Residents of Washington, D.C., deserve to live in an established state

Photo by Saachi Jain

The Capitol of the United States in Washington, D.C. is the location of most executive decisions regarding the country.

In 1790, the District of Columbia was established on the border of Maryland and Virginia as the capital of the country. The only criteria in its creation was that the district would not exceed 10 miles, all legislation for the government would be exclusively exercised within those boundaries and most significantly: Washington would be denied statehood. 

Washington, D.C., stands at the center of our nation and its history. From national monuments and archives to federal buildings such as the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court, no place is more important in the U.S than Washington, D.C.

 However, residents of Washington, D.C., experience subpar treatment — paying more taxes, not having a vote in Congress and not receiving a voice in the Senate — solely because they do not live in an official state. 

Though Washington has a population of merely 712,000, residents pay the most taxes per capita of any other territory in the country and cannot elect an official with voting privileges in Congress. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 also puts Congress in power of making executive decisions about local laws applying to the District of Columbia. Congress now overuses this authority by dictating gun laws and deciding how district funds are spent, even though this level of control should not be in their realm.

While a non-voting official does represent the District of Columbia in Congress, many residents still find their voices underrepresented on a national stage and are unable to make decisions about their own town. If a bill regarding state funding for wildfires were to be proposed by representatives from California, our legislators would get the opportunity to vote in favor of it, along with legislators from other states. However, if California were in Washington’s current status, a representative from Vermont or Florida would be deciding how our wildfire funds are spent; we would not have the opportunity to provide our own input.

The benefits for the individual Washington resident grossly outweigh the supposed costs of statehood. Washington already receives three electoral votes in elections, meaning the Electoral College would be unaffected by the change. Federal property, such as monuments in the district, would remain and function as any federal property does in the other 50 states.

Fed up with underrepresentation, the residents of Washington took matters into their own hands by voting in favor of the region becoming a state. They also created a Constitution — a representative form of government if they were to become a state. However, to be considered the 51st of the United States of America, Congress and the president must sign it into law. 

This issue has not gone without some spotlight, however. In January of 2020, the legislation to officially make Washington a state passed in the House of Representatives with an all-but-one vote, but was not brought to the Republican-majority Senate floor due to opposition from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

A plurality of Washington is Black and left-leaning, and its functioning as a state would have disrupted the partisan balance in the country at the time while reversing the Senate majority that the GOP had won by already slim margins. In 2022, there is no reason the bill could not even be brought to the attention of the Senate for a vote. 

The voices of Washington residents deserve to be heard, and those in power are not taking enough action. It is stated in the Constitution that there would be no taxation without representation, and this is anything but true for Washington residents. We owe it to Washington to provide equity for its residents.