Retrocession

Ross points me to National Review's editorial against a vote for DC's House member, that argues instead for retrocession:

Finally, there is retrocession — i.e., ceding the bulk of the district to Maryland, much as a portion of D.C. was ceded to Virginia in 1846. A federal district would survive, but as a much-reduced core that contains the Capitol, the White House, and the National Mall. In some ways, this is the most attractive option. Maryland, of course, would have to agree to the transfer.

This probably is the best choice, albeit something Maryland has traditionally not been interested in. It would, however, make a certain amount of sense for Maryland's Democratic establishment to want to embrace a measure that would entrench their power.

Comments

The other proposal I've heard is "give DC a congressman and let its residents vote in the Maryland Senate races", which would of course be the practical consequences of retrocession.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 19, 2007 3:51 PM

This probably is the best choice

Best in what sense?

The problem with that is, if Maryland says no, you still have an outrage in need of correction. The representation rights of US citizens who happen to be DC residents shouldn't hinge on the fecklessness of politicians in Annapolis any more than they should on the cynicism of Max Baucus. So what's your fallback option? You can't just wait around forever hoping that Maryland will change its mind. The injustice is present and ongoing.

Posted by Ryan | September 19, 2007 4:00 PM

Could there be further retrocession to Virginia as a fallback?

Posted by EricW | September 19, 2007 4:05 PM

Or to give that proposal a slight tweak, they could allow DC to be considered part of Maryland for federal elections, while remaining independent in matters of state and local government. (Instead of giving DC a House seat, Maryland's Congressional districts would be redrawn to include DC.)

DC would be an autonomous region of Maryland, so to speak.

Basically, Maryland would gain one seat and one electoral vote, while DC would lose its 3 electoral votes. This would basically give the Democrats a House seat and make it essentially impossible for the Republicans to ever win one of the Senate seats... but it would also take away 2 Democratic electoral votes, and DC residents would not vote in Maryland state elections.

That's a fair political compromise that achieves all the important goals.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 19, 2007 4:08 PM

I suspect somehow this would help the terrorists. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!!!!!

Posted by steve duncan | September 19, 2007 4:12 PM

"Retrocession" is just another version of "time wastin'." Let's find something else to argue about--the boundaries of what's to be "retrocessed," which federal responsibilities for properties in "retrocessed" areas will be transferred and which will be retained, what compensation will be offered, etc., etc.--anything, really, to delay that awful, awful time when a couple of hundred thousand black people who live in DC will be allowed to vote! Let's just kick that can waaaaaay down the road, shall we? After all, anything's better than allowing black people to vote, isn't it?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 19, 2007 4:18 PM

Maryland's Democratic establishment is already VERY firmly entrenched, which is actually why I think there would be resistance to this. Why would Democratic politicians from say Baltimore or PG county want all those new, (AND radical!) Democratic voters and politicians to contend with???

Posted by moreaxe | September 19, 2007 4:19 PM

Most importantly, we get to keep our flag.

The disadvantage is that, since DC wouldn't be a full-fledged part of Maryland, it would have no representation in the MD state legislature, which gives us no means of getting rid of malicious local politicians by allowing them to fail upwards.

So we don't get the full benefits of being part of Maryland and don't get the full benefits of being our own state, but something in between. However, a decent compromise, all things considered.

Posted by Tyro | September 19, 2007 4:21 PM

I said this before, but you think I'm joking. We don't want you. We don't want your stinking football team. We don't want Bush on our bike paths. We don't want Rumsfeld on the Eastern Shore. We don't want your traffic or any of it. We have plenty of stupid cops, corrupt politicians and bad schools. Really, we don't want you. And take the Redskins with you.

Posted by Peter in Prince George's | September 19, 2007 4:23 PM

To take it a step further, where would Eleanor Holmes Norton fit into the political hierarchy when Sen. Babs Mikulski decides to retire? What if (gasp!) she would decide to run for a seat that rightfully belongs to someone like Steny Hoyer or Chris Van Hollen??

THE HORROR!

Posted by moreaxe | September 19, 2007 4:23 PM

Also there's this:

"Would retrocession to Maryland be good for DC? As it is, their budget is appropriated by Congress, which tends to give DC lots of money even if it's not franchised and yanks it around with goofy conditions on funds. If they became part of Maryland, they would have to compete with Baltimore for resources."

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 19, 2007 4:25 PM

That's funny Peter, except that traffic always seems much worse to me just outside of the city in Virginia or Maryland...

And of course Rummy and Dick will be all up in the Eastern Shore, no matter what the district's status.

Posted by moreaxe | September 19, 2007 4:26 PM

Most importantly, we get to keep our flag. And we don't want your flag either. Really, the Maryland flag is so cool! Just stop asking. We have NASA, NSA, CMS, Social Security, and a bunch of really secret shit we can't tell you about. You think we want your flag? Please. This is a virtual community, you get virtual representation.

Posted by Peter in Prince George's | September 19, 2007 4:29 PM

I said this before, but you think I'm joking. We don't want you. We don't want your stinking football team. We don't want Bush on our bike paths. We don't want Rumsfeld on the Eastern Shore. We don't want your traffic or any of it. We have plenty of stupid cops, corrupt politicians and bad schools. Really, we don't want you. And take the Redskins with you.

Please. Before D.C. started spilling into Maryland, the Old Line State was just another southern backwater in which Spiro T. Agnew was considered leadership material.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 4:32 PM

Since we are talking about this again here is my modest proposal. Make DC whole again. Give us back the full diamond and right the wrongs of the 1840s. With Arlington and Alexandria back in the District everybody is a winner. DC is admitted as the 51st state, we get some good schools and some new ethnic eateries and Matt can drop his sales tax dollars instate when he goes to Pentagon City. The good people of Nova are freed from the yoke of Richmond and the Republicans get those Virginia Senate seats. The Senate gets more fun. Webb might not make it and perhaps Macaca comes back (but with our former Virgina voters whitey's fear of Senator Barry is probably unfounded). If you don't like it you can just move a couple of miles.

Posted by Felipe | September 19, 2007 4:33 PM

I believe moreaxe is pretty much correct. Incorporating DC into Maryland would upset both the Baltimore and state political establishments. It would take years to sort out new relationships and for city, county and state groups to relearn working together. It's as easy to propose as incorporating Philly into NJ and about as feasible. It has a beautiful, abstract "right" tone, that ignores the reality of what follows and how this is done (and geeze, this reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it). That's why NR proposes it.

Posted by Pierre de Fermat | September 19, 2007 4:36 PM

Well while we're throwing out ideas that will never happen, why not take Arlington County back (it retrocessed to Virginia in the 1840's) into the district?

That way the District's land area won't be a mere 6% of Rhode Island's land area, it will be a solid 8% (DC, 68.3 sq. miles, Arlington, 26, RI, 1214). Next question, big would it have to be to qualify as its own planet?

Posted by beowulf | September 19, 2007 4:38 PM

600,000 people with no Senators or House members.

Both situations need to be rectified.

D.C. is treated as a state for many purposes, and voting should be no different, as it's a core function of our Republic/democracy.

On another topic - Matt, I'm surprised - no Isaiah blogging?

Witness: Thomas loved, hated harassment plaintiff

During the questioning, Thomas also said he would find it more offensive if a white male called a black female a "bitch," than if a black male made the same comment.

Posted by SoCalJustice | September 19, 2007 4:41 PM

Now beowulf it ain't how big your land area is its how you move that shit. And we most certainly move that shit better than Rhode Island, Wyoming, and both damn Dakotas at least.

Posted by Felipe | September 19, 2007 4:45 PM

The remnant portion of D.C. would still have three electoral votes by the 23rd amendment. Perhaps Congress could order that those votes go to whoever won the popular vote.

Posted by Zippy Zaius | September 19, 2007 4:51 PM

Somehow I don't think repealing the 23rd Amendment will be a big deal once statehood or retrocession is achieved.

Posted by KCinDC | September 19, 2007 5:05 PM

1. Peter, the Redskins not only play in Maryland; they play in PG County. I guess you may be British and be referring to the DC United "football" team that plays in RFK.
2. I realize that retrocession is more politically palatable for a number of reasons than DC statehood and more constitutional than the latest move in Congress (with the strange UT compromise thrown in), but I don't think enough people who feel the need to comment on this issue realize that the Constitution does not specify that there needs to be a federal district.
"To exercise exclusive legislation...over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as MAY, by the Cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress... become the seat of the Government of the several states."
By the way DC is way more than 10 miles square, but who can be bothered about the plain meaning of Constitutional text on the structure of government when the unconstitutional outrage of Food! Stamps! is being inflicted! on the American! people!!

Posted by Moral Panicker | September 19, 2007 5:21 PM

Maybe the residents of the White House would get the 3 electoral votes...

Posted by The Animal | September 19, 2007 5:22 PM

I said this before, but you think I'm joking. We don't want you. We don't want your stinking football team. We don't want Bush on our bike paths. We don't want Rumsfeld on the Eastern Shore. We don't want your traffic or any of it. We have plenty of stupid cops, corrupt politicians and bad schools. Really, we don't want you. And take the Redskins with you.

Um, Peter in PG County, you do realize the Redskins already are in PG County? That Rumsfeld already hangs out on the Eastern Shore and how is DC supposed to do anything about that? His offices were in Virginia. And when I used to walk down 16th street NW to work, three-quarters of the cars sitting in traffic were from Maryland. So how about if you A. stop driving into DC or B. pay a commuter tax for all the wear and tear on our roads, sewers and water systems for the 9-5 you're in our city.

Posted by lou | September 19, 2007 5:24 PM

Moral Panicker, are you perhaps confusing "ten miles square" with "ten square miles"? The original District was in fact ten miles square (100 square miles), and now it's down to about 69 square miles after the retrocession of land to Virginia.

Posted by KCinDC | September 19, 2007 5:26 PM

One of the major points for retrocession is that it would politically connect it to the suburbs that a lot of people who work in DC commute in from. DC doesn't have much of a tax base on its own and that issue (as well as Senate representation) won't go away. MD isn't going to be receptive, but tie the retrocession to federal funds going to the state and they'll crack.

Posted by MattXIV | September 19, 2007 5:42 PM

ten miles square and a mall jack gimme the rest of southwest back . . .

Posted by Felipe | September 19, 2007 5:44 PM

LaFollette Progressive and Filipe both make great compromise proposals. I don't think the de-retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District is likely to fly, though, at the very least because the rest of Virginia depends on the tax base of the area, and they've got the old "historic ties" argument.

I'm glad Matt is making noise on this subject. Someone needs to get on the Democratic candidates for president. The only way something like this will ever happen is if a whole lot of noise is being made.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 19, 2007 6:14 PM

Messers. Moral Paniker and Lou: I know where the Skins play. I just want you to take them back. Please. I'll tell you what. We'll trade 'em even up for the Bullets. OK? And buy your own Senators too.

Posted by Peter in Prince George's | September 19, 2007 6:30 PM

Not fine with Maryland. They don't want it back.

Would you want a city with a declining full-time resident population, full of parasites and violent felons that made it the murder capital of the USA? With such a poor tax base that it gets 6.48 dollars in federal aid for every tax dollar paid out? Plus the new gentrification of a tempraray class of Imperial City workers or courtiers to Imperial workers - who cycle in long enough to get their "gov't creds" after college then it is outbound to the next career step in the States?

Maryland doesn't.
Neither does Virginia, for that matter.

Nor does America want Haiti to be the 51st State.

In 1978, Carter and the McGovernite Congress tried foisting 2 Senators and a House NOrton on the country. It failed ratification, then was dropped in 1985.
In 1992, the arrogant Dem Congress, aided by Clintonistas, proposed giving all "territorial representatives" plus Norton in the House - the vote. And talked of future inclusion of Indian tribes and expats that were victims of taxation without representation. That was denounced vehemently, even by Democrats in places like Delaware and Hawaii. Small states, even Blue ones, are not keen to dilute their representation by establishing a precedent with DC that Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Marshall Island Trust can all take advantage of. Or carving out other shithole cities from existing States and defying State legislatures House Districting apportionments.

And if it ever passed the House, and the Constitutionality is in doubt despite one camp of scholars saying Congress can add a thousand new seats in defiance of the States if it wishes, legally, that Bill would have to get through the Senate where a lot of little States would be a whole lot of pissed. So it is moot.

And we all know, that as soon as such a measure was passed, that Eleanor Holmes Norton would be standing up in her "strong, black, dignified voice" and demanding Senate seats because without a Senate Seat for Jesse and a Seat for Marion Barry - taxation without representation would be perpetuated.

The realistic option I see is to leave if you are so concerned with taxation without representation. But the truth is that any parasite or thug in DC would be foolish to do so because no other place gets as good a return on their tax dollars - 6.48 bucks for every 1 buck DC gives to the Feds. It's schools, city services, police, and various "make work" projects heavily subsidized by Federal income taxpayers - or outright granted.

And if the slogan No taxation without representation - which is not in the Constitution - is to become a "moral guidepost, an imperative" as Holmes-Norton suggests.... What of present voters that are not taxpayers, but welfare parasites - welfare mammies and agribiz subsidy farmers alike - that get far more in personal cash benefits than they pay in taxes? They vote like the English oppressors did - for other people to give their tax dollars to those that got the lion's share of the benefits from the colonists. There voting to get the taxpayers (colonists) goodies ensure that it is in their interest to screw the taxpayer (colonist).

What if DC Statehood was combined with an Amendment to disenfranchise those who paid no Federal taxes in the year previous to voting or who got more on the dole than they paid in taxes?
That would pass the States in a heartbeat. DC gets Barry in the Senate well, the States get rid of society's parasites having the vote..

Posted by Chris Ford | September 19, 2007 6:30 PM

LaFollette Progressive, state legislatures get to allocate their electoral votes any way they wish. In fact I believe Maryland's Senate already signed onto the "National Popular Vote" electoral college fix. So unless I get a vote in Annapolis, I'm not giving up my electoral votes.

Posted by mark | September 19, 2007 6:37 PM

LaFollette Progressive, state legislatures get to allocate their electoral votes any way they wish. In fact I believe Maryland's Senate already signed onto the "National Popular Vote" electoral college fix. So unless I get a vote in Annapolis, I'm not giving up my electoral votes.

Posted by mark | September 19, 2007 6:37 PM

Does poor little Chris need a little attention?

Posted by Matthew | September 19, 2007 6:53 PM

"What if DC Statehood was combined with an Amendment to disenfranchise those who paid no Federal taxes in the year previous to voting or who got more on the dole than they paid in taxes?
That would pass the States in a heartbeat. "

Chris, I doubt all of the Southern and other Red states, which OVERWHELMINGLY take more from the federal government than they pay in taxes, would be receptive to your proposal....

I bet those Southerners also really like that you call them "society's parasites."

Posted by moreaxe | September 19, 2007 7:14 PM

If DC's population (about .58 mil) were incorporated into Maryland, the resulting entity would have a population of about 6.2 mil - about the same as Washington State. Washington and Maryland _already_ have the same number of representatives, so there would be no change in total numbers. Maryland would be radically re-districted, of course.

Posted by John Casey | September 19, 2007 7:16 PM

The reason I don't like the idea of D.C. as a state is because it would be geographically doomed to remain a tiny state (and therefore disproportionately represented in the Senate) forever. Yes, it's unlikely that one-representative states Wyoming or Montana or the Dakotas will fill up with people anytime in the next century or in the next several centuries for that matter, but theoretically they always could, as Arizona has done(from one representative as late as the 1940s to eight today) has done and as Nevada has begun to do(from one representative as late as the 1970s to three today). D.C., however, is under permanent geographical constriction. Even Rhode Island (my de facto current home as a Brown grad student although not my legal residence) and Delaware are large compared to D.C.

D.C. does, however, have its own cultural and institutional history separate from Maryland. That is why I like LaFollette Progressive's idea. It is a bit constitutionally tricky, however. Article V of the Constitution provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" by constitutional amendment. If Maryland consented to the plan today, would that consent be permanent, or could Maryland renege on it at any time? And anyway, I doubt Maryland would consent to retrocession of any kind.

As an alternative, Philippe's idea is also good, and while they're at it maybe they could separate Georgetown from Washington again. (I mean that part only half-seriously, since removing a wealthy area from the Washington city tax base would undoubtedly have a bad effect on city finances). The D.C. of the early nineteenth century was a place of three municipalities (Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria), and today we have a fourth in that same area, namely Arlington. A four-city state of 100 square miles would be a lot more logically aesthetically pleasing than the synonymous city and state of 69 square miles that would occur if the current D.C. were granted statehood. (Would the governor and mayor be one and the same?) Virginia would never give up Alexandria and Arlington, however, so this is a pipe dream.

The best viable alternative, therefore, is probably the current proposal to give D.C. House representation, and keep its three electoral votes, but not to create another mini-state by giving it Senate representation. This may not be fully fair, but it does give D.C. some representation in Congress, which is better than none. I believe, however, that this must be done as a constiutional amendment rather than a mere bill.

Posted by James Kabala | September 19, 2007 7:27 PM

"Chris, I doubt all of the Southern and other Red states, which OVERWHELMINGLY take more from the federal government than they pay in taxes, would be receptive to your proposal...."

If his proposal were applied on an individual basis, a much greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats would retain the right to vote. I've posted the numbers here before, but if you doubt this, look up the effective tax rates by income quintile (available from the IRS) and compare them with the Pew Center data on party affiliation by income group. The red state-blue state divide you cling to ignores two big facts:

1) There are plenty of high income Republicans in the blue states like California and New York.

2) There are plenty of poor Democrats in red states like Mississippi and other southern states, where the poor black populations overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

Posted by Fred | September 19, 2007 7:33 PM

Here's a way to get the old line Baltimore power brokers on board with retrocession -- convince them that they can build an "urban alliance" to hold off the thing that scares them most, which is the growing population dominance and political power of Montgomery County.

Posted by MoCo Dave | September 19, 2007 7:34 PM

There should have been an "and" between "logically" and "aesthetically."

Posted by James Kabala | September 19, 2007 7:35 PM

In my post, I mean.

Posted by James Kabala | September 19, 2007 7:37 PM

Why preserve a federal district at all? Why not cede the whole thing to Maryland? The added prestige of being the state that contains the seat of the U.S. government might help convince Maryland to go along with it.

If the UN can be in New York and the Pentagon can be in Virginia, why can't the Congress and the White House be in Maryland?

Posted by cs | September 19, 2007 7:59 PM

As a Marylander, I will accept the return of DC, but you have to also give us back Delaware as part of the deal.

Posted by Spike | September 19, 2007 9:04 PM

Fuck retrocession. Statehood for DC outside the Federal Triangle. Let's offset Wyoming with two black senators that scare the shit out of the GOP.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 19, 2007 11:12 PM

Or to give that proposal a slight tweak, they could allow DC to be considered part of Maryland for federal elections, while remaining independent in matters of state and local government.

DC is not "independent" in matters of local government. As long as DC remains the Federal district, it is absolutely under the authority of the US Congress. It's in the Constitution.

With such a poor tax base that it gets 6.48 dollars in federal aid for every tax dollar paid out?

This is profoundly misleading, and probably dishonest. DC doesn't get $6.48 in "federal aid" for every $1 paid in federal taxes. The $6.48 is total federal spending, not federal "aid". That includes all the spending associated with the presence of the federal government, including the salaries of federal employees who live in the District. Also, since the city's own budget has to be enacted by Congress as a federal appropriation, even though the revenue used is from local rather than federal taxation, that $6.48 includes the entire city budget.

Posted by Herschel | September 20, 2007 11:49 AM

"DC is not "independent" in matters of local government. As long as DC remains the Federal district, it is absolutely under the authority of the US Congress. It's in the Constitution."

I understand that, Herschel. But DC has had limited self-rule for decades, and I would happily support an expansion of local self-rule... completely independent from the question of federal representation.

Ultimately, ALL of these problems stem from the poorly thought-out concept of a federal district, which was written into the Constitution and for various short-sighted political reasons has never been corrected. It's not going to be an easy fix. Like everyone else, I'm just throwing a few ideas out there.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 20, 2007 12:10 PM

Instead of separating DC from the Capitol, I'd rather begin the process of removing the Capitol from DC. There's a whole swathe of flyover country that needs some sort of rationale--economic, cultural, something--and hosting the seat of government might do the trick. Then turn the Mall and other limestone into a national historic park within Maryland and be done with it.

Posted by jlw | September 20, 2007 1:37 PM

"Would you want a city with a declining full-time resident population, full of parasites and violent felons that made it the murder capital of the USA?"

You mean Baltimore?

Posted by oxstu | September 20, 2007 2:56 PM

Oh yeah, we'll gladly have the 'Skins and all their taxable revenue back as long as we never again have to listen to another deluded Angelos' tirade.

Posted by oxstu | September 20, 2007 3:05 PM