Every couple of years, a resoundingly bad idea re-raises its head: statehood for the District of Columbia. And it’s happening once again, as Congress is weighing a measure to grant the residents of the District a single seat in the House of Representatives.

Nifty notion — if you overlook its myriad complications.

The United States Constitution is very clear: only states can send representatives to Congress. This is spelled out in Article I, Section 2, and stated in no fewer than five different ways.

So, Constitutionally, if the District of Columbia wishes to gain representation in Congress, it needs to either join a state or become a state.

There are problems with statehood for DC. The first is that it would create a whole new layer of governance that perfectly overlaps with the existing power structure. There would, in all likelihood, be a governor and state legislature that would duplicate the jurisdiction and duties of the existing mayor and city council. Toss in the strong possibility of a bicameral legislature, and the redundancy gets even more entertaining. The internecine turf wars (and, considering the political makeup of DC, the fact that they’d most likely be Democrats fighting Democrats) would certainly provide rich fodder for commentators and satirists for years.

And hey, don’t states have counties? There’s a third whole level of governance, all fighting over the same  68.3 square miles!

Also, the District simply isn’t an economically sustainable independent entity. It’s a one-industry town, and that industry — the federal government — doesn’t pay taxes.

The ideal solution is to simply cede the District to Maryland.  It’s not unprecedented; almost a third of the original District was given back to Virginia in 1846.

The original concerns that prompted the carving out of the District as separate from the Several States were valid. With only 13 states, and the power and role of the federal government still in its nascent stages, the idea of not letting any single state possess the national capitol was a sensible precaution. But those concerns have long been laid to rest. The advantages of holding the national capital are minimal.

Maryland would be a good fit for DC. It already surrounds it on three sides, and the District bites an unnaturally geometric chunk out of its geographical contiguity.  Also, politically, Maryland is a Democratc stronghold, and DC is overwhelmingly Democratic.

The advantages to Maryland’s Democrats are clear. Not only would they get a whole new group of likely Democratic voters, they can Gerrymander the District into existing Congressional districts to fortify their hold on those House seats. They might even make a case for an additional seat, based on population.

To sweeten the deal, Congress could arrange to offer an annual subsidy to Maryland for the maintenance of Washington, to balance out how much of the new territory will be tax-exempt federal property.

It shouldn’t even take a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution doesn’t mandate the creation of the District, but grants Congress the authority to  create it. All it would take would be the consent of Congress, the president, and Maryland.

It’s the simplest option, and the most in tune with the Constitution. The nearly 600,000 residents of DC would get full representation in Congress, Maryland would add almost 10% to its population, and it would get the prestige of being the seat of the nation’s capital.

It’s a win-win solution for everyone.

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 at 7:54 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.