This article is a great primer on the disenfranchisement of Washington, DC residents. However well-crafted or edited, I genuinely have issue with this one statement– the only place where the word STATEHOOD is mentioned in the entire article:
While many Congress members support a vote in the House for Washington residents, statehood is less popular because it would mean adding two senators from one city in an upper chamber that has only 100 members for the entire nation. And although the population of D.C. is greater than the state of Wyoming, the District lacks characteristics normally associated with states such as diverse geography with both urban and rural areas. Yet, these definitions of what constitutes a state are not written in the Constitution.
Statehood is the easiest answer, but the hardest solution to obtain. The League of Women Voters gave up on Statehood in the 90’s and were most recently in favor of the constitutionally dubious 1/3 representation bill. What I find sad is that the words “An Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment” are used in place of an actual bill. So instead of working for statehood- a singular goal- they are currently advocating what? A to-be-drafted bill that will probably only give partial equality? It’s rather sad. I mean, come on. The Democratic Party, DC Vote, the League of Women Voters, and the ilk are not able to change anything because they gave up on what DC residents voted for. Instead of not wavering and clearly stating one precise goal: statehood, they have sought “incremental” answers that have missed the mark. Its just so happens that most of these incremental steps are unconstitutional. Politics might be the art of compromise, but equal representation is the basis for politics. Statehood might be the most difficult solution to the DC Dilemma, but it provides the residents with full equality that no “voting rights bill” can match.