When a resident of Wyoming—America’s smallest state by population—feels dissatisfied with his or her political representation in the U.S. Congress, she can vote, run for national office, or plead with her representative at the grocery store (which, given that the state’s population is only slightly more than that of the Phoenix suburb of Mesa, Ariz., isn’t outside the realm of possibility).
A resident of Washington, D.C., on the other hand, can do none of these things. The people of America’s capital city and the nation’s 23rd most-populous metropolis are denied any voting representation in the Congress that presides over them. Monday’s Senate hearing on a bill regarding D.C. statehood—the first public forum to address the issue in nearly 21 years—sought to address this obvious inequality. But, as in years past, little progress was made, and the skewed representation of the opposing sides was telling. D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, District “shadow” Senator Paul Strauss, and numerous pro-statehood activists attended the hearing, yet only two senators bothered to show up, with the bill’s 19 other ostensible cosponsors opting not to join in.
As Monday’s hearing aptly illustrates, D.C. statehood is an issue that receives lip service, but no real traction, despite the fact that District residents serve in the armed forces and pay federal taxes like all other Americans. Last year’s federal government shutdown, during which Mayor Gray dipped into the District’s emergency funds in order to keep the city functional, made a strong case for ending Congressional budgetary control over D.C.’s tax dollars. Nevertheless, taxation without representation continues unabated and Congress’s ability to overturn local legislation affecting D.C. continues to hamstring District policy making.
Congress’s logic on the issue is brutally utilitarian: because D.C. has no say in the selection of Congressional representatives, Congressional representatives have no incentive to advocate for D.C. statehood. Politicking and partisanship have held the rights of 649,449 American citizens hostage. Republicans oppose D.C. statehood because the city’s largely urban population virtually guarantees it would reliably vote Democrat. Most Democrats, by contrast, do not want to appear intent on pushing an issue that matters little to their constituents back home—it is simply not worth the fight. District residents also cannot rely on the executive branch to stand up for them. When asked about D.C. statehood at a town hall event this July, President Obama stated that he is “for it.” Like Congress, however, he has thus far done nothing concrete to advance the cause.
Arguing against statehood, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) on Monday suggested that the Constitution specifically provides for a federal district outside state boundaries as the seat of the federal government. As Strauss countered, however, the Constitution also codified both female disenfranchisement and slavery for over a century. The framers could never have imagined D.C.’s future dimensions, population explosion from just 8,144 residents in 1800, and current political circumstances. Without Congressional action, their oversight will persist—to the deficit of both the District and its citizens.
