Statehood

[Stinky The Clown]

I am put to thinking, once again, about the places the US "owns" but whose citizens are not given all the rights of citizenship.

First and foremost is the District of Columbia.

In the news these days is Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands

There's American Samoa.

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

What do these places have in common, apart from substandard citizens?

Yup.

I can imagine as few as three states, as many as six.

So why are none of these US territories states?

Yup. You know why. They have the potential to change the balance of power in Washington. If nothing else they would change the Senate. If they did change it, who loses?

Yup.

[Wounded Bear]

1. It's always been that way...

It was easier to bestow statehood on those areas that were contiguous, of course, which is why Alaska/Hawaii took so long.

The politcal problem is, of course, that all of those territories would most likely be blue states. Repubs won't let that happen, at least not easily.

[Igel]

3. Before statehood is bestowed,

it has to be sought.

As for DC, the decision was made that the seat of the federal government would not be in a state. The land was donated by Maryland for DC. If it wants to be in a state, it can revert. There's precedent: Virginia also donated a chunk of land, so the District of Columbia was originally a square, 10 miles on each side. The land south of the Potomac was reverted to VA. This was termed "retrocession" and happened in 1846, 56 years after the two states ceded the territory to create DC.

That would be the easiest thing--retrocede DC back to MD. Citizens would get to vote for federal offices and get local control back. It's not clear MD wants the territory back, and if they don't it's not at all clear what the state's reasoning would be.

But the idea of retrocession cuts to the core of the political problem. Retrocession's been proposed fairly often since FDR was in office.

Some (R) have proposed retrocession a few times because they prefer the non-effect it would have on the Senate. But (D) have opposed this solution for the most part for the last 20 years because it doesn't give them another solidly blue state for the Senate--it would certainly help in the House, of course. (D), on the other hand, have proposed making DC a state, but (R) don't want it because it would yield the same solidly blue state. Both sides have priorities greater than DC residents' local control and federal franchise--control of the Senate. With retrocession, the (R) would lose a bit because there'd be greater (D) representation in the House, so it's not like retrocession wouldn't help (D). How popular either idea has been isn't something I've paid attention to.

[defacto7]

5. Thanks for the lesson on DC politics.

I've never really thought through the political ramifications before and this history seems to have whizzed right by me. Nice to fill in my gaps.

[snort]

6. Or, we just like a nice round even number.

[Proud liberal 80]

2. It changes the house, too

There are 435 representatives and that number will not go up. That means some states would lose Representatives (preferably a safe republican district), while we gain 5 safe Democratic districts.

[defacto7]

4. Up until now, Puerto Rico would have been

solid Republican. I doubt anymore. Guam is solid Repub. I'm not sure about the rest. Still, it would shake up the old stalwart political pinnings government has counted on for keeping power on the top.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Not exactly so about Puerto Rico . . . .

The two major political parties in Puerto Rico mirror our Democrat and Republican parties. They are each 47.nn percent of the electorate. A dead heat. They are as purple as purple can be.

[defacto7]

8. Thanks.

How about the PR community in Florida? I remember them leaning Republican in the past.