Statehood for Washington, D.C. - H.R. 51

The House passed (232-181) H.R.51. Washington, D.C., would be admitted as the 51st state and given full representation in Congress under H.R. 51, which the House will consider June 26.

The new “State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” named after abolitionist Frederick Douglass, would be admitted under terms set by the bill. An area including the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal office buildings near the National Mall would remain a federal enclave called the “Capital.”

The House will vote on a version of H.R. 51 that reflects a separate D.C. statehood bill (H.R. 5803) approved by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, according to a committee staff member. The planned vote on the measure would be the first time Congress has voted on D.C. statehood in almost 30 years.

“The United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting rights in the national legislature and local self-government to the people of its capital,” committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said at a Feb. 11 markup.

The district pays more federal taxes per capita than any state, and has a larger population than two states, Wyoming and Vermont, Maloney said. The district elects a delegate who can vote in committee and in limited circumstances on the House floor.

Opponents argue this is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to gain two Senate seats and one House seat. That if it were truly about representation, then simply give the land back to Maryland.

In the minority views section of the Oversight and Reform Committee’s report on H.R. 5803, Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), ranking member of the Government Operations Subcommittee, raised several objections to the proposal.

“Proponents of this legislation want to ignore the elephant in the room: For the District to become the fifty-first state, Congress needs to pass — and the states need to ratify — an amendment to the Constitution,” Hice wrote.

“This bill lacks any real incentives for the new state to work toward financial self-sufficiency by allowing the District’s special federal funding arrangement to continue indefinitely,” he added.

Most provisions in the measure would be governed by a severability clause stipulating that a court decision rendering a provision invalid wouldn’t affect the bill’s other provisions.

D.C. History

The Constitution empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a district that serves as the seat of the national government. James Madison said the intent was to prevent any state from holding too much power over federal proceedings.

The capital was relocated to “Washington City” from Philadelphia in 1800. Its local government was reorganized several times over the years, including as an incorporated city and as a territory, and parts of the District ceded by Virginia were later returned. The head of the district was typically selected by the president.

Today, under the 1973 Home Rule Act, D.C. residents can elect a mayor and members of the district council. But D.C. laws are subject to congressional review and can be overturned through a resolution of disapproval.

The 23rd Amendment allows the District’s residents to have a say in choosing the president through the Electoral College, though D.C. can’t have more electors than the least populous state.

In the House, the district is represented by a delegate, currently Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). She can introduce bills, serve and vote on committees, and speak on the House floor, but she can’t vote on the final passage of legislation. House Democrats have provided limited floor voting privileges to Norton and delegates from territories in three stints: 1993–95, 2007–11, and 2019–present; those votes are typically on amendments and can’t determine the outcome. The district has no representation in the Senate.

Legislation to provide a voting member of Congress stalled due to disputes over changes to the city’s gun regulations.

In 2013, D.C. voters approved a measure that was intended to give the district more autonomy to spend funds generated by local fees and taxes. The local budget is still subject to congressional disapproval, and the overall budget includes some federal funding set by Congress in annual appropriations laws. Those spending laws also include policy riders that typically block the district’s use of local or federal funds for certain activities, such as paying for abortions or regulating legalized marijuana.

In 2016, about 80% of D.C. voters approved a resolution with a proposed constitution for a new state. But D.C. can’t achieve statehood without an act of Congress.

New State

The measure would set a process for Washington, D.C., to be declared a state and admitted to the union.

The president would have to provide a written certification to the D.C. mayor within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. Within 30 days of receiving the certification, the mayor would issue a proclamation for D.C. residents to elect two senators and one representative for the new state.

The House would increase permanently to 436 members under the bill. In 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, the size of the House was increased temporarily pending the next reapportionment.

The president would have to issue a proclamation announcing the election results within 90 days of receiving them. The new state would then be admitted.

Federal Capital

The bill would designate an area of about 2 square miles that would be called “the Capital” and serve as the seat of the federal government.

The Capital wouldn’t include the John A. Wilson Building used by the D.C. mayor and council, which would serve as the new state capitol. The federal enclave would also exclude the Old Post Office Pavilion, which is operated as the Trump International Hotel, and would fall within the proposed boundaries of the new state.

The federal government and the new state would each retain their title to property they held before the new state was admitted, for administration and maintenance purposes.

D.C. laws in effect before the admission of the new state would generally still apply within the federal Capital, and would be treated as U.S. laws.

The Capital would have its own National Guard with a commanding general. It couldn’t serve as a municipal corporation.

The U.S. Capitol Police, Park Police, and Secret Service would still enforce laws within the Capital. They couldn’t enforce state laws within the new state without specific authorization.

Residents who live within the Capital could vote by absentee ballot in the new state or another state where they lived most recently.

The new state and the federal enclave would comprise a single judicial district covered by the U.S. District Court for Washington, Douglass Commonwealth and the Capital. The District of Columbia Circuit would become the Capital Circuit, and the appeals court for that circuit would also be renamed.

The Commission on Fine Arts would limit its advice to the location of statues, fountains, and monuments within the Capital. A law barring the construction of commemorative works unless approved by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission would apply only to memorials within the federal enclave and its environs, including several areas outside of the new state that are managed by the National Park Service and the General Services Administration.

Transition Process

The measure includes several provisions that would allow D.C. offices and programs to remain in effect, or require the federal government to continue providing services, until the new state certifies it has sufficient resources or laws in effect to take them over.

The continuity provisions would apply to:

• The D.C. private school voucher program.
• A program offering grants to help residents attend public colleges in other states.
• The current Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Medicaid expenses.
• D.C. courts.
• The D.C. Public Defender Service.
• Parole cases handled by the U.S. Parole Commission.
• Pretrial services, supervision of offenders on probation or parole, and sex offender registration functions currently handled by D.C. agencies.
• Federal retirement benefits for D.C. judges.
• Services provided by U.S. marshals and assistant U.S. attorneys assigned by the Justice Department.
• Transfers of convicted felons to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The federal government also would continue providing its share of benefits for certain existing D.C. employees covered by a pension plan. The Army Corps of Engineers would retain its authority over the Washington Aqueduct.

Current members of executive, legislative, and judicial offices in D.C. would be deemed members of the equivalent respective offices in the new state, as outlined in the state constitution approved by D.C. voters. For example, the mayor would become the governor. Federal representatives serving on D.C. boards or commissions could continue serving on similar bodies in the new state.

The measure wouldn’t affect existing contracts or agreements to which D.C. is a party. All legal proceedings involving D.C. would remain in effect.

The National Capital Planning Commission would continue to operate, though its membership would be updated to include a resident of the new state.

The measure also would establish a Statehood Transition Commission to provide advice on an orderly transition process. The commission would include 18 members, including some appointed by the president, Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate, and the D.C. mayor and council.

Other Provisions

The measure also would:

• Repeal the position of the D.C. delegate in Congress.
• Set expedited procedures for the House and Senate to consider a joint resolution repealing the 23rd Amendment. The new state would be entitled to the same number of electors as it has representatives and senators.
• Maintain congressional authority over land in the new state that’s controlled or owned by the U.S. for defense purposes.
• Bar the new state from imposing taxes on property that’s owned or acquired by the federal government, except as permitted by Congress.
• Require the new state and its citizens to waive claims to property held by the federal government.
• Update residency requirements for district judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals in the new state, which would apply to individuals appointed after the state is admitted.

Budget Effects

Implementing the committee-approved version of H.R. 5803 would directly increase the deficit by $3 million from fiscal 2020 through 2030, while increasing spending subject to appropriation by $76 million, according to a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate.

Most of the costs would come from adding two senators, with the salaries considered mandatory spending, and other expenses subject to appropriation. Replacing Washington’s delegate with a representative wouldn’t add costs.

CBO said that the Statehood Transition Commission would cost $2 million, and that various changes to reflect Washington, D.C., statehood would cost about $500,000.

“The biggest area of uncertainty concerns when the new state would take financial responsibility for activities that the federal government currently funds,” CBO wrote. “The discretionary savings could total hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but when that would happen is uncertain.”

CBO said the District received $700 million in appropriations in fiscal 2020 from the federal government, which also covered about $500 million in mandatory pension costs.

Administration Position

The White House “strongly opposes” the bill and the president’s advisers would recommend that he veto it, according to a June 24 statement of administration policy.

“This bill is unconstitutional because the retrocession of portions of the District of Columbia into a separate state would violate the 23rd Amendment,” the Office of Management and Budget wrote.

“In addition, H.R. 51 would create an opportunity for a new State of Washington, D.C. to dominate the capital and render those who meet there beholden to its interests, rather than the interests of the Nation as a whole,” OMB wrote.

President Donald Trump told New York Post reporters in May that he opposes D.C. statehood because it would likely result in additional Democratic members of Congress.