Days before the Nov. 3 presidential election, business owners and residents in the nation’s capital had serious concerns of mass rioting and threats of violence. Just off Capitol Hill, most businesses could be observed boarding up in anticipation of potential looting, especially after the summer’s dangerous wave of violence, including near the White House and federal buildings.
Thankfully, election night did not break out into mass riots. But, less than two weeks later, supporters of President Trump converged on the nation’s capital, exercising their First Amendment right to protest potential voter fraud and to stand in solidarity with the commander in chief. Their peaceful protest, appropriately held in our nation’s capital city, became the target of violence as dusk settled in, with rioters filling the streets intent on clashing with the march attendees.
Recommended Stories
Trump supporters, whose only protection was a Washington, D.C., police force apparently uninterested in protecting them, faced intimidation, assault, and outright mob attacks. This was especially true near so-called “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” the street facing the White House “renamed” over the summer by the mayor to pander to the summer rioters and to attempt to send a message to the current White House.
In one instance after the rally, a man on a bike was surrounded, initially harassed, then physically assaulted. Additionally, a group of diners who had marched earlier was just blocks from the White House when a hostile group confronted them. Shouting ensued, and shortly after, someone hurled fireworks toward the diners. Thankfully, no one was hurt, and one arrest has been made in connection to that incident.
These and other acts of violence and intimidation, coupled with the summer riots that required a beefed up federal law enforcement presence (after the mayor failed to quell nightly mobs of rioters at the White House gates), are exactly why the founders chose to make the capital city a federal enclave, not controlled by a state whose leadership might not be friendly to the federal government or the administration. Their wisdom in giving Congress exclusive control over the region was strictly informed by legitimate historical instances of jurisdictions failing to protect the federal government or outright intimidating it within its own borders.
With calls for statehood for Washington, D.C., coming from Mayor Muriel Bowser, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Democratic congressional leadership, it’s critical to consider the planned historical role of the capital city in light of the recent confrontational actions toward the federal government by the mayor and members of the Washington, D.C., Council, if and when Congress considers Washington, D.C., statehood. I view with serious concern the city leadership repeatedly allowing, and one could suggest even implicitly condoning, politically motivated violence. This is one of the foremost reasons that our Constitution established a federal enclave and not a “capital state.”
Given the role our founders envisioned for the national capital, coupled with an alarming and consistent lack of local enforcement of the law, statehood should not be on the table. It may even be time to reevaluate the Home Rule Act to allow for easier federal intervention in matters regarding the capital city, such as recent attempts by city leaders to decriminalize prostitution.
If the goal is solely to enfranchise residents of the district, then, by all means, Congress should consider retroceding some of the current district territory not adjacent to federal buildings to Maryland. My home state, after all, graciously surrendered this land as a gift to the nation for the sole purpose of establishing a capital city. But statehood for our capital city is now obviously a bad and dangerous idea.
Rep. Andy Harris, a physician and represents Maryland’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
