Media coverage of a disastrous scuffle between peaceful protestors and National Guardsmen operating under the command of President Trump has reinvigorated District of Columbia residents, activists, and politicians, who are demanding greater influence over their own affairs.
The controversial infringement on American citizens’ right to protest have resurrected the decades-old debate over whether Washington, D.C. should be granted statehood. Lawmakers seem poised to make D.C. statehood a reality. But why?
The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on HR 51, The Washington, D.C. Admission Act, on Friday, June 26. The House’s Democratic majority is expected to vote in favor of the measure, with more than 225 co-sponsors.
Many looked to one of the bill’s consequences - an increase in congressional representation, with two Senate seats and one House seat being introduced for D.C. - as the primary reason for Democrats to support and the Republican-controlled Senate and executive branch to oppose.
But it’s much more complex than a simple power play.
Those in favor of statehood argue that collecting taxes from D.C.’s more than 700,000 residents - without providing them representation in Congress - is unfair. The rallying cry of the American Revolution, “No taxation without representation,” is even emblazoned on every D.C. license plate.
The longstanding record of disenfranchisement against the city’s Black population adds further urgency for many - 46 percent of D.C’s residents are Black.
Giving them representation in Congress scares some: “The underlying fear—from the perspective of the white politicians and news moguls and businessmen who backed their efforts—was that a government run in part by black citizens would be a government wealthy whites could not control,” writes New Republic reporter Nick Martin.
Those opposed to D.C. statehood argue it is unconstitutional, but language within HR 51 itself seeks to overcome that hurdle, and the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal analysis argues in favor of the bill’s constitutionality.
Prominent politicians including Obama administration national security advisor Susan Rice, current D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, and long-serving congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) have all articulated the protections and opportunities that statehood provides its citizens.
Statehood could even empower the city to better control law enforcement, argues Rice. How?
“Largely because Washington lacks statehood, Mr. Trump had the authority to line city streets with … military personnel and to deploy thousands of federal forces, many unidentifiable with no discernible chain of command … to intimidate residents,” wrote Rice to the Times.
“For the purposes of thousands of federal laws, we act as a state, and we do it well, overseeing a $16 billion budget and paying more in federal taxes than we get back. In fact, we pay more than 22 states,” added Mayor Bowser via the Washington Post.
Whether the bill passes through the Senate or not, a House win would indicate a public appetite for statehood, and would be a historic shift in the debate over who controls the wellbeing of the inhabitants of “Chocolate City.”