[jfoutz]

Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly.

Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state.

Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.

[curun1r]

There's no need to add it as a separate state, just give back the land that Virginia and Maryland originally donated to create DC in the first place. Then when the next census rolls around, residents would be considered during redistricting.

No new senators would be created, so no yielding 2% power, and Maryland and Virginia might get 1-2 more electoral votes and/or congressional representatives.

I would imagine that the main issue that would need to be resolved is jurisdictional...would laws passed in Maryland and Virginia apply to residents of DC? If so, it's conceivable that those states could influence Federal policy. What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?

[desdiv]

The jurisdictional problem isn't as big as it seems, because not 100% of the land will be returning to Maryland, only 99.99% of it. To wit, the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court building will still retain their status quo[0].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...

[saalweachter]

Not to mention that neither the Pentagon nor the CIA are in DC.

[dragonwriter]

> What would happen if one of those states made it illegal to order a drone strike without the approval from one of their courts...could the President be arrested and charged in that state for violating that law?

Probably not, because Supremacy Clause. Federal officers operate in the states fairly regularly, and this general issue (not the specific issue involving the President and drone strikes in particular) has been litigated extensively.

[einhverfr]

it's not even just the Supremacy clause. Generally speaking, the state governments cannot regulate federal agents, nor can the federal government regulate state agents except for things like the equal protection clause.

See Coleman v. Maryland, holding that since the medical leave act provisions under the Family and Medical Leave Act were passed under the commerce clause, not the EPC, then state governments were not bound to it.

[dalke]

"why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators?"

Presumably for reasons similar to ones that lead previous Congresses to add the previous 37 states to the Union, despite even higher dilution of power.

[jfoutz]

Manifest destiny? Vast natural resources? Strategic location? I don't see a compelling political reason to do it, but fortunately we're free to disagree.

[dalke]

If DC's Members of Congress are likely to vote with the Democrats (which I think they are) and Congress has just enough Democrats to allow DC to become a state, but a couple of offices are shaky and they are likely to loose power, then bringing in DC as a new state would help keep the Democrats in power.

That sounds like a decent reason. Not compelling, but decent. It only needs to be enough to counter the anti-dilution argument, after all.

Puerto Rico's statehood is more likely though. In the 2012 election both Obama and Romney indicated support for statehood should that be what the people of PR decide. That's complicated because apparently the Republican Party of PR is the statehood party, even though PR is likely to vote for the Democratic Party. (See http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news/dc-lobbyist-warning-... )

So, D's control the House and Senate, DC and PR become states, and the D's pick up about 10 seats and hold power even longer. That's more compelling than DC alone.

[rtpg]

>why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators?

I think the issue is more why would any republican senator vote for it, since DC is extremely liberal and would be confirmed Democratic bastions