INSIGHTi

District of Columbia Voting Representation
Proposals in the 117th Congress
February 8, 2021
In the 117th Congress, several Members of Congress have introduced bills that would grant voting
representation in Congress to residents of the District of Columbia (DC), by admitting DC to the Union as
a state, or through retrocession of DC land to Maryland. In the past, some Members of Congress have
opposed such proposals and recommended maintaining the status quo.
This Insight provides an overview of recent DC voting representation proposals and discusses potential
policy considerations. It does not provide legal or constitutional analysis on DC statehood or voting
representation, nor does it analyze territorial statehood issues.
Proposals in the 117th Congress
Statehood
On January 4, 2021, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton reintroduced the Washington, D.C. Admission
Act, H.R. 51. The bill was referred to the House Committees on: Oversight and Reform; Rules; Armed
Services; the Judiciary; and Energy and Commerce. On January 26, 2021, Senator Thomas Carper of
Delaware introduced S. 51, the companion bill to H.R. 51. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
If enacted, H.R. 51 would admit Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, as the 51st state of the United
States, “on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever.” The new state would include
most of the land in the current District of Columbia. The bill excludes “principal Federal monuments,” the
U.S. Capitol Building, the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, and federal office buildings
adjacent to the National Mall and the U.S. Capitol. The legislation names the resulting federal enclave
“the Capital,” and establishes it as “the seat of the Government of the United States.”
Under the legislation, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, would elect two Senators and at least one
Representative to the House. Legislative enactments by the new state would no longer be subject to
congressional disapproval. The bill would also establish procedures to expedite congressional
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11599
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
consideration of a joint resolution to repeal the Twenty-Third Amendment, which provides DC with
representation in the Electoral College equivalent to the number of Senators and Representatives in
Congress it would be entitled to if it were a state, without exceeding the amount granted to the least
populous state. H.R. 51 also sets out the process for transferring federal responsibilities to the new state
and would establish a statehood transition commission.
In the 116th Congress, on June 26, 2020, an identical version of the bill passed the House of
Representatives by a vote of 232-180. This marked the first time in 27 years a DC statehood bill was
considered on the floor of the House of Representatives, and the first time in the history of Congress such
a bill was passed by either the House or the Senate.
Retrocession
On January 25, 2021, Representative Dustin “Dusty” Johnson of South Dakota introduced H.R. 472,
which would modify the boundaries of the seat of federal government and retrocede the majority of DC
land to the State of Maryland. Under this bill, the seat of the federal government would consist of
“principal federal monuments,” the White House, the U.S. Capitol Building, the U.S. Supreme Court
Building, and the federal executive, legislative and judicial office buildings adjacent to the National Mall
and the U.S. Capitol. The remaining land would be returned to the State of Maryland, through which
current DC residents would then have voting representation in the state. Representative Johnson
introduced a similar bill (H.R. 8539) in the 116th Congress. Also in the 116th Congress, another bill
proposing retrocession of part of DC to Maryland (H.R. 8516) was introduced by Representative H.
Morgan Griffith of Virginia.
Considerations for Congress
Statehood and retrocession are two of several types of legislative proposals that would grant the District
some form of voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Other previous proposals have included a
constitutional amendment granting congressional voting representation to DC residents, semi-retrocession
(i.e., allowing qualified DC residents to vote in Maryland in federal elections for the Maryland
congressional delegation to the House and Senate), and a statutory provision for representation in
Congress (sometimes referred to as virtual statehood). As noted above, some Members of Congress have
opposed these legislative efforts in favor of maintaining the status quo.
Article IV of the Constitution gives Congress the general power to admit new states into the Union. The
Article does not prescribe the method, and the process has varied over time. Often, the following
principles have been considered:
 a demonstration by the residents of the proposed state of a belief in the principles of
republican government;
 an expression of majority support for statehood among residents; and
 establishment of sufficient population and resources.
The idea of retrocession, in general, has not been fully tested in the courts. Past precedent set by the
retrocession of land to Virginia in 1846 suggests that the process may require not only the approval of
Congress and the President, but also the approval of the State of Maryland and, perhaps, the voters of the
retroceded area. Although the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the retrocession to Virginia in
Phillips v. Payne in 1876, it did not rule on the merits of the constitutional arguments raised against
retrocession.
Congress might consider maintaining the status quo, with or without additional legislation. Some past
legislative proposals sought to ensure maintenance of the status quo, particularly regarding statehood. For

---

Congressional Research Service
3
instance, a proposal in the 116th Congress (H.J.Res. 97), introduced by Representative Mark Walker of
North Carolina, would have proposed a constitutional amendment to prevent expansion of the U.S.
Senate’s composition.

Author Information

Joseph V. Jaroscak

Analyst in Economic Development Policy




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11599 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---