Each would be, by far, the smallest state in terms of both population and area. Also adding four new states, five including Puerto Rico, would dramatically alter the composition of Congress. Because of this, the likelihood that we’re going to see the state of American Samoa is basically zilch.

There are a number of solutions but here’s the simplest. For American Samoa, Northern Mariana and Guam, add them to Hawaii. Of course, there would be logistical challenges with this. The biggest issue would simply be the vast distances between these territories. These problems would have been more insurmountable a century ago. However, in today’s era of instant communications, video conferencing, and air travel there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work. These three territories have a combined population of only about 270,000 so they probably wouldn’t affect Hawaii’s representation. This should reduce the political objections. How would these territories and Hawaii feel about this? Not sure, but it seems likely to be mutually beneficial.

Similarly, adding the U.S. Virgin Islands to the new state of Puerto Rico would give them representation. In this case the two islands are only 65 miles apart so the mechanics of working it out are a lot simpler. For all four of these small territories they could keep their name and identity. However, their government would function more like a county government within a state, rather than the current territorial governments.

Conclusion

Easy peasy, give D.C. representation without statehood, increase Hawaii a little, and create the state of Puerto Rico, done. Everyone gets representation and we eliminate these legal gray areas where people are Americans, but only kind of. There are all kinds of political and cultural issues we will still need to overcome to make this happen. This is a starting point, but there would still be a lot of details to work out.

The biggest obstacle to getting representation for all Americans is apathy. Although these solutions make sense, there’s not an urgent crisis driving Congress to make this happen. I think most Americans know the current situation isn’t right, it’s just not a priority. Keep in mind, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor they attacked a territory, not a state. Collectively we considered it an attack on America, even if statehood had to wait fifteen more years. It’s time to bring the rest of our fellow Americans into the fold and make this happen.