WASHINGTON — It could have been a big moment: a congressional hearing room packed in such numbers that an overflow room was needed to accommodate the audience; a moment two decades in the making; an issue that had the support of President Obama.
But when only two senators showed up last month for the first congressional hearing since 1994 on the idea of making the District of Columbia its own state, it brought home that the event was more about what was not happening than what was. With Republicans on the verge of deepening their hold on the House — and perhaps taking over the Senate as well — advocates for D.C. statehood showed up in force despite the certainty that the hopes for statehood that had flourished with Mr. Obama’s election had hit a brick wall. The two senators who bothered to appear were Senator Tom Carper, the Democrat who sponsored the bill, and Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican, who showed up only to denounce it.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting delegate to the House, said the hearing and what led up to it was an important part of a long struggle. “It single-handedly reinvigorated the statehood movement,” she said.
But most others saw an idea whose time has never quite come.
“I believe in the power of ideas,” said Garry Young, the director of the George Washington Institute of Public Policy and an expert on the statehood issue. “But ideas have their moment, and it’s already been decades for the district. I don’t see an end in sight.” Many like Mr. Young believe D.C.’s best hope may be more modest legislation aimed at pushing Congress out of its affairs.
For the better part of five decades, a sizable contingent of residents has pressed to make the District of Columbia a state, or to at least have a voice in Congress louder than its current municipal murmur.
The movement began in 1961, when the 23rd Amendment was passed, giving D.C. residents three electoral votes and the right to vote for president.
President Lyndon B. Johnson gave his nod to the statehood idea, but Congress — led by white Southern Democrats who wanted no part of black representation increasing in their chambers — resisted it, and Johnson, consumed with other domestic concerns, did not dig in on the matter. The district did eventually win home rule — allowing nominal control over local affairs — and in 1971 obtained the right to elect a nonvoting delegate to the House.
But statehood proponents have continued since then to lobby Congress, petition courts and hold rallies to advance their cause. In 2000, in a show of citywide pique, the district adopted a license plate that, instead of celebrating a bird or body of water, was stamped with the protestation “Taxation Without Representation.”
A potential partial victory brought only heartache in 2010, when Congress was controlled by Democrats and there was a brief deal with Republicans to give D.C.’s delegate — who is not permitted to vote on the House floor — actual representative status in exchange for an additional House seat for Utah. That deal fell apart when Republican senators attempted to repeal some of the district’s gun laws as part of the legislation. While the dynamics in the White House are similar to those 50 years ago — a supportive president with little interest in using political capital on the matter — racial politics have shifted to partisan ones, as Republicans seek to block representation for an overwhelmingly Democratic city.
For residents here, this is not simply a matter of pride. Congress has the power to pull on the district’s purse strings, tinker with local laws and use the city as a petri dish for its own policy notions, such as charter schools, using policy riders on legislative bills.
Congress once forbade a needle-exchange program here and moved to stop the district from using its own money to help fund abortions for poor women in the city. This summer, House Republicans voted to block funding for a new D.C. law that would have reduced penalties for some marijuana possession.
Eric H. Holder Jr., the departing attorney general, singled out the statehood issue in one of his final speeches. “It is long past time for every citizen to be afforded his or her full responsibilities and full rights,” he said.
Dreams are sometimes deferred, other times modified. Bills in both chambers would give D.C. autonomy over its own budget — something Congress now controls — and there is a modest movement afoot to send D.C. back to Maryland — known as retrocession — which would leave just the federal area of D.C. its own place. Maryland would get more representation, more revenue and would likely be able to charge Virginia commuters a tax.
“We see nothing but positives for D.C. to rejoin Maryland as a unique, home-rule city like Baltimore,” said John Forster, a spokesman for the Committee for the Capital City. “We believe strongly that a new state from D.C. will not happen.”
Less than thrilled are the people of Maryland. “I do not support retrocession,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the minority whip, in an email. He added: “I will continue to work to give D.C. residents the full voice in government they deserve.”
This is something less than a burning issue for the American people, whose view of Washington is dim to begin with. “My suspicion is that most Americans don’t understand this issue,” Mr. Young said. “When you talk to tourists here in town, they are shocked when you tell them the district has no voting in Congress. But in two seconds Marion Barry gets brought up,” he said, referring to the infamous former mayor. “By that logic, why is Chicago part of the United States?”
But when only two senators showed up last month for the first congressional hearing since 1994 on the idea of making the District of Columbia its own state, it brought home that the event was more about what was not happening than what was. With Republicans on the verge of deepening their hold on the House — and perhaps taking over the Senate as well — advocates for D.C. statehood showed up in force despite the certainty that the hopes for statehood that had flourished with Mr. Obama’s election had hit a brick wall. The two senators who bothered to appear were Senator Tom Carper, the Democrat who sponsored the bill, and Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican, who showed up only to denounce it.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting delegate to the House, said the hearing and what led up to it was an important part of a long struggle. “It single-handedly reinvigorated the statehood movement,” she said.
But most others saw an idea whose time has never quite come.
“I believe in the power of ideas,” said Garry Young, the director of the George Washington Institute of Public Policy and an expert on the statehood issue. “But ideas have their moment, and it’s already been decades for the district. I don’t see an end in sight.” Many like Mr. Young believe D.C.’s best hope may be more modest legislation aimed at pushing Congress out of its affairs.
For the better part of five decades, a sizable contingent of residents has pressed to make the District of Columbia a state, or to at least have a voice in Congress louder than its current municipal murmur.
The movement began in 1961, when the 23rd Amendment was passed, giving D.C. residents three electoral votes and the right to vote for president.
President Lyndon B. Johnson gave his nod to the statehood idea, but Congress — led by white Southern Democrats who wanted no part of black representation increasing in their chambers — resisted it, and Johnson, consumed with other domestic concerns, did not dig in on the matter. The district did eventually win home rule — allowing nominal control over local affairs — and in 1971 obtained the right to elect a nonvoting delegate to the House.
But statehood proponents have continued since then to lobby Congress, petition courts and hold rallies to advance their cause. In 2000, in a show of citywide pique, the district adopted a license plate that, instead of celebrating a bird or body of water, was stamped with the protestation “Taxation Without Representation.”
A potential partial victory brought only heartache in 2010, when Congress was controlled by Democrats and there was a brief deal with Republicans to give D.C.’s delegate — who is not permitted to vote on the House floor — actual representative status in exchange for an additional House seat for Utah. That deal fell apart when Republican senators attempted to repeal some of the district’s gun laws as part of the legislation. While the dynamics in the White House are similar to those 50 years ago — a supportive president with little interest in using political capital on the matter — racial politics have shifted to partisan ones, as Republicans seek to block representation for an overwhelmingly Democratic city.
For residents here, this is not simply a matter of pride. Congress has the power to pull on the district’s purse strings, tinker with local laws and use the city as a petri dish for its own policy notions, such as charter schools, using policy riders on legislative bills.
Congress once forbade a needle-exchange program here and moved to stop the district from using its own money to help fund abortions for poor women in the city. This summer, House Republicans voted to block funding for a new D.C. law that would have reduced penalties for some marijuana possession.
Eric H. Holder Jr., the departing attorney general, singled out the statehood issue in one of his final speeches. “It is long past time for every citizen to be afforded his or her full responsibilities and full rights,” he said.
Dreams are sometimes deferred, other times modified. Bills in both chambers would give D.C. autonomy over its own budget — something Congress now controls — and there is a modest movement afoot to send D.C. back to Maryland — known as retrocession — which would leave just the federal area of D.C. its own place. Maryland would get more representation, more revenue and would likely be able to charge Virginia commuters a tax.
“We see nothing but positives for D.C. to rejoin Maryland as a unique, home-rule city like Baltimore,” said John Forster, a spokesman for the Committee for the Capital City. “We believe strongly that a new state from D.C. will not happen.”
Less than thrilled are the people of Maryland. “I do not support retrocession,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the minority whip, in an email. He added: “I will continue to work to give D.C. residents the full voice in government they deserve.”
This is something less than a burning issue for the American people, whose view of Washington is dim to begin with. “My suspicion is that most Americans don’t understand this issue,” Mr. Young said. “When you talk to tourists here in town, they are shocked when you tell them the district has no voting in Congress. But in two seconds Marion Barry gets brought up,” he said, referring to the infamous former mayor. “By that logic, why is Chicago part of the United States?”
