Mr. Sabot is a student at American University and the chairman of the Libertarian Party of D.C.
By: Ryan Sabot, Contributor, We Are 1776
The Libertarian Party in the District of Columbia proudly expresses support for statehood for the District of Columbia, and joins all other major parties in DC in doing so. Support for D.C. statehood runs rampant in the District; politically, support against the cause would be suicide. From those libertarians outside of the District, however, the initiative raises some eyebrows.
The entire conversation often revolves entirely around one aspect of statehood– congressional representation. Some are quick to point out that bigger cities, like New York, possess populations nearly nine times larger than that of D.C. and therefore should also be granted statehood and representation in Congress under the same \mindset. Others suggest that residential areas of D.C. should retrocede into Maryland and that Washingtonians should receive congressional representation via Maryland. Most solutions to the issue try to address the issue of giving D.C. congressional representation. This perspective doesn’t account for the entire issue: DC needs more than congressional representation, and D.C. statehood represents the ability for the district to more efficiently regulate itself.
The more than 630,000 of us who live in the D.C. area have little say in any of our laws. The entire notion of federalism and its resulting minarchy, which our nation was founded on, is denied to all DC residents. While we are granted “home rule”, neither Washingtonians nor D.C.’s elected officials have any final say in the laws that affect us. Congress has the final say, and even if DC did have one voting representative and two senators down on Capitol Hill, it wouldn’t have enough influence to override any mandate that Congress passes down upon the city. The problem that needs to be solved is Congress’ ability to overrule or override any law that the D.C. council has passed which it doesn’t like.
In 1992, the D.C. Council passed the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 that was designed to expand health benefits to those registered in domestic partnerships within the city; Congress cut off all funds to be used for this. In 2011, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), announced that Republicans in Congress—congressmen and women notably not from the District—would begin a push to ban gay marriage despite the D.C. council’s vote to allow it in 2009. Just last month, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” which would restrict abortion availability to women in the District. Rep. Franks even went as far to deny our non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the chance to argue against the bill at its committee hearing.
Congress treats D.C. as its political pawn – it knows it has the capability to influence laws in D.C. and those in Congress frequently try to do so. Federalism was established in the United States at its founding so that things like this couldn’t happen—New Jersey couldn’t tell Texas which laws to pass and Montana couldn’t tell Maine. You don’t see Floridians living with the same laws that New Yorkers do, because the environments are completely different and the people have different needs. This is the beauty of small government and federalism. The United States is a country that is made up of hundreds of different cultures, traditions, political ideologies, and lifestyles. The ability for a state to influence another state’s administration was beautifully and specifically limited in the Constitution. This needs to apply to D.C. as well. Today, however, we find Ohio’s and Arizona’s representatives trying to tell the District and its numerous residents how to live their lives.
Again, the answer to this problem isn’t simply granting the District budget autonomy or congressional representation. Such things might be able to give the District marginally more power than it possesses today but would do nothing to solve the larger problem in the future. The answer is statehood and, consequently, smaller government. Allowing D.C. to form a full state legislature would allow it to become efficient, exercise more relevant influence, serve its citizens better, and grant its citizens liberty and freedom from the influence of other states’ representatives in Congress. A full state legislature, independent from Congress like every other state legislature is, would allow DC to pass laws quickly and efficiently that could serve to best benefit D.C. residents.
Our founders knew that smaller government worked effectively (i.e. smaller state and local governments can better serve the interests of their constituents than any other entity, including the federal government). This is really the greatest benefit of statehood—smaller, more local government with less federal interference; these principals lie as the cornerstone of libertarianism and must find application in D.C.. D.C. cannot continue to be a federal district governed under the laws of those who do not even live within its borders. It cannot continue to pay taxes and receive no representation, and it cannot continue to be the political pawn of power hungry Senators and Representatives in Congress—DC needs statehood.
The Insomniac Libertarian 
Leave a comment