Skip to content

Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington D.C.

While visiting a D.C. school yesterday, President Barack Obama clearly expressed his preference for statehood for the District of Columbia.

“I’m in D.C., so I’m for it,” Obama explained. “I think I’ve long believed that D.C. pays — folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else. And it’s not as if Washington, D.C. is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

In response, DC Vote executive director Kimberly Perry stated, ““President Obama’s support for D.C. statehood shows that he understands the injustice we face every day. The President has repeatedly proposed greater [local government] autonomy for D.C., only to see those proposals die because of partisan squabbling in Congress. We hope the administration will now request that its Senate allies hold a hearing on the D.C. statehood bill.”

In 2012, the people of Puerto Rico voted to end Puerto Rico’s status as a territory of the United States.  According to the certified results of that vote, 54% of voters rejected Puerto Rico’s territorial status and a majority selected statehood from among the alternatives.  

Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla has disputed the vote. 

Responding to this dispute, White House Director of Hispanic Media Luis Miranda stated:  “To clarify, the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question.  Now it is time for Congress to act and the Administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future.”

President Obama subsequently proposed $2.5 million to conduct a federally-sanctioned follow up plebiscite in order to resolve Puerto Rico’s territorial status.  The funding would be used for voter education and a public vote on the issue if the attorney general finds the education materials and plebiscite options do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the United States.

The plebiscite could be on one or more options among statehood, independence, and nationhood in a free (non-binding) association with the U.S., which would resolve the issue of the territory’s ultimate status, as well as, possibly, the current territory status, which could not.

The Justice Department review as to consistency with Constitution and Federal laws and policies is required because Puerto Rico’s “commonwealth” party has proposed governing arrangements that Federal officials have said conflict with the Constitution and Federal laws and policies, and the party continues to do so.

Last week, Governor Garcia Padilla announced plans to hold the status plebiscite before the end of his current political term in 2016.




2 thoughts on “Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington D.C.”

  1. “And its not as if Washington DC is not big enough, compared to other states.”___President Obama.

    Yes, IT IS. TOO SMALL!

    Aparently Obama has no idea where DC’s boundaries lie.
    I bet Obama doesn’t know that Columbia and The city off Washington are co-existent territory.

    Then Again, What can I expect from the same Obama who said during the 2008 race; “We’ve campaigned in 57 states so far.”
    The proposed state of “New Columbia” is problematic for the following reasons….

    1. TOO SMALL! DC was designed as 10 x 10 square miles. Yet today its under 100 sq. miles. Since then, Arlington was returned to Virginia by retrocession. Baltimore,Philadelphia, Buffalo,Detroit,Chicago are larger. Can they be states? What about the proposed state of New Amsterdam or Gotham? Its a New York city movement to become a 51st.state and take Long Island with it. The idea of a city-state is ridiculous and will set of a domino effect of cities trying to become states to keep their revenues home + Congressional seats.
    2. DC is a buffer zone for the US Capitol.
    If DC didn’t exist and Maryland went Confederate in the Civil War, we might today be the “CSA”instead of “USA”.
    3. DC is there,because the seat of the nation’s capitol must be neutral. A state of Columbia WILL STILL HAVE A MICRO DC AS ITS DOWNTOWN! COLUMBIA WILL STILL FEEL SUPERIOR AND ARROGANT ABOUT HAVING THE CAPITOL IN ITS DOWNTOWN. Even if its “Technically not in DC” Well, the UN is “technically” not in NYC, right?
    4. Name Conflict. New Columbia? Problem…
    a. “NC” is taken by North Carolina.
    b. “Columbia” is too close to “Colombia” (One reason the US never followed through with United States of Columbia. Columbia continued as the female incarnation of the US until” Uncle Sam” became standard.)
    c. State of Columbia with “CL” is most likely. Especially if “b” isn’t an issue.
    3. The state of Columbia would have GOVERNMENT as its main economic engine. Yet, remember that Downtown will NOT be part of the new state. It remains a smaller DC.
    Therefore Columbia will NOT BE ABLE TO TAX OR RECEIVE ANY MONEY FOR ITS CITY-STATE COFFERS. Columbia will be a true government dependent, Most Columbia state residents will work outside the new state. A liberal welfare state.

  2. Create a scaled down District of Columbia to include the Capital, the White House and the Supreme Court, zone it to be non-residential then give the rest back to Maryland.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our Magazine, and enjoy exclusive benefits

Subscribe to the online magazine and enjoy exclusive benefits and premiums.

[wpforms id=”133″]