 Okay, we're back. We're live for the one o'clock block here on a given Tuesday with Stephanie Dalton, and she is one of our hosts and guests, and she's all over the dial on Think Tech. But one thing about Stephanie is very important is that she lived for many years in Washington D.C. And Washington D.C. is worth talking about today. As a matter of fact, our show is, quote, should Washington D.C. be made a state here at Rediscovering America. Welcome to the show, your show, Stephanie. Well, I know this is a wonderfully shared show and that's one of the pleasures of being invited on it, Jay. So thank you. So Washington's got something around 800,000 people. It's a little smaller than the population of Honolulu, certainly smaller than the population of Hawaii. It's largely African American. Everybody says that and I think that's probably true. And that Washington has had a history such as the federal government has had, you know, the capital was burned down in 1814 in the lingering last days of the war of 1812. I used to teach a course, you know, and I would start my year and I would start my class I would say, can anybody tell me in what year they had the war of 1812 crickets. Nobody would answer. It's not a trick question. It's a trick question. But you know, it is a trick question because the war of 1812 last been longer than 1812. And the British burned down the capital in 1814. Anyway, bottom line is it's really had a history, such as the country itself. I'm looking at now because of, you know, the all the machinations that have happened around the election and criticizing various jurisdictions. And what we have found to be certain disadvantages that the citizens of Washington DC have vis-à-vis other states in terms of voting and suppression of voting, and so forth. And we should talk about that because the issue has again been raised. But let's talk about the importance of Washington first though Stephanie. What kind of city is it historically and in modern day. Well, historically, the city has a fascinating history and it was appropriated out of Maryland and Virginia. The founders wanted a federal district. And that is one of the controversial points here as far as the issue of statehood is concerned is that did the founders want a federal city to actually have the powers of a state. And that was a very important interpretation of, but there will be a very important interpretation of what it is that they thought they wanted it to be, which impacts on the bill that's in Congress now having passed the house and getting ready to go through the Senate or I don't know if they're getting it ready yet there are other things to do that precede this I'm sure but it needs to get the get the bill passed through the Senate in order to take on to see if they can actually move it towards statehood. But after it was brought into the, the east to east coast there next to Maryland and Virginia was a square that was taken out of the shores of the Potomac River. And then it was, I think there's a poignant story here is that that was all done about in 1790, and they really didn't get the city together until 1801 when they passed some more acts about residency there and how it was going to use. And I think the poignant piece is that George Washington for whom the city is named was out of his majestic leadership roles and into his life at Mount Vernon, which is deep in Virginia and on the Chesapeake Bay. And he was doing his what he always dreamed of doing at post his career in politics and governance. And then of course he got sick and he died in 1800. So he was infected with a throat virus and could have been one like we know now, but there wasn't anything he had to, he left so before the city actually that was developed, you know, he, but he had to go on, but it was named after him and he knew that that that happened. But what what what what happened to the the actual land is that when you go to Washington DC, you see that there is a Pentagon that's actually in Virginia, and other federal land that's in Virginia which is on the old part of the piece of Virginia that was taken and reapportioned into the District of Columbia. But along about 1830, as the country was looking after its in its various needs they realized in the in Virginia, and the south that the slavery was a problem and of course, Virginia had slavery, and DC didn't at that time in the same way. But the concern for the Virginians was that the Congress was going to pass a lot outline slavery and their, their economy was in this array and they wanted to then pull themselves back from being a part of the district so at that point Congress did respond and give the Virginia piece of Washington back to Virginia. So now all of the land that is the federal city plus the other areas of residents those are Maryland land. But but but it is under this federal federal arrangement that is been has been found to be lacking for the citizens in it as far as representation and having any influence, you know, in the country like an estate should have. It's different in terms of the city planning to Washington was designed. I don't know who did it but I'm sure it was a visionary architect as a federal city as a seat of government. Therefore you have these broad boulevards you have the numbered streets, all very rational. And like some other cities in Europe like that. Yeah, by European Pierre Lafont designed the city. Vanneker was his, his associate. So he was kind of the co designer and he hasn't gotten a lot of attention because he's African American man, but he was really responsible also for the design of Washington DC, and which is beautiful. It is, it's beautiful city. You know, it doesn't have the skyscrapers against that's against the zoning code. It has these broad boulevards a lot of parks green green areas waterways and the like. It's a it's a pretty city to walk around run around a lot of people do. It's a has lots of places for recreation. I recall the towpath if you remember the towpath. Beautiful place. The Georgetown part has always been Georgetown. It's been there since the very beginning. So it was there for this federal city was but it was included in the federal city, but that Georgetown had its own town and its own issues there. And it's a structure, right, but, but the federal city was designed then by this Pierre Lafont who you always has hear his name but it's only recently that Benjamin Vanneker is also understood to have been a major designer of the city as well and I think he was from France as well or I don't really know where his background but I think he came with Pierre Lafont, but yeah. And if you have the land, and you have the broad boulevards connecting the land. Then you can build big edifices big public buildings, you could build the Smithsonian, you could build the, you know, the courts the National Archives, so many beautiful buildings in Washington, and so spacious and so statuette is what they are. And he has done well in terms of architecture, although the residential areas, which are not immediately in the, in the federal part of the city are just outside it. How does that work. Well they're designated areas which are obvious when you're there to it because they're, they're characterized by green grass that's kept up and, and beautiful white marble buildings and and the mall is the center of that. And those are the federal, the federal area of the city, and, and then Washington DC is just beyond that like just to block off the mall is the sit the federal city where you're where that then becomes the responsibility of the city and the city's budget, and the city's budget for schools and, and their own council which serves as their legislature, and they have their own judicial system but those judges are all appointed by the president, and that that's another place where there is not the the same place for people that the states have in that this, this city would have the worst day, and then as a mayor instead of a governor, and that's a big difference to at the level of power and influence. So there's several areas are really clearly deprived depriving the city of its governance. So it's just the first time that people have been interested in making Washington DC into a state, or has this come up before. Many, many times, and, and I think it came up even before Hawaiian Alaska were involved that it's been, they've taken on bridge at the restrictions on their rights as citizens, those who have lived in the district, and, and have been agitating about it for decades and decades and maybe a century, because they want that the people that live there want to be the state they have taxation without representation, and they have the highest taxes per capita in the world. I mean excuse me in the in the country, and their taxes are more than 22 other states so you know there there is quite a contribution being made by the residents of the city, and they have no as a result of being a federal district, the district of Columbia and Columbia is this woman that is a is a caricature or she represents the notion of the, the Republic and that's Columbia and so they made it. They made her the personification of the cap of the country so that's why it's a district of Columbia. The people who would see who have sought and now are seeking statehood for Washington are the people who live in Washington, they're the citizens of Washington. The people occupy the residential areas outside the federal district in Washington right. There are many proponents because and especially now that there's a democratic control of the governor government, because there are no senators. There are two shadow senators who don't even have a seat in Congress I guess they can hang out in the upper areas and look over the rail. They have no reps that the one representative is the delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and she's been that for 3040 years, but she has no vote in the Congress she's made herself very influential, and she's responsible for the bill that is in the chain of events to get to the Senate to see if we can get it through the Senate. It's already passed the house that would allow the state to be the city to be transferred into a state. And that's the way that's the way all the states have come in right. It's by an act of Congress, every single state and outside the original 13 colonies came in by virtue of an act of Congress a bill, a statute like every other statute and presto, you know you have all those states and that's, but one thing that sticks in my brain is that sometimes there had to be deals. Like, for example, when the people in Congress, the lawmakers in Congress, some of them wanted this state and others wanted that state, because of some issue maybe Democratic Republican who knows what. And so they made a deal they said well I'll let your state in. If you let my state in, and then we'll have both states in the same, you know, spate of legislation, and then we'll have two more states or whatever, a bubble of states come in on a negotiated basis. I know that happened a few times in the 19th century. Just Alaska and Hawaii. They were a great couple of states to bring in, because one was red one was blue one was hot one was cold. I mean it absolutely was a perfect match of differences that didn't upset what was the balance in the in the DC coming in. It's a blue state, and the only other one suggested to come in as Puerto Rico which is what we're waiting for a blue state. So you've got that problem and right now if they come in, they would really upset the balance of the government in the Congress, perhaps not so much in the House of Representatives but certainly would increase the numbers again but but then to make the Senate have two more senators is what is one of the sticking points. Yeah. Yeah, well that would certainly upset the balance, but you know it would be a fair representation of the population and the electorate though. Oh yeah absolutely it's really unfair right now but the, but as you say what are the requirements for being the state well, what I was reading is that there are three prerequisites really three prerequisites that have been about getting it to be a state. You have to have resources and population. I don't know what all the degrees of specifics in the population are meant but you mentioned something about the racial makeup of Washington DC. I mean in 1970, according to the census there was a 70% African American population. And I think at that time it will it pop the state over into being like California majority minority state, but the senses. The reports are now from 217 are that the, the state's population of African Americans is I think 45% 47%, almost 50 going towards 50 and the white population is 45%. So it's still a little bit majority African American. So it's actually changed. So that's a significant change in the past few decades. So they're moving to suburbs because the suburbs are in Maryland. So you've heard of Prince George's County and places like that that are the names of Baltimore County so they're moving out that way, because it's less expensive there's been lots of gentrification in Washington, even though he still have large swaths of public housing and you know low income housing and then fabulous houses like the Trumps and and the owner of, you know, of these big Amazon I mean there's Is it fair to say then then the Republicans in general, and I guess for a long time, well for some time that that has meant the Senate would oppose Washington as a state, as they would oppose Puerto Rico as a state. Yeah, I think that that is probably more than the Senate. Also, I really would say that I think it's not a look just a local issue a local intention and desire and crusade. I think there are bigger, bigger issues here that that have been driving that and that population is one of them. And the overarching that they think overwhelming influence that them that that city would have that city's government might have more influence than the other states I mean think of that, that it would actually have a vote from their senators and reps but they might also accrue additional, you know, for certain issues but anyway so they're the second and third criteria for becoming a state or prerequisites as they were referring to them had to do with the support force that they have enough support for statehood which is my point that I think it's more than a local issue, but they also have to have a commitment to democracy. Now I don't have a measure any of all that but they're probably some tests for the that that that sounds like it would be appropriate for a state in the West, or even Hawaii or Alaska but not for Washington, I mean, in the lap of democracy shouldn't be an issue about that. But you know just shaking it and banking and what it sounds like is that the people who live there are not not getting the same, you know, political benefits and they want to they want to have those benefits and they want to be treated like other places with the same population and so forth. And the people in Congress see that as throwing the balance off. So they have opposed it, or at least from other states they have opposed it. I'm sure there's a lot of people, especially the Democrats, who the blue states you know who would like to see it happen. So the, you know how can it happen under these circumstances is the question. I mean it hasn't happened up till now you mentioned people have been trying for a long time. Is it, is it, is there a chance a prayer that's going to happen now. Well the area there is a belief there's going to be a chance and and already they've got the bill from the delegate to the House of Representatives from DC Eleanor Holmes Norton, who's a very capable lawyer, and she's served in this role for a long time, and she's managed to get that bill that far. So I should pass the house the house it's past the house the house. Okay, so it's up on the website if anybody wants to read the details, but it's then got to get through the Senate and that just wasn't much of a possibility until until now again it is with people that would be willing to think about it but there you can just see what you've already talked about the tremendous resistance to that there would be because it would immediately change. I mean, there are three ways. I mean we changed the Senate's numbers okay and the balance, but that's only if they come in as a state there are two other ways that can come in. And then they would have another recession like when they gave the land back to Virginia that wasn't originally taken to be part of the federal city, they gave that land back. They could also give the land that's not the federal property back to Maryland, and then have people go vote in Maryland, and then they would have their reps, and they would also have already there's there said there were senators there wouldn't, there may be some more reps. And then the there was a third way it could come in, which was just giving people just voting right just say go go vote wherever you want in the metropolitan area, and not bother anybody about any more representation for you. Well, you know you could make a pretty good case for letting them vote in the adjacent states, and redefining the district to be just the federal district that's all. So the federal buildings and all those big avenues and you don't need the residential areas to be included in that. It just it's the way it happened after the Civil War, I guess. But it's not essential to the operation of the government or the preservation of the national capital. Yeah, that was going to that's gone on from 1801 and when they said that they had a bill go through called the Organic Act of 1801, which Washington missed but that was what started them, the construction and the laying out of the federal city, the federal city Yeah, if you could take the federal city and just limit DC to the federal city and just make the border of the federal city out outside the government area, federal government area, everybody else is in another state, adjacent to the governing states. But let me let me ask you this though I mean we have an interesting problem in our hands, right now, today, tomorrow, about the security of the federal city, the security of the capital, security of the State House, security of the Supreme Court, the three branches of our democratic government. And it's been shattering to recognize that people, American people can come to the capital and and take over, take over one of our, you know, most important buildings. That building is probably the most important of the I don't know if I can say this, the most important of the three branches of government. That's where its heart lives that's where its initiatives are designed. That's where the public. That's where the public is represented day after day after day. I guess it is the most important branch of government. We've seen a breach of that security in so many awful ways in the past, you know, two weeks. And so the question is, how does making Washington, how about redrawing the boundary of Washington, or making it a state. How does that affect the security of the of the central government, the federal government. Well, the federal government has all access to whoever they want to bring in there, they could bring in 1000 helicopters to drop paratroopers down to take care of business if they wanted to why didn't they last week. But the other, the other aspect of this is that Mayor Bowser, Muriel Bowser is the current mayor of DC, which of course is has only a mayor, there is no governor. She was then prohibited from bringing in National Guard, there's no no connection to that those kinds of powers for the DC Mayor. So right right now, I mean there's, there's a, you know, an example, you know, recently, of how she was constrained for protecting her city. And I think that also was the case when there was the difficulty with the Lafayette Square and the President visiting the Lafayette Square during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. I think she was very constrained and had few options and worried about the ones that she did have. Have, I mean, because painting on the streets, even, even putting up signs and things like that on the federal property, like Lafayette Square, which is in front of the White House, and was original, originally considered to be included in the White House, except that they wanted the White House to have more close proximity to the people. And so they didn't put it in the White House. So I mean that but that still is federal property too. So there's some quasi places like that, you know, like in front of the Lincoln Memorial, you know, there's some places where they would have to be working out some considerations about, is that the federal city or is that not? And of course, the expenses that the budget for taking care of any of these beautiful edifices, you know, has to stay with the feds because the city can't afford it. I'm just wondering for security, for security of the government, whether it's better or worse to make a state out of it. You know, I don't think the existing arrangement proved up very well in terms of protecting the capital. You're right, the mayor was unable to get the army to respond or the National Guard. It was hours and hours before anyone could get them to come into the city. On the other hand, you know, to have them there all the time is troubling somehow to have it as an armed city. I mean, look how uncomfortable everyone is about having, you know, uniform military people by the thousands by the tens of thousands there now. It's troubling to have it become an armed city sleeping in the capital, like a banana Republic. So I wonder, I wonder what happens if you make it a completely federal situation, a federal enclave, so to speak, where controls it has immediate access to the Army National Guard. I mean, there's something troubling about that. Or if you make it a state where it has no better nor worse access to military and protection and security. Have you thought about that. Can you comment on that. Well, not on that such a good question that you raise that's the one who would have thought about protect military activity or you know that level of security, life threatening security and what do you call that in harm's way security. Until this past week, the thoughts have been for the representation the taxation that people's right to be represented and the unfair burden that falls on people like the delegate to the rep to the Congress the House of Representatives. I mean, she's so busy taking taking care of her citizens that everybody's hasn't ever asked me to use would you have to have a major issue to take to her it's not like having several representatives and two senators that you can, you know, you know, retreat to. It strikes me Stephanie that what what happened on the sixth and since, and the whole focus on the capital and, and the troops and, you know, in the capital the way they're deep now, and the troops and the fences and all this, all around Washington. It strikes me just in the clarity of this discussion. Washington will never be the same as it was. We took it for granted in many ways. We took security of the capital and the other branches of government. You know, we took it for granted. But now I don't think we can take it for granted. You can have people come in from North Dakota and attack the thing and you can have. You can have people breaking down the doors. We never saw that never except the British in 1814. We never saw that happen in the history of the country, and now it has happened, and it has, it has opened everyone's eyes to the possibility it might happen again ergo, you know, I don't think we'll, we'll take all the troops out after this is more relaxed, but who always be a city that has to protect itself. Well, one of the losses huge now that you're bringing it up and I, I'm done by that I'm really startled. I mean that was the place where during the years I've lived I was born there and was a child there and have been in and out of the city and obviously I'm in Hawaii, but I would hesitate to walk down the mall in the night in the middle of the night, certainly with a friend but I mean you could do it. There's nobody there. There was never any threat. It was rare. So two blocks into Washington DC off the federal property, and then you know their homeless and they're the same is that we have here in Honolulu or any other big city, but not on the federal property it was truly a heavenly option to enjoy why you're there, and the gardens and all of that but that will change now there. They've been violated the whole thing's been violated. There's always a, what do you call a reaction. There's always a reaction when you have this sort of thing. So, I mean, do we really need to have 20,000 troops there right now that could be an overreaction. And will we need to have a standing compliment of, say, 5000 or 10,000 troops, just in case that may be an overreaction. But that's what happens when you have this kind of, you know, terrorism, you always have a reaction. It's appropriate. Sometimes it's overreaction. But I think we're going to have a reaction. What about the, that Nancy Pelosi always talks about and others to other leaders to that, as you said earlier, it is the people's house, the Congress is the people's house, like the Library of Congress next door to it. People are supposed to have access. The citizen is supposed to have access, just like you do, you walk right into the Senate office buildings, you can walk right into Maisie, and her owner's office, or anybody else's office. And on the other side with the representatives are all in offices, the Rayburn building and all sitting there. You know, I think you have to go through a medical medical a mental detector but other than that. Not in the past now, I think now. But you know, those, the openness, okay, of government, the openness of the city of Washington. I suggest, at least for the, for the years to follow this, it will be less than open. They will have to put in more security and we won't have the same access to our buildings and our house, as we did before. This is, this is very troubling. And I guess, I guess, I don't know how that connects. This is my last question to you. I don't know how that connects with the notion of making an estate. Would a state be safer? Would a state be better? Would a state, you know, preserve the openness of Washington? Or would making it more federal preserve the openness of Washington, aside from the political considerations of voting fair and having fair representation in Congress. How would you vote is my question, Stephanie, and why? I think that what you've pointed out in this conversation has gone to that, that special representation or characterization of democracy, which is this federal property being open and being accessible and welcoming to the city and he said this is an intuit to enjoy its beauty and pleasure. That is going to change and that and maybe that shouldn't change. I mean, maybe we need to strive to make it, keep it that way and maybe that will require more protection. And that is into being a state and have more powers and bigger budgets and maybe more influence that then we, that all can be worked out more equitably between the federal government who's going to have the budget for it and what the city is going to do. So I just think that it doesn't hurt to give people representation and more control over their, their lives as they live in that city. I think I would think the state would improve that but I there's probably I do too. I think they're an orphan child of the way DC works. I don't think they have the same representation Congress doesn't care so much about the residential areas of DC beyond the federal district. They don't get a fair shake in many ways and they should. And one thing it strikes me is that this has become stark in our time is that the whole thing with the electoral votes and and having only two senators from each state. That was maybe appropriate, you know in 1783. It's not appropriate today the population of the country, the centers of the country have moved, and it is simply not fair. It is simply not fair to have this electoral voting system and to have two senators from each state when some states have very small populations and others have large populations and so we have to look to reform that's my view. We have to look to be flexible and to reflect the changes we have seen the Constitution has to be flexible enough, and those in government who who interpreted and who would enforce it have to be flexible enough to change the way it works with the changes in times, and one of the changes in times is Washington DC. Therefore, things ought to be changed. That's why I would vote to make it a state. I can agree with you but I think that we've gone a ways from that because we have originalism. Yeah. Okay, well, that's another conversation isn't as to what the Supreme Court would do if this ever happened. Thank you so much Stephanie Stephanie Dalton. This is rediscovering America there'll be another one of the rediscovering America show tomorrow at 11. Today we've been talking about should Washington DC be made a state. Tomorrow, I'm sure, I'm sure tomorrow certainty. It'll be close coverage of the inauguration. Thank you so much Stephanie. Sure. Yeah, and thank you.