DC Statehood is a big issue, fraught with complicated implications.
Yes, it is unfair for the residents of Washington D.C. to be without full representation in Congress. Period.
And yes, Congress clearly has the Constitutional authority to admit new states to the union (ironically, many of those who say Congress doesn’t have this power live in the 37 states that have been added by Congress since the nation was originally formed).
BUT, the principle of “equal footing” for all states has already created gross disparities in the voting power of American citizens living in different parts of the country. Wyoming is usually cited as the most egregious example of this disparity by contrasting it with California, but actually, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Vermont also have fewer than a million residents each.
If representation in the Senate were accorded equally, each senator would represent about 3.3 million people. But that’s not how it works. The 582,328 residents of Wyoming are represented by 2 senators. So are the 39+ million residents of California. That gives each Wyoming resident over 67 times as much representational weight in the Senate as each California resident.
Put another way, 1 in 8 Americans lives in California. But their representation in the Senate is 1 in 50, just like every other state.
So, how does this relate to the issue of DC Statehood? The estimated population of DC proper is 714,153, so admitting DC as the 51st state would be yet another example of disproportionate representation in the Senate. Because they assume senators representing DC would be Democratic (and probably fairly progressive), while senators from Wyoming have been exclusively Republican since 1976, those who favor DC Statehood believe it would more nearly balance the representation equation. Maybe it does, in partisan terms at the national level at least, but it also perpetuates the problem inherent in this aspect of “equal footing.”
Let’s go back to the 3.3 million people-per-senator equal-representation calculation. With 2 senators per state, the residents of any state with a population of fewer than 6.6 million are over-represented. How many states are in this category? 33 of them! Only 17 states have more than 6.6 million residents: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Indiana. So, the residents of these states are all under-represented in the Senate. Admitting DC as a 51st state does nothing to redress this inequality.
Finally, since the formula of 2 senators per state, regardless of population, can be changed only by a Constitutional amendment, what are the chances that at least 20 of these 33 states that benefit from the disparity in representation would vote to do away with it? I fully expect to see jet-propelled porcine first.
The equal representation of each state in the Senate was an essential compromise without which the Constitution probably wouldn’t have been ratified. But that was 1789 and involved the 13 original colonies, each of which had a long and distinct history. Plus, at the time, these 13 states were very loosely bound together in a confederacy that afforded its individual members a high degree of autonomy. The smaller states would require some kind of compensation in return for sacrificing some of their autonomy by joining a federation. Hence, equal footing in the upper house of Congress. But there is no guarantee that such a design is still the best—or is even still viable—for a modern nation with 330 million residents and 50 semi-autonomous governing entities ranging in population from well under 1 million to almost 40 million.
A disparity this great (a ratio of 68 to 1 in the case of California and Wyoming) would have been unimaginable to the Founders. According to the 1790 census, Virginia was the most populous state, with 747,610 residents (almost 1 in 5 Americans lived in Virginia), and Delaware was the least populous, with 59,094 residents. That’s certainly a significant difference (a ratio of 13 to 1), but nowhere near as extreme as those we have today. Six of our 50 states (and the District of Columbia) have fewer than 1 million residents, and the combined population of our 21 smallest states is still less than the population of California! And demographic trends suggest this disparity is only going to become more extreme.
A sober look at the numbers and the history leads me to the conclusion that the solution isn’t DC Statehood, but rather fixing the problem of greatly disproportionate representation in the Senate. When the 42 senators from the 21 least populace states represent fewer total Americans than the 2 senators from California do, we have a case of gross inequity.
I know the smallest, most conservative states will squawk about being overpowered by the giant, more liberal states (although #2 Texas and #3 Florida are not exactly known for being “liberal”), but let’s face it, the idea of a “state” is nothing but an arbitrary political construct. America’s geographic, cultural, and historical regions exhibit far more homogeneity than the states do. So the argument that the states need equal representation AS STATES is not supported by reality. States are artificial constructs that perpetuate gross representational inequality, but VOTERS are real.
If we intend to keep our bicameral system and the division of
responsibilities outlined in the Constitution, we must find a way to provide
more equal representation for voters in the Senate.
Finally, while I DON'T believe Jesus gives a rat's ass specifically about our system of government, I DO believe he is highly invested in equity . . . or to use the more familiar biblical term, justice.
