The wording of the amendment obviously recognizes an existing administrative district of a certain size. And it refers to the district as a permanent constitutional entity. Washington`s status as a legislative state would be a curiosity, to say the least, if the Constitution itself refers to the territory “as if it were a state.” However, DC residents` voting rights should not depend on who they vote for. D.C. statehood is essential to ensure that all eligible Americans have full voting rights. Along with other democratic reforms at the federal level, it is a necessary ingredient to give every American a meaningful say in the rules that govern their lives. In addition, some opponents of statehood argue that since previous efforts to grant full voting rights in Congress to county residents have sometimes taken the form of proposed constitutional amendments, statehood cannot be achieved through legislation. However, there is no historical, constitutional or legal basis for this claim. Many movements for change, such as the fight to eliminate sex and gender discrimination through the Equal Rights Amendment, initially took the form of unsuccessful changes, the protection of which later became law. Congress continues to exercise considerable authority over DC`s budget and reserves the right, under the Home Rule Act, to review and overturn all laws passed by the borough`s local government, with significant consequences for DC residents. For example, Congress continues to block the county`s ability to regulate and tax the cannabis market, which was legalized by Washington DC voters in 2014.
Congress has blocked other key Washington policies for years, including a needle exchange program for public health and health insurance coverage for domestic partnerships. When the matter is heard by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on Tuesday, we will probably hear some of the same objections. But they are wrong. The creation of a 51st state from what is now the District of Columbia is constitutionally permissible and requires only congressional action. Those who claim otherwise are putting forward a political or, at best, logistical, not a legal argument. There is no constitutional problem with D.C.`s statehood. And this is long overdue. D.C. residents pay federal taxes and serve in our armed forces, while being denied representation by two senators and one voting representative in the House of Representatives. To be sure, there are political arguments against statehood — primarily that Republicans don`t want what would almost certainly be the election of three more Democrats to Congress — and those who oppose statehood can make those arguments. But their legal arguments do not hold water.
In addition, some have argued that the 23rd Amendment prohibits statehood because it empowers Congress to grant electoral votes to the district. A group of nearly 40 prominent constitutional experts argue the opposite convincingly. Although it may be appropriate for Congress to recall the 23. The repeal of the amendment once most of the CD becomes a state in no way precludes the existence of the amendment from allowing DC as a new state. The fundamental question that needs to be asked is: if DC were to become a state (either in its entirety or by shrinkage), could it continue to serve the Framers` intention to create a national seat of government? Would Washington`s statehood allow the government to operate in an area under its own control without undue interference and dependence on the state? Looking only at physical realities, the answer must be no. According to the Constitution, Washington`s statehood must be achieved through the process of change. The people of the fifty states, through their state legislators, must have a say in this fundamental change to our nation`s capital and the constitution that created it. Professor Raven-Hansen argued that if Congress passed Washington`s statehood, the 23rd Amendment would become “questionable.” 36 This idea of challenging a constitutional provision is certainly new. Professor Raven-Hansen points to support for various provisions of the Constitution that are no longer in force, such as the fugitive slave provisions. The difference, of course, is that these provisions of the Constitution were “discussed” by a constitutional amendment, not by mere laws passed by Congress.
Some suggest that enforcing the eligibility clause in this case would require Maryland`s consent, or that as an alternative to statehood, most of DC should be returned to Maryland. But Maryland relinquished its authority over the D.C. territory when the county was formed from parts of Maryland and Virginia in the 1790s. The Maryland legislature passed a bill “to cede to the Congress of the United States any district thereof not exceeding ten square miles that Congress may determine and accept for the seat of the government of the United States.” Although the original purpose was to provide land to the district, Maryland gave Congress the power to dispose of it by ceding the land. The district took a different path, followed by only six of the 37 states admitted to the Union after ratification of the Constitution. This process of finding a state is known as the “Tennessee Plan.” Traditionally, Tennessee`s plan has four stages. First, a constitutional convention is convened and a constitution is drafted. Secondly, the Constitution is put to the vote and ratified by the voters of the territory applying for admission. Third, a petition is sent to Congress requesting statehood. Eventually, “ghost” senators and representatives are elected to influence Congress in hopes that Congress will vote on admission.16 One thing that might surprise district residents is the lack of interest in statehood outside the Beltway. This was exemplified by the last serious efforts to strengthen district representation in 1978.
Only sixteen States ratified the proposed 1978 amendment within the deadline. If you were to try to find an issue that Robert Kennedy, Pat Wald, and Ed Meese all agreed on, you might be surprised that it was the constitutionality of the legally regulated state of DC. Every Department of Justice that has dealt with this issue, from the Kennedy administration to the Bush administration, has concluded that the Constitution does not permit legislative changes to the status of the district. [34] Each jurisdiction has dealt with different proposals and focused on different constitutional issues, but unanimity remains. The legitimacy of Washington State, contrary to its wisdom, is simply not a partisan issue. The technical legal aspects of this argument have been discussed in depth by one of the state`s greatest supporters, a George Washington University law professor named Peter Raven-Hansen.28 He rejects the need for Maryland`s consent. Professor Raven-Hansen argues that Maryland`s gift of land to the federal government was complete, complete, and final, with no reservations about future land use.29 Moreover, a key difference is that unsuccessful state-change efforts in 1979 mirrored congressional attempts to give D.C. residents some attributes of statehood (representation in Congress). without actually making DC a state. The failure of these efforts does not prevent the admission of a new State according to the established procedures provided for in the Constitution, which is a mere legislative exercise. The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, grants three electoral votes to the “district that forms the seat of government.” .