D.C. Retrocession
June 3, 2021 at 4:42 p.m.
By -
On April 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 51 by a slim margin advancing D.C. statehood to the U.S. Senate, where it is currently stalled. There is a chance that this could pass the Senate, but not likely at the moment. If it were, there would be a constitutional challenge regarding Washington, D.C. status as the federal seat and the 23rd Amendment. There are three paths considered for representation for the residents of the District of Columbia that is statehood, constitutional amendment and retrocession. Retrocession would involve the return of the land that was ceded by the state of Maryland to the federal government back in 1801 after the passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act. After the passage of the Organic Act, residents in the newly created district, former citizens of Virginia and Maryland, lost their voting rights in congressional and presidential elections. It took until 1961 with the passage of the 23rd Amendment to restore voting rights for D.C. residents in presidential elections, which had stopped in 1804.
Land ceded by the state of Virginia was returned in 1847 after D.C. residents on the Virginia side of the Potomac voted in factor of retrocession out of fear of slavery being outlawed and getting much needed economic improvements after years of neglected by Congress. There was consideration in 1861 during the Civil Wars for restoring the Virginia side back to the district and in 1867 such an effort passed the U.S. House of Representatives. An unsuccessful constitutional challenge to retrocession followed in the 1870s after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that did not directly address the legality of 1847 retrocession. This was followed by yet another attempt in 1905 by “operators of gambling centers at a horse race track” to challenge the constitutionality of 1847 retrocession. No further legal challenges to the 1847 retrocession have occurred since then.
Retrocession for the remainder of D.C. back to Maryland may be a path to go on if the residents of D.C. and Maryland were not strongly opposed to it and it would be a complicated process of achieving. Plus, with the split in the Senate on statehood and a potential series of legal challenges to statehood. A constitutional amendment allowing the current nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives to become a full voting member would be simpler and more acceptable path for all parties involved and can be balanced out with the addition of another congressional district in a red state such as Utah as was considered in 2009. Action on allowing voting for U.S. senator by D.C. residents should follow later after expansion of the U.S. Senate has occurred as stated in previous letters to the editor.
Please contact your U.S. senators and urge no on statehood but yes on representation in the U.S. House of Representatives by means of constitutional amendment.
Alexander Houze
Leesburg
Latest News
E-Editions
On April 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 51 by a slim margin advancing D.C. statehood to the U.S. Senate, where it is currently stalled. There is a chance that this could pass the Senate, but not likely at the moment. If it were, there would be a constitutional challenge regarding Washington, D.C. status as the federal seat and the 23rd Amendment. There are three paths considered for representation for the residents of the District of Columbia that is statehood, constitutional amendment and retrocession. Retrocession would involve the return of the land that was ceded by the state of Maryland to the federal government back in 1801 after the passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act. After the passage of the Organic Act, residents in the newly created district, former citizens of Virginia and Maryland, lost their voting rights in congressional and presidential elections. It took until 1961 with the passage of the 23rd Amendment to restore voting rights for D.C. residents in presidential elections, which had stopped in 1804.
Land ceded by the state of Virginia was returned in 1847 after D.C. residents on the Virginia side of the Potomac voted in factor of retrocession out of fear of slavery being outlawed and getting much needed economic improvements after years of neglected by Congress. There was consideration in 1861 during the Civil Wars for restoring the Virginia side back to the district and in 1867 such an effort passed the U.S. House of Representatives. An unsuccessful constitutional challenge to retrocession followed in the 1870s after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that did not directly address the legality of 1847 retrocession. This was followed by yet another attempt in 1905 by “operators of gambling centers at a horse race track” to challenge the constitutionality of 1847 retrocession. No further legal challenges to the 1847 retrocession have occurred since then.
Retrocession for the remainder of D.C. back to Maryland may be a path to go on if the residents of D.C. and Maryland were not strongly opposed to it and it would be a complicated process of achieving. Plus, with the split in the Senate on statehood and a potential series of legal challenges to statehood. A constitutional amendment allowing the current nonvoting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives to become a full voting member would be simpler and more acceptable path for all parties involved and can be balanced out with the addition of another congressional district in a red state such as Utah as was considered in 2009. Action on allowing voting for U.S. senator by D.C. residents should follow later after expansion of the U.S. Senate has occurred as stated in previous letters to the editor.
Please contact your U.S. senators and urge no on statehood but yes on representation in the U.S. House of Representatives by means of constitutional amendment.
Alexander Houze
Leesburg
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092