District of Columbia Voting Representation Proposals in the 117th Congress

District of Columbia Voting Representation Proposals in the 117th Congress

INSIGHTi

District of Columbia Voting Representation
Proposals in the 117th Congress
Updated July 2, 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, 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.
On March 22, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing on H.R. 51. The Committee
then held a markup on April 14, during which it rejected several amendments, including some that
proposed alternative methods for granting voting representation in Congress for DC residents. H.R. 51
was ordered to be reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a vote of 25-19.
The House Rules Committee held a hearing on H.R. 51, on April 20. The Rules Committee reported a
closed rule providing for floor consideration of the bill. On April 22, H.R. 51 passed the House by a vote
of 216-208 and was received in the Senate. On April 20, the Biden Administration published a Statement
of Administration Policy indicating its support of H.R. 51. On June 22, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on S. 51.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11599
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
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
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.
Retrocession
In the 117th Congress, several bills have been introduced that would modify the boundaries of the seat of
federal government and retrocede the majority of DC land to the State of Maryland:
 H.R. 472, introduced by Representative Johnson of South Dakota on January 25, was
referred to the House Committees on the Judiciary, and Oversight and Reform.
 H.R. 2614, introduced by Representative Griffith of Virginia on April 16, was referred to
the House Committees on the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Armed Services.
 H.R. 2651, introduced by Representative Gohmert of Texas on April 19, was referred to
the House Committees on the Judiciary, and Oversight and Reform.
 S. 1361, introduced by Senator Marshall of Kansas on April 22, was referred to the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Considerations for Congress
Statehood and retrocession are two of several types of legislative proposals that would grant DC some
form of voting representation in 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.

Congressional Research Service
3
Some opponents of DC Statehood contend that the “District Clause” and the 23rd Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution pose unique challenges for granting DC statehood that could require a constitutional
amendment.
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 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
instance, a proposal in the 116th Congress (H.J.Res. 97), introduced by Representative 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 3 · UPDATED