USADaily -
There aren’t any good reasons to oppose DC statehood, but there are a ton of bad reasons. However, of all of the bad reasons to oppose DC statehood, only one of them is honest. Perhaps not coincidentally, it is the answer that DC statehood opponents give least often.
But in an interview with the Washington Post’s editorial board, published yesterday, John Kasich gave that answer: DC statehood is bad because DC is full of Democrats.
Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript:
[JO-ANN] ARMARO: You voted against statehood for D.C. when you were in Congress.
KASICH: Yes.
ARMAO: Is that still your position, and do you have–
KASICH: Yes, I would it say probably is.
ARMAO: What about voting rights in Congress, voting representatives?
KASICH: Probably not. I don’t know. I’d have to, I mean, to me, that’s just, I just don’t see that we really need that, okay? I don’t know. I don’t think so.
ARMAO: But you realize though that people in D.C. pay taxes, go to war and they have no vote in Congress.
KASICH: Yeah.
ARMAO: How is that–
KASICH: Well look, I am not – I don’t – I am not, because you know what, what it really gets down to if you want to be honest is because they know that’s just more votes in the Democratic Party. That’s what–
ARMAO: So if there were Republicans in the District, you would have a different position?
KASICH: Yeah, okay, well look, they send me a bill, I’m president of the United States, I’ll read your editorials.
As long as likely additions to the Union are populated by citizens who are likely to vote Democratic — DC and Puerto Rico being the two readily-available examples — Republicans are going to oppose adding new states. That is, unless Democrats offer a compromise in which the additions come with the introduction of new red states (splitting Texas into two smaller states, perhaps?) so that the balance of power in the Senate and Electoral College doesn’t change.
In case you’re wondering, yes. This would resemble the Missouri Compromise, in which Missouri’s addition to the Union as a slave state was paired with Maine’s addition as a free state. In case you were wondering a bit further, yes. Political polarization is currently at its highest point since the mid-1800s. There have been times when either or both major political parties were comfortable admitting new states regardless as to their electoral consequences. This is not one of those times.
So while it’s fair to say that “Republicans might lose” is a bad reason to keep DC in a holding pattern where they are taxed without being represented — or allowed to govern themselves, for that matter — at least it’s honest. So kudos, I guess, to Kasich for not bothering to come up with a more elaborate and less honest case?
Source
