Democrats in Congress are once again seeking to enact their unconstitutional scheme to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., a proposal that would rig congressional elections in the Democrat Party’s favor.
H.R. 51 and S. 51, both titled the “Washington, D.C. Admission Act,” are sponsored by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), respectively. The House bill currently has 216 co-sponsors, while the Senate bill has 44 co-sponsors.
H.R. 51 and S. 51 are a priority of Democrats, who understand the political benefits of gaining two additional U.S. senators from a solidly Democrat constituency (in 2020, Biden received 92 percent of the vote in D.C.).
Furthermore, the House has scheduled H.R. 51 for a floor vote next week. The bill previously passed the House last year during the 116th Congress, but unlike then, the Senate is now controlled by Democrats.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Unconstitutional Proposal
In addition to the obviously partisan motivations for passing H.R. 51 and S. 51, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., also violates the U.S. Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, makes clear that the U.S. Capital is not to be a state, and that it is to be directly under Congress’s control.
Furthermore, Article IV, Section 3, makes clear that any new state created from the territory of an existing state requires the latter state’s permission to come into existence. Since Washington, D.C., was created with Maryland’s permission, a change in its status would again require Maryland’s permission. While Maryland could give that permission at any time, it currently has not done so.
Additionally, D.C. statehood violates the 23rd Amendment. As phrased by attorney R. Hewitt Pate, the amendment recognizes “an existing district of government of a particular size” with the current district being a “permanent constitutional entity,” thus requiring a constitutional amendment to change the capital’s status. Furthermore, statehood for the district — under H.R. 51 and S. 51’s proposal to shrink the capital into a very small plot of land — would lead to the absurdity of a small handful of people deciding three electoral votes.
Thus, granting statehood to the District of Columbia would violate the Constitution, in addition to being a blatantly partisan scheme to benefit the Democrat Party.
Lastly, the United States is a federal and constitutional Republic, not a unitary democracy. This simple — but important and often overlooked — fact illustrates the importance of having a capital disconnected from any state, and it demolishes any notion that residents of that capital have some moral right to equal political representation. Not only did the Founding Fathers oppose including the nation’s capital within a state, but granting statehood to D.C. would give its citizens disproportionate influence within the federal system.
Rather than pursuing unconstitutional and partisan schemes such as Washington, D.C., statehood, Congress would be wise to pass legislation that upholds the Constitution and promotes an Americanist philosophy.
To urge your U.S. representative and senators to reject this unconstitutional Washington, D.C. statehood scheme, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here.
