Making a 51st State

Hold those American flags. Get out your needle, Betsy Ross. A 51st state may be in the making. Residents of the "last colony," the District of Columbia, will go to the polls tomorrow to vote on an initiative which would begin the process of making Washington, D.C., a state.

Many residents support the measure and it will probably pass. But officials of the District have greeted the inititative with mixed reactions.

Although nearly everyone in the nation's capital agrees that Congressional representation for the District and local self-government are long overdue, they disagree whether statehood will best achieve those ends. One group of officials, including the District's mayor and several city councilmen, support the initiative. Another group, however, advocates continued support for the 1978 D.C. Voting Rights Amendment, which would only give the District congressional representation.

Statehood proponents say their plan includes a crucial feature. "A state has complete home rule rights," Allen Grip, a spokesman for Mayor Marion S. Barry Jr., explains. Currently, Congress holds a legislative veto over District laws, controlling D.C's budget and judicial process, including the appointment of judges. The District, moreover, has no voting representatives on Capitol Hill. "No one that is in favor of home rule," Grip says, "could be against the initiative."

But some District leaders don't fully agree. "There is no evidence that Congress will grant D.C. statehood," Eldridge Spearman, press aide to Rep. William E. Fauntroy (D-D.C.), a nonvoting delegate who helped author the Voting Rights Amendment, contends. "In fact, all indications are that Congress would reject it. Congress would not relinquish the authority it has had over D.C.," he adds.

Fauntroy believes that the best way to obtain congressional representation is through the Amendment, approved by Congress is 1978. The Amendment would give the District two senators and its share of representatives without making D.C. a state. Thus far, nine states, including Massachusetts, have ratified the Amendment; 38 are needed.

Statehood proponents argue that the Amendment may not be the best method. "With the Voting Rights Amendment, we only get representation in Congress," Hilda Mason, city council member and chairman of the Statehood Initiative Committee, says. "With statehood, we get this and local autonomy," she adds.

Barry's spokesman agrees, saying that under the Amendment, Congress still controls the District. Because statehood would not have to go through the state legislatures, moreover, it is an easier process. "There is no constitutional provision for unstating a state, but Congress can take away home rule any time," Mason says.

Proponents also argue that if Congress was sincere when it approved the Voting Rights Amendment two years ago, it will support statehood. Yet opponents of the initiative such as Fauntroy and the District chapter of the League of Women Voters, point out that it took Alaska and Hawaii 50 years to obtain statehood. They note that those two states, one Democratic and one Republican, balanced each other politically; the heavily Black District, on the other hand, would be an overwhelmingly Democratic state. For that reason alone, Congressional conservatives might oppose the measure.

Achieving statehood is "a never-ending process," Ruth Dixon, president of the League, explains. "In addition, it is very expensive." The initiative calls for the election of two senators and one representative who will lobby for statehood. Although they are not official members of Congress, D.C. must pay their salaries as well as fund two commissions that the initiative establishes. Spearman shares Dixon's financial concern, saying, "proponents of the initiative estimate that the cost will be $750,000. We think it will be closer to $3 million annually."

Fauntroy and the League also oppose initiative because they say it is poorly written and because people do not know what they are voting for. "There has been a lack of public education by the proponents of this measure," Dixon contends. "Many people think they are voting for statehood now."

Another controversial clause of the initiative would create a separate "federal enclave." According to the measure, the State of Columbia would consist of the District as it stands now minus the areas including the Supreme Court, Library of Congress, Capitol, White House and all executive buildings. The federal enclave would become the Federal District of Columbia and would be under the jurisdiction of Congress.

"What would be left as a state wouldn't be viable," Spearman says. "This is the heart of D.C. and its economic viability. D.C. has no other industry and would not be able to survive without the federal enclave," he adds. Spearman also notes that as a state, D.C. would lose its "federal payment," support funds it alone receives from Congress.

Proponents disagree. "The primary industry of the District is the federal government," Grip argues. "It will always be that way," he says, adding that even as a state, he thinks, D.C. would be entitled to federal payments.

The two sides disagree on whether D.C. as a state could impose a commuter tax. The League feels that since the federal enclave would not be under D.C.'s jurisdiction, D.C. would be unable to impose one. However, Grip argues that many states have a commuter tax and that, as a state, D.C. would be entitled to the tax.

The League sets three conditions for supporting a statehood drive: an educational program to explain the process, guaranteed financial viability for the state, and the omission of residential areas from the federal enclave. Fauntroy would support statehood only after D.C. has obtained congressional representatives who could lobby for the measure.

"We need a much more sophisticated plan than we have now," Spearman says. "As it is, it is as if we are behind in a football game and we want to throw the 'bomb' to catch up. Unfortunately, we don't have the wide receivers to catch that 'bomb.' Senate representation is a prerequisite to lobbying for statehood."

Mason says that all of these difficulties could be resolved at the constitutional convention and through the two commissions the initiative proposes.

Despite opposition to the initiative, both sides expect the measure to pass. As D.C. legislation, the initiative must be reviewed by Congress. If Congress takes no action within 30 days, the initiative becomes law and the statehood process begins.