So the argument would basically come down to "If the founders wanted to say that the federal government couldn't forcibly expand states without the consent of the state, they would have said it here, but didn't". That's a bit tenuous, since the clause is only talking about how to admit new states.

no the logic follows the unused part of the clause, the junction of two or more states to create a new state. congress can't do that, without consent, but as DC isnt a state, they can, without consent. its a part of the clause that i dont think has ever been used, unless by combining territories with consent of both states.

as DC doesnt belong to a state, congress should be able to act alone in making it part of Maryland.

in any case, this conversation isnt fruitful, nor is there a crystal clear precedent. maryland wouldnt likely decline expanding its jurisdiction and population, AND the federal govt isnt going to turn over DC. no contesting state, no willing fed. so i'm out.

Greater DC is over 6 million people. Many people who are around that area actually live in various parts of Maryland and commute to DC to work. There is not a distinct culture or identity and if there is it's between the 6 million or so and the rest of Maryland, so you can't really compare it to states who usually have hundreds of miles between them resulting in some sort of individual identity that makes them different.

I'm not saying that's THE reason, I'm simply speculating. NYC and North Jersey have very separate identities but they are effectively the same and there's a lot of intermingling. For DC/Maryland there's also property tax, sales tax, outstanding debt, etc. that could be issues. I agree that the politically neutral thing to do would be to just give the land back to Maryland (or VA could absorb it) but it's probably EASIER to just make it a state. Ultimately, it's simply going to come down to political willpower.

DC statehood is polling quite badly among the rest of the country though. There's no chance to spin this any other way than what it really is: a power grab by the Democratic party which is intended to give them 2 safe Senate seats, and Congressional representation to the residents of DC - in this order.

It has in the past but it's also the highest it's ever been. Here are the latest ones that I could find:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/504598-poll-voters-split-on-granting-dc-statehood 48% approve, 52% disapprove
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/06/26/washington-dc-statehood-snap-poll 40% approve, 41% disapprove, 18% don't know


It also already passed the House. I have to imagine that this is going to be a political calculation by the US Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections

It really depends on how many seats they get in 2020 I think. I'd argue that this would probably be the best time to do it.

We're currently living in a D+8 or so environment coupled with hyperpartisanship. Most issues fal roughly 52-44 in favor of the Democratic position.
Those poll numbers show that DC statehood is still rather unpopular, and only propped up by hyperpartisanship and fresh outrage over ACB's appointment to the SCOTUS. Those 48-52 (-4) numbers are probably the high water mark on this issue. I expect it to poll at -10 or worse by the time it actually comes up.

You're right though that right after the election would be the best time for Dems to push it through.

Depending on how messy Trump wants to make it we could end up in a lot of reform happening very quickly.

If the Dems win a majority in both houses and Trump tries to take the presidency by forcing changes in electors at the state level regardless of election results (like he's currently looking at in PA) and other shenanigans there's gonna be a ton of political will to reform the electoral college system to prevent future shenanigans.

Can you imagine if Trump loses the popular vote by 10% or more, then goes to 3 or 4 states, gets their governors to remove and appoint Republican electors, and takes the white house again? There would be legitimate blood in the streets and he might end up the first president ever actually removed from office by Congress.

This is the kind of scenario that scares me, where Trump makes a blatant power grab that is only barely legal and riles up his supporters along the way.

Why the fuck would Republican governors play along with these shenanigans? Particularly after Trump has (in this scenario) just been proven to be a drag for his party...

The much more realistic kind of shenanigans lie in the courts, where Trump could try to let large swaths of mail ballots be thrown out. Say Trump overperforms his polls by 2%, thus wins FL, GA, NC, OH and IO. The election comes down to AZ and PA, where he trails by roughly 2-3% instead of the 4-5% that polls had predicted, with 40-60% of the entire vote coming from mail ballots which break two to one in Biden's favor. So it would only take about 20% of mail ballots being thrown out to hand the election to Trump. (And set the entire country on fire, let's be real...)


More likely is the scenario where Biden wins by 8+ nationally and by 5+ in PA, such that stealing the election via shenanigans is out of reach.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 30 2020 12:41pm