Power and Washington, DC are synonymous so it should be no surprise that the battle over D.C. statehood is little more than a power play fought behind the veneer of ending taxation without representation.
In understanding the real motivations behind the push to add the federal district as the fifty-first state, one only needs to think of the number two.
Beyond the obvious attempt by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to create two new Democrat senators out of thin air in order to end Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema’s (D-AZ)’s virtual stranglehold over the Democrat agenda, there is another major factor at play that explains why the obvious solution to the issue has been ignored.
In 1847, the portion of Washington, D.C. which was donated by the Commonwealth of Virginia during the constitutional formation of the federal capitol was ceded back, with the portion donated by the state of Maryland remaining. This is what we currently know as the District of Columbia.
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) has introduced legislation that meets the core argument in favor of statehood without changing the balance of power in the Senate – returning the residential portions of D.C. to the state of Maryland.
Obviously, this proposal has been opposed by the very Democrat leaders who are clamoring for statehood, but the reason may not be completely apparent.
In 1961, the Constitution was amended for the twenty-third time allowing residents of the District to be represented by three electors to the Electoral College as if it were a state, while not providing voting representation in Congress.
This means that every single presidential election for the past sixty years, Democrat presidential nominees have enjoyed an automatic three elector margin courtesy of the twenty-third amendment.
But if the goal is to provide representation for the District as soon as possible, then Rep. Johnson’s proposal makes sense. As it is clear, the Constitutional legal precedents against D.C. statehood stand as a formidable legal barrier. It is not only enormous, but also recent. As late as the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Adams v. Clinton shot down arguments that D.C. residents were entitled to voting representation, highlighting the extreme constitutional difficulty of the Democrats’ D.C. statehood legislation.
The Maryland solution, which would be pending repeal of the twenty-third amendment, is cleaner, attainable and constitutionally viable. So, why do Democrats object so strenuously to this common-sense approach?
Once again, the number two comes into play.
If Maryland were to gain an additional 600,000 D.C. residents into its population, it is likely that the reliably Democrat state’s electoral votes would grow from the current ten to eleven, costing the Democrat nominee two full precious Electoral College votes (created by the presumption of two Senators and one House member in the twenty-third amendment) as the total available votes would shrink from 538 to 535.
With America split down the middle, these two Electoral College votes could very well determine who becomes the next President in 2025.
And it is these two Electoral College votes that are the altar Democrats are willing to continue sacrificing representation for D.C. residents in the future.
The answer is simple. Cede the residential areas of D.C. back to Maryland and repeal the 23rdamendment to empower these Americans. Unfortunately, just as the Democrats motive for D.C. statehood are two additional Senators, the loss of two Electoral College votes stands as those same Democrats roadblock to a Constitutional pathway to the vote for the people of D.C.
Rick Manning is President of Americans for Limited Government.