The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States."
Based on that language, the District of Columbia was created, straddling the Potomac River between Virginia and Maryland.
Washington, D.C., is an entity unlike any state, in which Congress has unique powers. Currently, Congress chooses to devolve those powers through home rule to the City Council.
When Congress gives up power over land acquired under the provision cited above, there is already a precedent for what becomes of it. In 1847, Congress gave back what is today most of Arlington County and Alexandria to the original donor state, Virginia. It had been Virginia land, and it became so again when Congress relinquished it.
The land on which the district stands now all belonged to Maryland before Congress took plenary power over it and made it the seat of the national government. Thus, if the federal government is to give up its federal district (or some part of it), it should be given to Maryland because the reason for its special status will be moot.
Note that recent statehood efforts do not preserve Washington, D.C., as the nation's capital but rather shrink the actual federal district to a tiny area that includes only government buildings such as the White House, the Capitol building, and the Supreme Court. The proposal that passed the House last year then creates a completely new state out of what would otherwise be part of Maryland.
There are several problems with this. One is constitutional. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution currently gives three electoral votes to "the District constituting the seat of [the federal] government." If Democrats pass the sort of bill many of them currently advocate, the population of that federal district would be zero. Without a constitutional amendment, there would thus be a person-less jurisdiction entitled to cast three electoral votes for president. Or even worse, the president and his family, as occupants of the White House, could claim Washington residency and decide all on their own how those three votes are cast. They would probably have to serve as electors. Who else could?
There is also a problem regarding the creation of new states. Yes, Congress can create states where it chooses, with certain limits where states are being divided or absorbed. Once residential Washington is no longer the nation's capital, there is no good reason it should be a separate state and not just part of the state that donated the land, Maryland.
Once the district's significance vanishes, granting statehood would make as much sense, and be as cynical, as Republicans making North Idaho the 52nd state. District statehood is thus an inappropriate and abusive response to the problem of giving its residents the representation they deserve.
If Congress were merely solicitous of the rights of district residents to representation in the House and Senate, not just making a cynical power grab on behalf of Democrats, it would be retroceding Washington, returning some or all of the remaining district to Maryland. Given the immense amount of cooperation between the local and state governments in the district, and Maryland's extraordinary deference to county and city governments, this could be performed seamlessly. Washington would become largest city in Maryland. We are sorry to say it, but to many locals, and for most practical purposes, it already is.
After retrocession, residents would be represented by two senators — namely, Maryland's two senators, who would obviously have to court district voters in order to win (at least in a Democratic primary). All residents would also acquire voting representation in the U.S. House, and Maryland would certainly gain one more congressional seat.
Maryland's state Legislature could choose to grant Washington, D.C., even more autonomy than it already grants its other counties and cities.
This is a fair way to give representation to Washingtonians, whereas the push to carve out a new one-party state is not.
