The Statehood Papers
Writings on DC Statehood
& self-government by Sam Smith
The Statehood Papers
Writings on DC Statehood
& self-government by Sam Smith
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DC DEMOCRACY
& DC REPRESENTATIONDAMAGE DONE TO SELF-GOVERNMENT BY LOCAL COLONIALS
1970: THE FIRST ARTICLE CALLING FOR STATEHOOD
A MEMOIR OF THE FIRST DAYS OF THE STATEHOOD PARTY
1972:EXCERPTS FROM THE 1972 STATEHOOD PARTY PLATFORM
AN INTERVIEW WITH SAM SMITH ON THE STATEHOOD MOVEMENT
1980: TEN YEARS OF THE STATEHOOD MOVEMENT
1993: WHAT IF WE GET HOME RULE?
2000: URBAN STATEHOOD: Why we need more states
2001: GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME A TAX CUT
WHEN THE NY TIMES & WASHINGTON POST SUPPORTED STATEHOOD
Washington Post editorial, Jan 13, 1993 - It is time to right a great historic wrong. Since 1800, the residents of Washington, D.C., have been the only tax paying U.S. citizens denied representation in Congress. With the election of Bill Clinton, it has become politically possible to give them the status that is their due. We believe now is the time to begin defining an then putting in place an arrangement that puts District residents on an equal footing with all Americans.
It has long been our preference to have this city remain the seat of the national government with increased municipal powers, which, taken as whole, would give residents the same democratic rights enjoyed by other citizens. The goals have included full voting representation in the House and the Senate, complete independence from Congress on budget and legislative matters, control over the local court system including the appointment of judges, an automatic and predictable federal payment formula and the ability to negotiate reciprocal income tax arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions. Achieving each, as a strategy was far more important than what the final package ended up being called. As a step toward that end, Congress passed a proposed constitutional amendment 15 years ago that would have given the city full congressional representation. Only 16 of the required 38 states ratified the proposal, mostly for partisan reasons. Republican lawmakers wanted no more democrats in Congress (and, as some suspect, many legislators wanted no more blacks there as well). The only achievable alternative, if citizens here are to enjoy the full political participation that is there due, is statehood. . .
Denying District residents the right to send people to Congress who can vote on taxes or decide questions of war and peace while at the same time expecting them to shoulder the burdens of citizenship--including the obligation to pay taxes and to fight and die for their country--is wrong. Forcing local officials to perform their duties under today's restrictive conditions is no better. . .
Congress at its whim passes laws regulating purely local matters, including the spending of local tax money. Even the city's own elected delegate to the House of Representatives can't vote on final passage of any legislation, including District-only matters. . .
Statehood opponents argue that the voteless status of the District descends directly form the intent of the Framers of the Constitution-from Washington, Madison and their peers. True, the constitution calls for a federal district (and the statehood proposal allows for one, leaving the `federal seat of government' to consist of the mall, monuments and principal U.S. government buildings). At the same time the government of the United States moved here in 1800, the largest city, New York, had a population of little more than 60,000. What would Washington and Madison say about a voteless city 10 times larger than that? We know what they said in 1776 in behalf of a colonist population only four times larger that today's Washington, D.C. They wanted to be among those who governed themselves. So do the citizens of Washington today. . .
New York Times, November 25, 1991 - The effort to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., could well become a campaign issue in 1992. A bill that would admit the District to the Union as New Columbia, the 51st state, was introduced in the Senate. And hearings on the House version of the bill saw a welcome burst of enthusiasm. Three Democratic Presidential candidates testified in favor of statehood and others sent messages of support.
That's as it should be. The District's treatment is a scandal, albeit one with a long history. The Federal Government runs the city like a plantation, denying it a voting representative in Congress, forbidding it even rudimentary self-rule and limiting severely its ability to raise revenue.
President Bush favors keeping the District on its knees. But Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, Gov. Douglas Wilder of Virginia and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa testified before Congress that the District deserved to become a full partner in the Union. The three were on the mark.
Washingtonians have long been denied rights that the rest of us take for granted. They weren't allowed to vote in Presidential elections until 1964. And it was not until the Home Rule Act of 1973 that they could elect a mayor and city council; both had previously been appointed.
The Home Rule Act left the Federal Government's dictatorial powers intact. Congress can overturn any law the District council passes. A powerful senator can throw some cash to friends by attaching amendments to the city's budget bill. And one meddlesome Congressman can by himself trigger bearings on any law by simply raising an objection to it.
The Federal Government is not above extortion. Mr. Bush recently vetoed the city budget, forcing the District to ban the use of locally raised tax revenues to furnish abortions for impoverished women. And Congress used similar blackmail to force repeal of a law that made gun dealers and manufacturers liable for injuries from assault weapons. The citizens have reinstated the measure; gun-lobbying senators may yet thwart it. The District's non-voting representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, spends much of her time fending off odious infringements like these.
Fiscal restrictions abound. The Federal Government's real estate is exempt from taxation; the city is forbidden to tax the earnings of commuters, most of whom are Federal employees. District officials say these restrictions cause the city to forgo $1.9 billion in revenues per year. Last year the Federal Government paid a paltry $430 million in return. Denied sources of revenue, the city levies some of the highest taxes in the nation.
Those who oppose statehood typically offer weak constitutional arguments against it. It seems fairly clear, however, that Republicans who oppose statehood do so because the District would send two more Democrats to the Senate.
But most Americans understand democracy well. The issue of statehood for the District raises an obvious question: How can we justify championing democracy abroad while inflicting second-class citizenship in the nation's capital? The answer is obvious, too: We can't.
GIVE ME LIBERTY
OR GIVE ME
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTONCITY DESK has attempted futilely from time to time to point out that the slogan on our city license plates is not a demand for freedom but rather one in support of a slight modification of the colonial system existing prior to the revolution. It fell far short, for example, of Patrick Henry's demand of "give me liberty or give me death" as it basically called for token representation in Parliament rather than granting the colonies control over their own affairs. It was a puny slogan devised by members of the colonial Massachusetts equivalent of our Board of Trade with little to do with the eventual demands of the colonies as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
Now we have learned that this division in the colonies - reflected locally today by the views of the DC Statehood Greens vs. DC Vote - went back even earlier. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin attempted to use a conference on relations with the Indians to foster the idea of a colonial union that would have significant control over its own business. His demand was get the colonies on a par with the rest of England, remarking that "It is supposed an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own consent given through their own representatives."
Note that he was not talking about token representation in Congress a la Eleanor Holmes Norton but real local power. The reaction of the colonial governor of Massachusetts was to make a counter offer diluting the number and power of the colonies' representatives on the proposed Grand Council. Governor Shirley then proposed a little sweetener - representation in Parliament. Franklin said the idea was a good one provided the colonies had enough representatives and that all acts of Parliament restricting trade in the colonies be repealed. Writes HW Brand in the 'First American,' "Needless to say, this proviso severely diminished the appeal to Parliament of Shirley's suggestion. What was the point of having colonies if not to be able to discriminate against them in trade, manufacture, or otherwise? Franklin knew this."
Nothing came of the Albany plan, but it is clear that Ben Franklin, had he been alive today, would have sought something better for his license plate than the a request for token representation in the national legislature without any real power. We are fortunate, however, that he was instead alive at the time of the Declaration of Independence. If Eleanor Norton, DC Vote, and Mark Plotkin had been in charge, we would still be a British colony.
