DC statehood would ruin the capital and the Constitution

This bill is far different and much more damaging to our capital, Constitution, and country than any Washington, D.C., statehood bill introduced in the past. In seeking to provide the 700,000 residents of the district with the right, through statehood, to vote for a member of the House of Representatives and two senators, proponents of the bill ignore history and the nation’s desire to avoid concentration of power in too few hands.

The name of the proposed 51st state is to be Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, in honor of the great African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who once lived and died in the District of Columbia. This would be the new “Washington, D.C.” The United States capital is simply referred to as “the Capital.”

Having appropriated the name Washington, D.C., for itself, the 51st state would also appropriate most of the land forming the current District of Columbia. From 61 square miles, “the Capital” would shrink to a mere 2 square miles surrounded by the new State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The tiny 2% remnant of territory left to “the Capital” would encompass only the Supreme Court, the Capitol building, the National Mall, and the White House. The fact that the president would only have to look across the street from the White House North Portico to see Douglass Commonwealth would have severe consequences.

It would hinder the ability to protect the president, their family, and members of Congress from civil unrest and potential terrorist threats. In the new “Capital,” there would be no buffer zone on the north side of the White House for barriers or the deployment of federal security forces if required. The D.C. Home Rule Bill, like other legislation Congress passed to regulate the federal District of Columbia, would no longer apply, eliminating the requirement for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to assist federal forces in protecting the president and visiting heads of state. The MPD will no longer police the National Mall that is visited by millions of people each year. The D.C. National Guard, the National Park Service, the United States Marshalls District 1 headquarters, and the Secret Service will all be stationed within Douglass Commonwealth. Will the new state allow them to remain and to deploy if need be? There is certainly no room for any of them to relocate within the tiny territorial remnant left for the “Capital.”

Given the strong objections of Mayor Muriel Bowser to the deployment of many of these forces to protect the president, his family, and the White House during recent violent nights, it is not clear that a Gov. Bowser would agree to assist or, indeed, not to stand in the way of reinforcements. After all, she did evict from a Washington hotel the 200 members of the Utah National Guard who came to the city, answering the president’s request for help when protests turned violent. Bowser found their presence offensive to her authority.

The “Capital” would be harmed in other major ways. Washington, D.C., is today a beautiful city of classical government buildings, including the Capitol, the White House, and many executive departments. Its broad and open vistas are watched over by the Commission on Fine Arts, the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, and the National Capital Planning Commission. The two commissions have the authority to review all building construction in Washington, D.C., to preserve the visual access to the symbols of our democracy. The legislation before Congress strips them of all authority beyond the tiny 2-square-mile remnant and renders moot any limitation on the height of buildings.

Bowser has been known to chafe at these height limitations. In 2019, she signed an executive order to “evaluate increasing allowable building height and density.” Skyscrapers would soon invade the Douglass Commonwealth skyline. What could be better than having a cocktail on the roof terrace of a 30-story hotel on 15^th Street overlooking the White House? That real estate and that cocktail would surely fetch a good price.

Those high rises will be essential to generating revenue — revenue Douglass Commonwealth would desperately need. There are no farms, fisheries, or factories in Washington, D.C. The capital city depends upon extraordinary subsidies from the federal government.

In 1995, the city government went bankrupt and failed to deliver essential services to residents. It only became solvent when the federal government stepped in to inject over $700 million annually into the city budget. The federal government pays for costs most states undertake, such as the D.C. Court System, the Public Defenders Service, and houses district felons in prisons around the country. There are other special payments as well. If you are a Washington high school graduate and your family income is less than $750,000 a year, taxpayers subsidize your tuition at any public university in the country. Washington also receives a super-allotment for Medicaid, well above the per capita income standard applied to the 50 states.

One would expect Douglass Commonwealth, as the 51st state, to step up and assume these costs as the other 50 states do. But no, the legislation before Congress asks taxpayers to shoulder these financial burdens indefinitely. There is no endpoint for these payments in the legislation. In fact, the bill explicitly states they are to continue until the 51st state can figure out how to take them on. People might be willing to pay to maintain a beautiful national capital, but why should they be expected to do this for the 51st state?

In a real threat to the foundational document of our democracy, the legislation before Congress repeals the 23rd Amendment by a simple majority vote in the House and Senate.

Ratified in 1961, the 23rd Amendment gives district residents the right to vote for president. The legislation recognizes it is untenable for the 23rd Amendment to continue in effect once the voting population in Washington no longer lives there, having become Douglass Commonwealth. The president and his family would be the only residents in the “Capital.” They would consequently be the only voters for the capital city’s three votes in the Electoral College.

Washington, D.C., statehood advocates realize this situation cannot exist, but instead of following the procedures laid out in the Constitution to amend it and repeal the 23rd Amendment — a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate followed by the approval of three-quarters or 38 of the 50 States — they simply want to dump the 23rd Amendment by an up or down majority vote in Congress. What a frightening precedent this would set for other constitutional amendments to be added or deleted. This is mob rule and the concentration of power in too few hands that the Founding Fathers worked so hard to avoid. This would be major damage to the Constitution.

In the past, new states have been admitted on a considered, bipartisan basis, taking into account the views of the public. The last two states admitted were Alaska and Hawaii in 1959. Both were approved by overwhelming majorities in the House and in the Senate, with both Democrats and Republicans voting “yea.” House floor managers during the 1959 vote on the 50th state noted Americans favored admitting Hawaii by a ratio of 8 to 1. The Senate voted 75 to 15 in favor, while the House voted 323 to 89 in favor. Extensive hearings and reports on statehood for Hawaii noted it would be an economically viable state that would contribute resources; admitting Hawaii would not alter the national political balance; and the process to admit Hawaii as a state was in accordance with the Constitution.

None of these criteria would be met in admitting Washington, D.C., as the 51st state. Most importantly, in poll after poll, people have said they do not want the capital to become a state. A 2019 Gallup poll found 64% of the country does not want statehood for Washington, with only 29% in favor. That shows even greater opposition than a 2006 Washington Post poll showing 58% of the country opposed statehood, while only 22% favored it.

The public deserves to be heard and involved in such a monumental decision. They deserve their capital. Ramming through a partisan vote to create a 51st state by ruining the capital and the Constitution would generate a justifiable bitterness in the nation that would not go away.

The arrogance of the few who feel they can so cavalierly take so much from the public should not go unanswered. It is time to take a hard look at the overconcentration of the federal government in Washington. Moving federal agencies and departments to areas of the country that need investment would benefit many. There would be no need to feel sorry for Washington. It has the highest per capita income in the country and the second-highest per capita concentration of millionaires due to the presence of its generous benefactor, the federal government.

It is time for Washington, D.C., to share the wealth. Maybe that will reduce the arrogance.

Alison B. Fortier was a special assistant to the president on the National Security Council Staff under President Ronald Reagan. She’s the author of A History Lover’s Guide to Washington, D.C., published by the History Press in 2014.