House votes in favor of DC Statehood 232-180.

[The Romulan Republic]

The vote to fully enfranchise a city of almost 700,000 mostly non-white people took place almost exactly on partisan lines, with one DINO and every single Republican voting in opposition:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5047 ... 2-180-vote

The House on Friday approved landmark legislation granting statehood to Washington, D.C., in a 232-180 vote.

The vote was historic, marking the first time either chamber has passed legislation to elevate the District to the 51st state — and empower its residents with long-sought voting representation within the halls of Congress.

Calls for Washington, D.C., to gain statehood have gained steam amid the national calls for racial justice that have followed the police killing of George Floyd last month.

The issue is highly partisan, and Friday’s outcome reflected it. Every Democrat except one, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), voted in favor of the proposal, which was sponsored by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), while every Republican opposed it.

The vote is also largely symbolic, since Senate Republicans oppose D.C. statehood — and are certain to ignore Norton’s bill — while President Trump has promised to veto the proposal if it somehow makes it as far as his desk.

But just months before November’s elections, Democrats are hoping to highlight their legislative priorities for voters to see. And Floyd’s death in the custody of Minneapolis police on May 25 — which unloosed a flood of pressure on Congress to tackle racism across broad facets of American culture — has given new life to a host of years-old proposals designed, at least in part, to empower African Americans and other minorities.

For supporters, granting statehood to D.C. is another extension of that message — an effort to enfranchise voters in a city that’s boasted a majority-minority population for decades.

“People in the District of Columbia pay taxes, fight our wars, risk their lives for our democracy. And yet ... they have no vote in the House or the Senate about whether we go to war, and how those taxes are exacted and how this is all played, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the Capitol, a few hours before the vote. “We're at a state of compromise, and we think it's very long overdue.”

Under the legislation, D.C. would be granted one voting representative in the House and two in the Senate. Under current law, Norton is the District’s lone delegate, with voting powers in committees but not on the House floor. Washington has no senators.

GOP lawmakers have blasted the legislation as a Democratic power grab, noting the lopsided partisan leanings of the District’s residents. The critics also contend that D.C. statehood is unconstitutional, arguing that the nation’s founders established the city as a neutral zone to govern outside the influence of state politics.

“My friends on the other side of the aisle may gasp and protest and outrage at the suggestion that what this is all about is an attempt to get two more Democratic senators. But that's what this is really all about,” Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) said on the floor. “The Constitution clearly establishes a federation of sovereign states, [and] the representation here in Washington, D.C., comes from those states, the federation of those states.

“This city, this district is a unique entity.”

House set for historic vote on DC statehood
Watch live: House votes on DC statehood bill
The lack of representation for the District of Columbia has long been a heated topic for the city's residents and the Democrats seeking statehood. Those voices are quick to note that D.C.’s population — almost 700,000 people — is higher than that of both Wyoming and Vermont. Some are accusing the opponents of wanting to deny statehood because of the District’s large Black population.

"Washington, D.C., is the home to more Americans than two states, and more than 46 percent of the 700,000 residents are Black," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said on the floor.

"Make no mistake, race underlies every argument against D.C. statehood," she added. "And denying its citizens equal participation and representation is a racial, democratic, and economic injustice we cannot tolerate.”

Yet another good bill waiting for McConnell to go. But there are a LOT of these. If we take the Senate and White House in November, the next year could be an extraordinary one in American history. Even if Biden is literally just a seat warmer for four years, his first 100 days could well see the addition of a 51st state and the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, to name just two.

[Tribble]

While I certainly applaud the move and hope it goes forward (if not now than once Republicans are defeated)... Puerto Rico needs to be a priority. Over 3 Million American citizens with no real representation in Congress and zero electors for president, having to live with a president whom openly despises them and tries to deprive them of essential services at every opportunity! Either they should get statehood or independence, events have proven that status quo is unacceptable. At least DC gets 3 electors for president and is the nation's capital. Both should be states, really. And the American pacific territories. And maybe the Virgin Islands (perhaps combined with peurto rico). No taxation without representation and all that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Definitely. America is still in a very literal and direct sense a colonial empire, with territories which are subject to its laws and taxes, but denied the representation and rights of full statehood.

[The Romulan Republic]

Republicans, of course, are screaming about it all over social media, calling it a Democratic power grab.

That's right, they openly admit that they oppose enfranchising 700,000 mostly non-white people because they will likely elect Democrats. Apparently, Democrats having the vote is a "power grab" and corruption.

[Beowulf]

Congress cannot admit a state that hasn't clearly expressed an interest in becoming a state. Puerto Rico hasn't. The last referendum was overwhelmingly in support of statehood, but had a very significant boycott movement going on. The previous referendum was mixed, and marred with half a million blank ballots.

[The Romulan Republic]

Congress cannot admit a state that hasn't clearly expressed an interest in becoming a state. Puerto Rico hasn't. The last referendum was overwhelmingly in support of statehood, but had a very significant boycott movement going on.

What was the reason given for the boycott at the time?

[Beowulf]

Congress cannot admit a state that hasn't clearly expressed an interest in becoming a state. Puerto Rico hasn't. The last referendum was overwhelmingly in support of statehood, but had a very significant boycott movement going on.

What was the reason given for the boycott at the time?

Objection to the wording in the choices. The party supporting statehood was in power at the time, and the opposition thought the wording on the ballot was slanted toward encouraging statehood.

[MKSheppard]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... se-bill/51

The term “Washington, D.C.” means Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

[Tribble]

Congress cannot admit a state that hasn't clearly expressed an interest in becoming a state. Puerto Rico hasn't. The last referendum was overwhelmingly in support of statehood, but had a very significant boycott movement going on.

What was the reason given for the boycott at the time?

Objection to the wording in the choices. The party supporting statehood was in power at the time, and the opposition thought the wording on the ballot was slanted toward encouraging statehood.

I might buy that excuse more were it not for the fact that Puerto Rico has been a racist colonial project from the start, and continues to be so to this day. Even back then it didn’t go unnoticed that congress and the courts were twisting themselves into pretzels excusing why the US could get away with “owning” Puerto Rico without offering a path to statehood, not to mention citizenship (which was only given in 1917 so that the US could conscript them).

Should it come as any surprise that a colonialist government would botch opportunities for statehood / independence for its inhabitants, when the whole point of having the colony is exploitation?

If Congress were serious about rectifying this they would pass a binding referendum on the issue, and if they were serious about “no taxation without representation “ the options would be for statehood or full independence. “Unincorporated territory” is just another euphemism for “colony”.

[Ralin]

If Congress were serious about rectifying this they would pass a binding referendum on the issue, and if they were serious about “no taxation without representation “ the options would be for statehood or full independence. “Unincorporated territory” is just another euphemism for “colony”.

And fuck any Puerto Ricans who prefer the status quo or the status quo with some modifications? How is Congress dictating terms like that an improvement?

[Tribble]

If Congress were serious about rectifying this they would pass a binding referendum on the issue, and if they were serious about “no taxation without representation “ the options would be for statehood or full independence. “Unincorporated territory” is just another euphemism for “colony”.

And fuck any Puerto Ricans who prefer the status quo or the status quo with some modifications? How is Congress dictating terms like that an improvement?

Given the current state of things I’d imagine that number to be low, but fair enough. Two stage binding referendum then - sstatus quo vs change, then if the status quo is rejected, statehood vs independence.

[Khaat]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... se-bill/51

The term “Washington, D.C.” means Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

So what's your "eyeroll" issue? Did you
a) honestly misunderstand the new state would have a different name? (thinking those who wrote the Bill misunderstood "DC" currently means "District of Columbia"?)
b) dismiss naming the new state after an abolitionist? This specific abolitionist? or "Commonwealth" (like a handful of other "states" are)?
c) mean to just be snarky? Reason for snark? No?
d) mean something else?

Let's take a look at your listed source, in full:

This bill provides for admission into the United States of the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, composed of most of the territory of the District of Columbia. The commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states.
The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of the commonwealth.
The bill applies current District laws to the commonwealth and continues pending judicial proceedings.
The commonwealth (1) shall consist of all District territory, with specified exclusions for federal buildings and monuments, including the principal federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, and the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building; and (2) may not impose taxes on federal property except as Congress permits.
The bill maintains (1) the District as the seat of the federal government, and (2) the federal government's authority over military lands and specified other property.
The bill provides for expedited consideration of a joint resolution repealing the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of electors of the President and Vice President.

Yeah, doesn't say what you said it did in your quote presumably from this source. Fishing for a job on a "news entertainment" channel?

Oh, perhaps you found that in the language of the Bill itself (probably under a definition of the change proposed)? That would have been a different link, but ok.
here, under "text" Lawyers write in very specific language:

SEC. 301. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) The term “Council” means the Council of the District of Columbia.
(2) The term “Governor” means the Governor of the State of Washington, D.C.
(3) The term “Mayor” means the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
(4) Except as otherwise provided, the term “State” means the State of Washington, D.C.
(5) The term “State Constitution” means the proposed Constitution of the State of Washington, D.C., as approved by the Council of the District of Columbia on October 18, 2016, pursuant to the Constitution and Boundaries for the State of Washington, D.C. Approval Resolution of 2016 (D.C. Resolution R21–621), and ratified by District of Columbia voters in Advisory Referendum B approved on November 8, 2016, and certified by the District of Columbia Board of Elections on November 18, 2016.
(6) The term “Washington, D.C.” means Washington, Douglass Commonwealth.

emphasis mine.

[Ralin]

Given the current state of things I’d imagine that number to be low, but fair enough. Two stage binding referendum then - sstatus quo vs change, then if the status quo is rejected, statehood vs independence.

Apparently enough to prompt boycotts that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the last referendum.

I might have been more open to forcing them to choose statehood or independence several years ago, but given recent events the US should be bending over backwards to let them make decisions on their terms at a bare minimum.

[Tribble]

Apparently enough to prompt boycotts that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the last referendum.

IMO boycotting a referendum shouldn’t change the legitimacy of it. If people don’t want to exercise their option to vote that’s their choice, but they shouldn’t use that as an excuse to complain about the results afterwards.

IIRC the lastest (alas non-binding) referendum for Nov 3rd is “Should Puerto Rico be immediately admitted into the Union as a state?”

That ought to be a more than sufficiently clear question to voters.

And IIRC it’s a simple majority, though I suspect given current circumstances it’s going to be a significant difference one way or another.

I might have been more open to forcing them to choose statehood or independence several years ago, but given recent events the US should be bending over backwards to let them make decisions on their terms at a bare minimum.

And right now they are doing the exact opposite, with a financial board appointed by the president that pretty much has full power over the elected officials. Oh, and they are in a position where congress theoretically could at any time revoke citizenship too (while denying them the ability to be independent). No wonder why Trump doesn’t care, what are they going to do unless they become a state or revolt and try to gain independence?

Im actually sort of surprised Trump and Co haven’t tried revoking their citizenship lest more of the population goes to the mainland, but I guess he’s saving that for his 2nd term.