What do Democrats gain from pushing for DC statehood?

Question

The House just voted for Washington DC to become a state, almost exclusively along party lines. While the arguments for statehood aren't new, equality for ethnic minorities is a greater concern following the death of George Floyd. But the bill isn't expected to pass the Senate, and the POTUS has said he'd veto it anyway, citing the extra Democrats it would add to both chambers in Congress.

So presumably, the Democrats did this for optics: as with many bills, it shows the voters how the parties differ. But this particular one doesn't have obvious national appeal, which leads to my question: what do they hope to gain from this? Is the hope purely that voters across the US will be impressed with the signalled pro-democracy, anti-racism priorities?

Edit: to clarify, since a comment & answer have each been posted that proved I need to: I know if it passed the Democrats would have more seats (I made that point myself), and I know that's why they won't get it, and my question is what other motive they could have given that they know that too.

Answer 1

One of the core issues, beyond claims it's all about increasing Senatorial power for a party, is that of representation and enfranchisement of US citizens; tax-paying ones, in this case (raising some ironic "no taxation without representation" connections). The district has about 705,000 people residing in it, absolutely none of whom is represented in the Senate, and who only have a single non-voting representative in the House. By comparison, the 4 smallest states in the US by population are:

1. Wyoming: 578,759
2. Vermont: 623,989
3. Alaska: 731,545
4. North Dakota: 762,062

Two of them have fewer people than DC does (as of the 2010 census), and the other two are only slightly more populous. All of them have voting members representing their interests in both chambers.* So the simple argument is why do we tolerate some 700,000 citizens having zero Congressional representation, when there are entire states with fewer people and full representation? In the early days of the country DC simply wasn't populous enough for this to present much of an issue, but in modern times it's becoming an increasingly large issue.

This also ties into issues of local self determination. The district currently has an elected government of its own, but it is ultimately subordinate to Congress itself. Congress has total, constitutionally granted, authority over the District (and it is not clear to me if statehood could do anything to resolve this short of an amendment). Congress can override and replace any of the laws of the district at any time. To put that into perspective, how much would you like it if Senators and Representatives from states completely different from yours could overturn and rewrite your own state's laws? How happy would Texans be if the other states just up and decided to change their gun laws (or lack thereof) against their will? It's even worse than that for DC, as not only do other states get to exercise total authority over them, but DC itself has no voting power at all in this decision.

The particularly high concentration of African Americans in the district further compounds things with racial issues, in particular a long running (and seemingly still ongoing) tendency in the country to disenfranchise blacks and other non-white populations, and put them under the total control and mercy of whites.

---

_{*And let's not forget that Puerto Rico, if made a state, would be the 31st most populous in the country: 20 states currently existing have less people in them than Puerto Rico does (at over 3m citizens). Yet Puerto Rico still has no representation. Note that while Puerto Ricans by default do not have to pay Federal Income tax, they do pay most all other forms of Federal taxes, providing several billion a year in tax revenues to the US; about the same that Wyoming and Vermont provide (including their Federal income tax).}

Answer 2

After your edits I interpret your question to essentially be:

Why would politicians propose or vote for things they know won't pass into legislation?

There is nothing particularly Democratic (or Republican) about this, politicians of all colors do this. Some of the reasons I can think of are:

• Give visibility to the issue. I had never heard about this issue before. Now I have. If I were a US voter it might affect my vote, or motivate me to go vote.
• Show their supporters that they are at least trying. Important to battle the "all politicians are the same, nobody is fighting for us" feeling.
• Force "the other side" to make a public stand on the issue, and open them up for a "why do you hate democracy?"-attack.

Answer 3

The push isn't new, with efforts starting in the 1980s to make a new state. With the current racial tensions running high, it should be noted that Washington D.C. is 49% black. They currently get no voting representation in Congress, although the District gets 3 Electoral College votes, the same as if it were a state.

Senate seats

If Washington D.C becomes a state, then the Senate goes to 102 Senators, with two new D.C. Senators. These would almost certainly be Democrat as Washington D.C. is overwhelmingly Democrat

The District of Columbia's at-large congressional district is ranked on the Cook PVI, as it participates in presidential elections. It is represented by a non-voting delegate. Its rank is D+43. Territorial districts are not ranked on the Cook PVI, as they do not participate in presidential elections.

Answer 4

It's pretty clearly purely for the sake of optics.

In particular, note that this measure did not come up when we had a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic President so it stood at least some chance of being passed.

There's a pretty simple reason for that. The US Constitution (article 1, Section 8) says:

The Congress shall have Power
[...]
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [...]

Although it hadn't been ceded or named yet when the Constitution was written, that's describing Washington DC--the seat of the Government of the United States.

As a state, Washington DC would have its own government that was not entirely subordinate to the federal Congress¹. So, Congress would no longer be able to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over Washington DC.

Washington DC is the one piece of land in the US that is prohibited by the Constitution from becoming a state. If they honestly wanted it to become a state, what they would have drafted would have been an amendment to the constitution.

So, they passed a bill that they not only know won't pass the Senate, but that (they know even better than we do) would be blatantly unconstitutional if it were signed into law.

So what we have is a bill that's pure, unadulterated "posing". Those who wrote and voted for it know full well that it won't become law, and more importantly realize that even if the Senate and President were amenable, it still couldn't become law, because it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

At the same time, they can use it for talking points during an election they clearly believe is going to be difficult. Rather than admit that the Senate ignored it because it was obviously unconstitutional, they'll try to push the notion that Republicans opposed it because they're anti-democratic, racist, etc. And, there's little question that to at least some extent, this will succeed.

On one hand, it's absolutely true that modern Republicans are extremely prone to believing certain conspiracy theories, even ones that are utterly silly and lack any factual support (e.g., Birthers).

It is, however, also true that modern Democrats are equally willing to believe equally silly nonsense with equal lack of factual support. In the case of Democrats, this takes a somewhat different form. It's largely a belief that if I espouse a measure I claim will benefit marginalized group X, then any opposition to it can stem only from hating X².

Purely in theory, you can sort of get around the constitutional problems by writing the law not to turn all of Washington DC into a state, but to instead just "shrink" Washington DC to include only the capital building, white house, etc., so you still have some minuscule area of land that's officially the seat of government, but the actual residents of the area all live in the new state.

Dealing with that at all well also requires a constitutional amendment though. The problem is pretty simple: under the 23^rd amendment, Washington DC gets 3 electoral votes, just like it would if it were a state. If we shrink Washington DC so it has no residents, those electoral votes now represent...virtually nobody. Essentially the only people we could claim were residents and being represented by those electoral votes would be the first family, since they reside in the White House, which would almost certainly have to be considered part of the seat of government (and even that would be a change--the first family normally retain residency in their home state, so (for example) in the last election, Trump voted in New York.

So even if we skirt the primary constitutional issue itself, we immediately run into another that's equally problematic (i.e., also requires a constitutional amendment to fix).

---

1. ...in contrast to its municipal government, which is subordinate to the Congress. From a legal viewpoint, the DC municipal government is basically a "hired hand" acting on behalf of congress. Congress essentially has veto power over any action taken by the municipal government. Congress can change the rules under which it operates or (in theory) could even abolish the municipal government and administer it directly. In contrast, a state government is an independent entity acting on its own behalf, with full power to make its own laws, even if those are contrary to the wishes of the federal government (e.g., legalizing drugs that are prohibited by the federal government).
2. As opposed to, for just a few examples, thinking your measure will be ineffective, do more harm than good, benefit X but only at the expense of group Y who need help just as badly, provide minimal benefits at exorbitant costs, or simply falls within the range of powers granted to the states rather than the federal gov't.