Still Waiting on Statehood

Statehood.

For many American citizens who don't live in the nation's capital, the word "statehood" may bring to mind images of 19th-century America, with political battles across the plains and prairies of the nation's heartland for representation back East.

Though it may be hard to believe, the 700,000 citizens of Washington, D.C., have no say on the floor of the U.S. Congress in deciding the matters that affect them. And no matter what they or their elected officials decide about their budgetary or financial affairs, District of Columbia decisions cannot become law until they are passed on to Congress for approval.

Since 1975, the district has been governed under the "Home Rule" provisions of the D.C. charter, ending 100 years of government by a president-appointed commission. For 13 years, District citizens have been electing their own mayor and 13-person city council, according to the Home Rule Act. But Congress, while retaining its jurisdiction over federal property and other matters related to the federal government, has kept what is in effect a veto power over the District's legislation and budget.

Since the beginning of the era of Home Rule, at least two measures to increase local autonomy over district affairs have been attempted. In 1978, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was proposed that would grant the District two senators and voting representation in the House of Representatives (one or two members of Congress). That amendment was approved by Congress, but it failed to be ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and the term available for ratification expired in 1985.

Some in the District, however, characterized that approach as "full representation without full liberation." The measure did not address budgetary or fiscal autonomy; it only provided voting representation in the two houses.

The other measure that has been stymied is the Statehood Initiative. In 1980, a majority of voters in the District approved an initiative for statehood. A constitution for the state of "New Columbia" was drafted and approved by the voters in 1982 and according to federal law transmitted to Congress in 1983. But that measure has never been reported out of the House.

As might be expected, the reason for opposition to statehood for the District is no simple matter. Some opponents are concerned about what the admission of a new state to the Union would do to the arrangement of stars on the nation's flag. Others fear disrupting the nice, round number of senators - 100 - now sitting in the Senate. And for some the District is said to be "too liberal, too Democratic, and too black."

But while polls have shown widespread sympathy across the country for the political rights of the District's citizens, some of the strongest opposition comes from politicians in neighboring states, particularly in Virginia. Without full authority over its budget, the District is unable to tax the D.C. earnings of Virginia and Maryland commuters. Residents of these bordering states receive perhaps two-thirds of the income earned within the District borders.

As some statehood proponents have suggested, the state of New Columbia could implement a tax on non-residents who earn their income within city borders, a taxing authority that other jurisdictions exercise. They envision a reciprocal tax that would not tax commuters twice for the same income, rather than a so-called commuter tax. However, some in neighboring states fear such measures would reduce the amount of income available for taxing in their states. And nearby states would lose what is, in effect, a D.C. subsidy to their state treasury.

LAST FALL CONGRESS took it upon itself to order the elimination or modification of several District laws. In late September, by an amendment sponsored by Sen. William Armstrong (R-Colo.), Congress ordered the city to rewrite its Human Rights Act to allow religious educational institutions to deny benefits to gay and lesbian campus organizations or face the cutoff of operating funds on December 31, 1988.

Within weeks, Congress also ordered other changes in D.C. matters. Congress mandated that the city revise its laws to allow insurance companies to require testing for the AIDS antibody before issuing insurance policies. It forbade the District from using local or federal funds for most abortions. And Congress told the District to change current city policy to allow non-residents to be employed by the city.

As these decisions came down from Capitol Hill, the local response by the District's officials was one of outrage. Congressional Delegate Walter Fauntroy and Council of the District Chair David A. Clarke - both veterans of the civil rights movement - announced that they would urge D.C. citizens to consider defying Congress' orders, and that they thought massive civil disobedience would be an appropriate response. In October, the 13 members of the city council filed a lawsuit in opposition to the amendment, arguing that it is unconstitutional for Congress to order the members of the council to rewrite District law.

Indeed, the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of this question, because underlying each of these specific cases is an issue on which Congress appears to be trampling: the right of the citizens of this city to rule themselves. For whatever reasons - whether financial, racial, or even decorative - an egregious injustice is being maintained right in the capital of the cradle of liberty.

Josephine Butler, chair of the D.C. Statehood Commission, pointed out that the first meeting that was held to seek statehood for the District of Columbia took place in 1801, when the nation's capital first moved to the banks of the Potomac River, and when the cry "No taxation without representation!" still rang in the revolutionists' ears. "There were not enough people [in the District] then," Butler said, "but there are now."

And so we are left with the questions: Why are the people of the District of Columbia still denied their rights? And for how much longer?

Joe Lynch was assistant editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.