I would vastly prefer the tax treatment afforded those who live in Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam, etc to statehood. This is particularly true given the cast of clowns who make up DC’s political class (apologies to Tommy Wells), who would likely make an even bigger mockery of DC than they already have – I mean, Vince Gray as a governor? Fully Loaded as a, well, anything?!

I voted no because beyond the Constitutional debate of whether or not DC could become a state, I feel that our often dysfunctional and corrupt local government needs federal oversight. Not all Wards have leaders like Tommy Wells. The recent mayoral and council flaps only remind us that DC ain’t ready for prime time!

I think it’s fine that DC is not a state and has no representation. That being the case, DC should collect no taxes and DC residents should be exempt from federal taxes. If the government wants to rule every part of our lives without representation, then they can pay for it.

And to the ignoramus who can easily go to another state in 10 minutes, please do. Some of us call this city home and aren’t merely transient.

So, the definition of democracy and representative government is that it is a right allowed only to those whom someone else determines is capable of handling it? In other words, the thrust of the comments here is that the American experiment in self-government is a failure because there are some people (such as the residents of the District of Columbia) who are not capable of self-government and therefore need some outsiders to govern them instead.
Sorry — but I reject that argument completely and totally.
And if you were to base your argument on the quality of the leadership of elected officials, then the past week would have been amble evidence of the problem at the national level. Thus, I would ask everyone a simply question — do you apply the same standards to the national level (on not being ready for prime time) as you do to DC? If so, are you ready to hand the nation back to the Queen so someone can look after us poor folks who aren’t apparently ready enough to govern ourselves?

There is no support in the Constitution for DC statehood. That doesn’t mean the states couldn’t ratify a Constitutional amendment (zero chance, in practical terms, though). I would be fine with no federal taxation instead.

Military family here….

As a military member, you can’t claim the state of your choosing. That’s not to say that folks aren’t scamming the system though.

You can claim the state where you are able to establish and maintain residency. For most military members, this is the state that they lived in prior to joining the military. They had already established residency there (because they lived there) and then are able to maintain it because states allow military members to keep their driver’s license, car registration, and voting rights in that state. If you want to switch your residency to a different state, then you have to go through the same process as any other person to try to establish residency there (get an address there, get bills to that address, get a license there, etc).

Ken,

I think you misunderstand the thrust of the comments. The point of the previous commenters was that you should consider the practical as well as the principle when deciding whether you want to trade Congress for elected DC officials. Or, you shouldn’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to completely (as well as totally) stand on the principle of national representation—of course, in addition to that we receive from the President—that’s your prerogative, but you should also be aware of where the other side is coming from. I’ve yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument, much less a mildly credible one, that DC would be better off without Congressional oversight. Would each councilmember drive a custom Navigator? Would all of Marion Barry’s paramours draw a salary?

Like others, I have no problem with the lack of statehood, and would much rather tax free status.

I’m not to wrapped up in the statehood part. I would prefer some sort of solution that resulted in representation of some kind. It would be good if our representative had some sort of vote s/he could barter with like other reps do. I don’t have a problem with retrocession either.

Voting where I had residency before I lived here would be nice for me, but where would my son and other native Washingtonian’s in this solution vote? I made my choice to live here, so losing my rights is on me – but its kind of callous to put that on native Washingtonians as well, as if every preson in this city were part of the myth of a city of transients.

The Constitutional point is a good one. There are numerous scholars who have argued that the Constitution does/doesn’t support Congress just up and declaring DC to be a state. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said “no,” and Eric Holder rejected that research and went elsewhere. It all smacks of politics.

Thus, the only surefire way to avoid years (and years) of litigation is a Constitutional amendment, which just isn’t grounded in reality.

I think a single member of Congress would be acceptable, although I don’t know if that’s Constitutional either. Then again, how hard is it to picture DC residents getting a Congress member, and then protesting that they want 2 Senators too?

Just nix the taxes and watch the complaints evaporate.

@Anon3:

I know a lot of people think “No taxation without representation” is a law of some kind, but it’s not. It’s a principle. And, since it’s likely not going to get DC the “representation” part, what’s wrong with the “no taxation” part?

You think representation is unlikely. Ok. What in the world would make you think the taxation angle is more likely?

@ABC – I’m working on an argument to encounter your paternalistic, short-sighted position (an all too common position, in my opinion). The crux of the argument is this:

*Our lack of real representation in our national legislative body creates conditions that abet incompetency at the local level of government because:

a) It incentivizes the continuation of a one-party monopoly on political power in the city;

b) which in turn leaves us with a city government often reminescent of Tammany Hall;

* Lacking any real stake in national political decisions, we will always be subject to the limitations of our (broken) two-party political system, e.g. the Republican party will never give a rat’s ass about really competing in the District.

*Thus we will never be able to reproduce and sustain the Fiorella La Guardia moment needed to permanently change the underlying political structures in this city. Fenty tried. He failed.

In conclusion, pursuit of true representation and the full expression of our “self-evident” and “inalieanable” rights becomes inextricably linked to our collective desire for a less nepotistic, less corrupt and more effective city government.

Respond please.

I voted no because I was busy worrying about bike lanes, dog parks and sipping lattes to be bothered with questions about D.C.’s electoral future.

#8,

With my short-sightedness, it’s hard to wade through your big words and lofty writing style, but I beg your permission to allow me the opportunity to respond to your unsupported conclusions that are masquerading as reasoned assertions.

Simply put, I think it is naive of you to think that the lack of Congressional elections has any impact on the quality of our elected officials. You act as if, all of a sudden, 40% of the city will swing from D to R with a wave of your magic statehood wand (and that would only get us to 50/50). If anything, Congressional elections will hurt local DC government. Do you think Mary Cheh likes having to interact with dullards like Gray, Brown, and Barry? Rather than attracting a higher quality of public official, I’m going to speculate (which is what we are both doing) that congressional representation could just as likely lower the quality of representation—those who are the least bit competent will head for zee hillz as soon as possible.

While I appreciate your idealistic bent, and would like an active two party system in DC as much as the next guy, it’s simply not going to happen.

Well ABC, I really didn’t think you’d buy my argument anyway, but heck, it was worth a shot (and it allowed me to work through the idea a little–thanks and I promise to try and make it stronger).

Which words confused you, “monopoly”, the miss-spelled “inalienable”, or maybe “rat’s ass”? I’ll dumb that down for you next time.

By the way, you’re funny. Bitter, but funny. Kind of like the taste left in my mouth after swallowing a bug. Cheers.

States can make bad choices (i.e. Sarah Palin, David Duke, non-Cuomos in New York, etc.), so the whackos currently holding elective office in DC are the reason to support statehood, not oppose it. As a real state with a real governor and real legislature, the normal checks and balances of democracy would provide for better government – despite the occasional problem politician. DC’s draft constitution calls for a 40-member “House of Delegates.” It should be a 51-seat legislature (odd numbered, a reasonable size for a small state, and the same number as DC’s admission to the Union). Right now, citizens have no real options for competent government. The dysfunctional DC Council is too small and the pathetic ANC is too big. (Does anyone really give “great weight” to the decisions made by ANC commissioners)? There are many “citizens” in DC who maintain residence in other states (students, retired military, association employees on assignment, new residents) because they want representation in Congress as well as a state government. They have no interest in participating in the patronage of local ward politics. These voters would get active in DC as a state, and this would be a first step toward effective government for the District. Statehood would fix the problems – the problems are not an excuse for denying statehood. Ultimately it is about the principles of democracy and true American patriotism. “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” For the 35% not supporting statehood in this poll, SHAME ON YOU!