Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Statehood for D.C.: Are we truly a democratic republic?

Opinion

Statehood for D.C.: Are we truly a democratic republic?

"Do we as a nation want to continue the disenfranchisement of the approximately 702,000 Americans who currently reside in Washington, D.C.," asks Gerald E. Connolly.

Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Connolly is a Democrat in his sixth term representing some of the Virginia suburbs of Washington in the House of Representatives.

For the first time in more than two decades, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing last month to examine the potential admission of Washington, D.C., as our 51st state. But at its core, I believe that hearing examined whether we are truly a democratic republic.

Do we as a nation want to continue the disenfranchisement of the approximately 702,000 Americans who currently reside in Washington, D.C.? Are we okay with denying our neighbors the same rights as other U.S. citizens because they live on land suitable to a dinner table compromise between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton regarding the location of our nation's capital? Our Founding Fathers denied many Americans the right to vote, but through centuries of effort this nation has worked to reverse its narrow view of the franchise — except in the nation's capital. I, for one, believe it is past time for us to act on this moral imperative. Others, unfortunately, do not.


One of my great heroes in American history is Abraham Lincoln. But as a student of history, I fear that the party of Lincoln — the one that won the Civil War and led us in adding the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution — is increasingly sounding like the party of Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis.

When some in Congress claim that their opposition to D.C. statehood is not about race and partisanship, you can be sure it is about race and partisanship. Just look at the track record when they take over governorships and state legislatures — especially when it comes to voter suppression, voter ID laws and early voting. The disregard for the District of Columbia and its residents is simply an extension of a nationwide crusade against the voting rights of minority communities.

Contrary to the false arguments by some, the District could certainly support itself as a state. For example, D.C.'s fiscal 2020 budget is $15.5 billion. By comparison, 14 state budgets were smaller than $16 billion in fiscal 2017. What's more, the District currently has more residents than two states: Vermont, with 626,000, and Wyoming, with 578,000. The Internal Revenue Service collects more in gross revenue from the District than it collects from 22 states and more per capita than from any state. Additionally, 200,000 District residents are dedicated civil servants working for the federal government and nearly 10,000 residents serve in the military.

Yet, since its creation, Washington, D.C, has lacked full authority to govern its own people and to deliberate and implement decisions on the behalf of its people. Those citizens should have a say in federal elections and control over local decisions.

The Washington, D.C. Admissions Act offers us a chance to right this egregious wrong and end the disenfranchisement of 700,000 fellow Americans. The bill would admit "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" (honoring abolitionist Frederick Douglass) as the 51st state in the nation and provide its residents with long overdue representation in the Senate and House. Under this bill, two square miles that include the Capitol, White House, National Mall and the principal monuments, and federal buildings adjacent to the Mall would remain the District of Columbia. The other 66-square-mile area currently in the District would be the 51st state. It is pure common sense.

Today's Washington is nothing like what the Founders envisioned. It has evolved from a sleepy administrative center for an emerging set of colonies to a vibrant metropolis bursting with life, culture, commerce, and innovation — everything we look to as points of pride in each of our 50 states. It is inexcusable that we would deny its residents their constitutional right to representation for a second longer.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less