After years of effort, it appears as if those who have long strived for D.C. voting rights might finally have their wish. The U.S. Senate has scheduled a preliminary vote on Feb. 24 on a measure to give D.C. full voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is very likely that the bill will pass through Congress and be signed into law by President Obama. So, is this the end of the long debate on DC's political representation?
The answer is a big no. D.C.'s political status will continue to be in limbo. It is certainly not a state and cannot legally have representation in the U.S. Senate (or in the House for that matter). Nor is it a commonwealth like Puerto Rico, for its residents pay federal taxes. For all practical purposes, D.C. would still be a federal city, subject to the supreme legal jurisdiction of the federal government. How long would this legal ambiguity be sustainable? And if not, what are the solutions?
With all due respect to D.C. residents, I do not support D.C.'s statehood nor do I consider it politically feasible. In the early days of the Republic, there was a very real concern about disputes between the state and federal government, particularly if the federal government directly resided within the state's legal jurisdiction. For this reason, the Founding Fathers created a specific location at which the federal government could operate without state interference. D.C. was never intended to be a state but rather to be the sovereign seat of the federal government - a truly national capital city.
Of course, the Founding Fathers did not expect D.C. to later become a city with 600,000 residents. As these residents pay federal taxes, they have justification in demanding a voice in the government. For this reason, a series of political compromises are already in place, such as granting three electoral votes to D.C. in the presidential election. However, granting statehood to D.C. would not only lead to further political problems but might also be an unnecessary solution.
For one thing, any legal move to grant statehood to D.C. would likely require a constitutional amendment. Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress shall have exclusive legal authority over the district that is to become the "seat of the government." Not only is amending the Constitution a long and difficult process - it would likely run into political controversy over whether it is really in the national interest to deny the federal government a legal supremacy over the nation's own capital city, co-existing together with a state government. To ensure full enfranchisement of D.C. residents, I support not statehood, but rather retrocession of D.C. back to Maryland. While the inner part of D.C. around the National Mall can remain as the sovereign seat of the federal government, the rest of D.C.'s populated areas should be made part of Maryland.
Arlington and Alexandria, Va., were originally part of D.C., but returned to Virginia in the 19th century when those jurisdictions proved unnecessary for the operation of the federal government. With consent from Congress and the Maryland state legislature, most areas in D.C. not used as federal properties could be returned to Maryland, therefore permitting D.C. residents to vote for Maryland's congressional delegation. Not only would this measure preserve D.C.'s unique status as the federal capitol, but it would also provide means of representation for the D.C. residents.
Jong Eun Lee is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
