A reader objects to my D.C. statehood post by writing:
While the District of Columbia certainly has a lower population than most states, this is immaterial to the question of whether or not it deserves statehood. After all, Wyoming’s population is even lower than that of D.C. Should Wyoming’s senators be fired, and their duties delegated to those of, say, Colorado? The idea that states, regardless of population, are guaranteed a certain basic level of representation is controversial, but it’s been the law of the land since the Sherman compromise was enacted. All other states are subject to that compromise; it would be quite unfair to treat D.C. differently.
I had thought I’d responded to this in my original post by saying “Ah, some may say, but the two-senators-per-state rule is an unfairness that’s built into the Constitution. Indeed it is. But so is the no-senators-for-D.C. rule; both are constitutional rules.” But let me elaborate on this further: The reader is trying to rebut my “unfair to give D.C. two senators” argument by appealing to the constitutional judgment that all states have two senators. If that works, though, then one can equally rebut the “unfair to deny D.C. senators” argument by appealing to the constitutional judgment that D.C. lacks senators. Thus, one might argue:
While the District of Columbia certainly has a population, this is immaterial to the question of whether or not it deserves statehood. The idea that D.C., regardless of population, is excluded from representation is controversial, but it’s been the law of the land since the Constitution was enacted.
Of course, one could say that the mere fact that something is in the Constitution doesn’t make it right: The denial of representation to D.C. residents is no longer necessary, and is unfair; the Constitution should therefore be changed to remedy this unfairness.
But then one should also pay attention to the argument that the two-senators-per-state rule is unfair, even though it too is part of the Constitution. One should try to come up with a remedy that’s as fair as possible to big-state residents. One shouldn’t remedy unfair underrepresentation for D.C. with unfair overrepresentation, and defend this remedy simply by arguing that the unfair overrepresentation is consistent with the Constitution (since after all the unfair underrepresentation is equally consistent with the Constitution).
And the fairest remedy, I argue, is not to give D.C. residents two Senators, but rather to give them a say in the election of a neighboring state’s (e.g., Maryland’s) two Senators.
Comments are closed.