>

There is a much higher bar for repealing a constitutional amendment than for admitting a state. After DC is admitted as a state, there would likely be bipartisan support for repealing the 23rd amendment.
Carper has led previous efforts to get the bill through in the Senate in partnership with the District of Columbia’s non-voting delegate to the U.S. House, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), whose name on Twitter is Eleanor “#DCStatehood” Holmes Norton.  

While republicans in the House will never allow this to pass for fear of DC electing Democrats, DC deserves statehood and has for a while. The people there are effectively unrepresented, and DC has a bigger population than Wyoming, which has two Senators! >

You know, I always thought making a city into a state was a dumb idea, but then I learned how populous it is and how empty some states actually are. There really isn’t a good reason not to. >

The whole point of DC was to have the capital not be part of any state.
And we don't have the concept of city-states.  Because what's to stop NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc from wanting the same sized influence. They could each each have 2 Senators and at least 1 rep.
What should happen is DC be cut down to the actual  government section and then the rest ofnthe city be given back to the states that donated the land originally. The population should effectively be zero.
But yes, they should have full representation in sole way. >

People in dc don’t want that. That’s why. >

Maryland and VA also don't want it. >

Virginia is irrelevant, since it already reclaimed its portion of DC 150 years ago. >

Something to remember:  the state of Dakota was supposed to be admitted but the Republicans wanted to make an advantage for themselves by splitting it into North and South, thereby doubling the number of senators in 1889. >

Time to split up California into a dozen states >

There’s something about “Delaware Democrat” instead of using the Senator’s name that I’m finding incredibly annoying. >

People read a headline for a fraction of a second and the idea behind a headline is to give people a preview of the story in the most concise way possible so it'll register in their head in that short period of time. People in general don't know who Tom Carper is and the name is extraneous anyway, but "Delaware Democrat" tells people what the story is about concisely.  I would even get rid of "Delaware", although I guess the geographical proximity to DC is insightful >

“Sen. Tom Carper(D)” would have been the traditional solution this issue but it’s not sensationalist enough sounding I suppose… 
And that’s what annoys me, “Delaware Democrat” is just a another example of the decline of journalism in general. >

No that's not the traditional solution.  For a headline, it's redundant, so it doesn't read cleanly.  People scroll on by before they even finish reading the headline.
The traditional solution would just be "Democrat".  But, The Hill is more specialized, so it can get away with "Delaware Democrat".  "Senator Tom Carper" would be the format for the first line of the article. And "Sen. Tom Carper (D)" is actually lower third format. >

If only it would pass >

To bad the democrats didn’t push this through while they had both the house and senate.   The intentionally waited to do it when it had no hope of passing.  It’s performative politics.  Democrats love to say they tried, but don’t actually want to change the system that benefits them and the elite that back them. >

It’s really incredible that DC continues to be denied statehood. It’s large and represents more people than many other states! These are people who are entirely unrepresented! How can that be tolerated? It’s not a Dem vs GOP issue. It’s a basic tenet of a democracy. Dems need to really push this and create some energy around it. It’s crazy that DC statehood hasn’t happened yet >

DC is predominantly Blue. GOP would never allow this because that means 2 more blue Senate Seats, plus Congress. >

GOP hates when American citizens vote....because they overwhelmingly vote blue. >

Of course, there’s no ulterior motives why the dems want D.C. statehood. It’s about democracy! Not a convenient gain in power, right! >

it isn’t like republicans can’t run and win office. they just need to appeal to a majority of voters. that is how democracies and republics work. >

We both know how D.C. would vote that’s why you want it to be a state >

why is the votes of 500,000 people in Wyoming more important than the votes of 700,000 people in DC? when they are all equally important. 
seems to me that you’re prioritizing disenfranchisement of voters whilst maintaining taxation without representation. 
2/5 of the country dictating to the other 3/5 of the country isn’t what our country was built on. >

For the same reason we have the electoral college and not a popular vote for president. >

yes and including DC and PR would be in accordance to that. there is nothing undemocratic about it. >

Actually no, considering that you don’t actually care about either of those populations and only want them because you think they’ll vote blue. >

Was this bill ever introduced when dems controlled both house and senate? >

Yes. There were never 50 senators willing to abolish the filibuster. >

It would require 60 votes.  Only budgetary issues require 50 >

Changing senate rules requires only a simple majority as far as I know. Changing the filibuster has been done before, by republicans, when they didn't have 60 votes. They did it to eliminate filibustering judges I believe. >


Changing the filibuster has been done before, by republicans, when they didn't have 60 votes

It has been done by both Democrats & Republicans - but only for judges. 

Changing senate rules requires only a simple majority as far as I know.

They don't want to do it.  Manchin & Sinema took the heat for it, but there are plenty of other Democrats that don't want it changed.  Due to the current demographics, the Republicans have a much easier time getting the 50+ threshold but they can't get to 60. >

Republicans will whine while, at the same time thinking Wyoming is totally deserving of two senators >

Completely forgetting, mind you, that Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Idaho were once a single territory. They should ALL be a single state repped by 2 Senators. But instead they have less people combined than California or NY and 5 times as many Senators as either one. And their House reps have more proportional power, as do their EC votes, than they should.
The only real reason against DC statehood is that it's a guaranteed 2 blue senators. Maybe they'd like it more if it was a giant patch of land with no one in it. >

Putting this up for vote anywhere in the last two years would have been a better game plan. >


Carper has led previous efforts to get the bill through in the Senate in partnership with the District of Columbia’s nonvoting delegate to the U.S. House, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), whose name on Twitter is Eleanor “#DCStatehood” Holmes Norton.  …
The bill passed the House for the first time in 2020 and again in 2021 but hasn’t made it through the Senate to get to the president’s desk.

Sounds like he did >

Wait I minute... Republicans didnt win those years. >

As long as the filibuster still exists, it never has a chance >

Either they get to vote in Federal Elections or they don’t have to pay Federal Taxes. It is one or the other. >

Why wasn't this passed during the past two years? It seems there is a lot of wasted legislative time that should be precious when Democrats have a majority in both houses. >

Most people seem to forget that you actually need 60 senators to get something passed (aside from budget reconciliation luckily), which the democrats did not have, and if you don’t include Manchin and Sinema they didn’t even have a majority. >

Yes, you're right. It's tempting to forget about the obstacles that shouldn't be there. >

How about we do Puerto Rico first. You can potentially squeeze some bipartisanship out of that one. >

We can’t “do” Puerto Rico, it’s been voted on several times and they don’t want it. >

The 2020 referendum passed though. >

I must have missed that during the the chaos. As a COVID ICU nurse I wasn’t paying attention politics at the time. >

Yeah that's fair, thanks for your lifesaving work! (even though it's probably gone unrewarded) >

A rare anonymous moment of weakness here; I wish I could say it was life saving. Between 2020 and 2021 I had seen at least 180 people die, I kept a list of names for a while. I don’t know how many lives I saved but it wasn’t anywhere close to that many.  
Being rejected by the conservative community for talking about what I went through was hard too.  
I was a ‘hero’ at the time but now it’s just business as usual.  
Thanks for your kindness. >

The fight of DC statehood is likely to go nowhere and I think a much better solution to ensuring DC residents have voting rights is to dissolve the District and add it to MD or VA. 
And then, Congress should focus on what I consider the more meaningful statehood issue - that of PR. >

Imo both PR and DC should be offered binding referendums on their status.
Dems did put forth a bill a little while ago for a binding PR referendum, but it went no where
MD and VA don't really seem interested in taking back the DC land, so statehood makes the most sense for them imo >

"MD and VA don't really seem interested in taking back the DC land,"
- I wasn't aware of that. Was it discussed by the legislatures of those states? I don't recall them considering that solution. >

It has been discussed off and on since 1803. The last time it was really discussed was 1998, but since then polling for Maryland taking back DC only has about 28% approval in Maryland. 
From DC’s prospective it would be easier to get Statehood. >

I haven't seen that polling. could you share it with me? >

Here is the article I read it in, to be fair I don’t know much about Public Policy Polling. >

thanks. I can't believe I didn't find that. >

Isn’t the very existence of DC and why it isn’t a state clearly defined in the Constitution… DC will never be a state without a constitutional amendment happening first >

Article 1 only states that the seat of government must be a district of no larger than 10 square miles. 
DC can be a state as long as they keep a smaller section within it to be the new seat of government >

You still have to amend the 23rd amendment otherwise there would be 3 electoral votes for the new state and 3 electoral votes for the leftover (current DC votes)… plus the whole other parts of the constitution that outline the capital of the country