District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has gone to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) meeting here in Washington with a proposal for that organization to adopt a resolution urging the U.S. to grant voting rights to the District. Somewhat unsurprisingly, she got a committee at OSCE to approve of this idiocy and send it to the full organization.
While I am in some sympathy with the efforts of the D.C. Suffrage Movement, I think that they, like the gay-rights movement, is shooting for the moon while seemingly being unwilling to accept a less controversial alternative that achieves the real goals of the movement. Here in D.C., D.C. Vote appears to be pushing for Congress to create a State of New Columbia out of those parts of the District that do not house federal buildings and monuments. We all know that no Republican is going to effectively create two new Democrat seats in the United States Senate (the District would only be entitled to one U.S. Representative even if it were a state). Yet, if the goal is to gain voting rights, then the group should push for Congress to do for the residential portions of the District what it did for Arlington in 1846 - cede the land back to the original grantor - in this case Maryland.
This would be practical because there is precedent for retrocession (see above), and because Republicans would be more open to the idea. While some Republicans have designs on Senator Sarbanes open seat in 2006, most would consider Maryland a solidly Democrat state, and its two Senate seats as unlikely pickups for the Republican Party. Thus, adding another approximately 600,000 Democrat voters to that state would do little to radically tip the electoral balance. It would also give current District residents the representation that is the alleged goal (as a side note - Republicans might want to sign on to this as it would reduce the electoral votes to Democrats. The District's 3 electoral votes would likely be rescinded. In exchange, Maryland would not gain 3 new electoral votes, even after reapportionment in 2010-11, meaning a net loss for Democrat candidates).
The retrocession idea also raises none of the "city" concerns - that Washington, being only a city, should not be given statehood - especially when cities many times the size (both in area and population) are not given the same treatment. Those objectors do have a point - the District is only 61 sq. miles in area. By contrast, the smallest state - Rhode Island, is just over 1,000 sq. miles in area. The District would also be the 50th state in population (only Wyoming would have fewer people). The District is only the 25th largest city in the country. It is hard to make a case for something of that size to become a state, especially since it has never been a separate state.
Maybe it's time to be realistic with the demands made to move ahead in getting the resident's of the nation's capital some say in who sits in the national legislature.**
**I note that personally, given the tiny size of the District, those who want to vote for members of Congress and the Senate should simply move the few miles across the line into Maryland or Virginia. I moved to the District from New York, fully aware that I would cease to have a vote for U.S. Senators or voting members of the House. Had I wanted such a vote, I could just have easily located myself in Virginia or Maryland. I can't help but think that this option is available to many of the District's residents. Though I would not claim that this alone is a reason to deny representation to District residents.
