Home | About | Donate

'Long Past Time': In Historic Vote, House Democrats Pass Legislation to Make DC the 51st State

However, it would be much simpler to simply return the District to MD than to create another state

1 Like

pink –

Interesting post –
Segregation was alive and well in Maryland into the 1950’s – don’t know about Virginia –

Naming of the Capital (Washington) and the area (DC) were based on George Washington
and Christoper Columbus – a slave-owning president and Columbus who played a large role
in the invasion here and GENOCIDE run under Papal Edicts to “Enslave or Kill” the natives
here, demonized by “Christianity” as “pagans … only fit to be fed to the dogs.”
Native lands across the Globe were thus stolen from them.
Currently across the US statues of both George Washington and Christopher Columbus
are being taken down or pulled down – and should have happened a long time ago.

Thought your suggestion about shifting residents of DC to Maryland – excluding
government area – was interesting. That’s why I was looking at the historical political
situations in both Maryland and Virginia.

IMO, the era of the gun was moved into DC earlier than in many other areas of US which
seemed to have moved many “whites” into suburbs but I think still commuting to DC for work.
With many repercussions for residents of DC and their community. Control over guns in DC has
long been a very big issues. Once again, it is my opinion that it is the CIA running its usual M.O.
of drug and gun running in many nations to create sufficient violence and chaos to overturn their
democracies which is also playing out in US societies, cities and communities for the same purpose.
That’s been true here since 1970’s. Koch Bros. which controls both parties along with many large
corporations has used their organization ALEC to overturn gun regulations in the US for decades
now. Koch Bros. has for more than 100 years worked to overturn democracy here and to destroy
government of the people. Destroying Separation of Church & State is a major way to do it – as
“Christianity” underpins Elite/Patriarchy historically.
ALEC is now being run in Canada and is already creating violence in at least one of the areas
where gun regulations have been overturned. Canadian government responded by BANNING
ASSAULT WEAPONS, but ALEC continues on moving across Canada.

If anyone is interested –

Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and also known as D.C. or Washington, is the capital city of the United States of America . Founded after the American Revolution as the seat of government of the newly independent country, Washington was named after George Washington , the first president of the United States and a Founding Father

Origin of Washington, DC District Name. DC stands for District of Columbia. It is called District of Columbia, because it was built on land of the Territory of Columbia , a 10 square mile piece of land, that used to be part of Virginia and Maryland. The territory of Columbia was named such after Christopher Columbus.

Historically the Democratic Party has been the dominant party in Maryland politics.
The party has held continuous control of the Maryland General Assembly since 1920, the
longest currently running streak of control by a single party of a state legislature in the U.S.

In 2000, Virginia Republicans controlled the state government, won a second U.S. Senate seat, and secured the state’s electoral votes for president. By 2019, Democrats had turned the tables.

Virginia is a Democratic Party trifecta.
Republicans held trifecta control of state government 2000-2001 and again from 2012-2013.
Democrats held trifecta control from 1992 to 1993.
In all other years, control of state government was divided.
As a result of the state legislative elections on November 5, 2019, Democrats gained control of both the Virginia State Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates.


Demographics of Washington, DC –
From 2017 Census - Population of the District of Columbia was
47.1% “black”/AA -
45.1% “White” (including 36.8% non-Hispanic White) -
04.3% Asian

Washington, D.C.,’s population grew steadily well into the 20th century, reaching a peak of 802,178 residents in 1950. But as Washington’s suburbs grew, the city’s population declined, hitting a low of 572,059 in 2000.

The city’s racial composition also shifted dramatically in the 20th century. In 1940, roughly 71 percent of residents were White and 28 percent were African American. By 1970, those numbers had flipped: 71 percent of residents were African American and 28 percent were White. Since then, the African American population has declined slightly, while the city has become home to a growing number of Asians and Hispanics.

Recent years have heralded the start of a new trend in Washington’s demographics. After decades of decline, the 2010 census revealed that Washington’s population had grown 5.2 percent over the decade. Growth has since accelerated, with a 2.7 percent increase measured just between April 2010 and July 2011, making D.C. the fastest-growing “state” in the country. Washington’s population growth is on a new trajectory.

Washington has earned the reputation of a recession-proof city, with plenty of jobs to go around. This relative economic health reflects several factors: increases in the federal workforce, government job security in harsh economic times, and the growth of industry and contractors in the Washington area nurtured by federal spending.

Think of it this way: Washington and its environs comprise a very large and successful company town, and the federal government is the company.

Don’t be fooled all your life. Diane just like Joe Manchin, Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer, Richie Neal, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi are the Democrat Party. They don’t talk like they legislate because the fooled might catch on. There is no more Democrat Policy that differs in any substantial fiscal way from the Republican agenda.

A vote for either red or blue is a vote for global war, climate change, a permanent underclass, a two-tiered justice system, and every other malady we’ve been increasingly suffering from since the Powell Memo achieved full implementation under Clinton.

True – as Ralph Nader was telling Americans I guess 40 years ago – both parties
are owned by Elites/corporations.

And the officials of the Dem Party are doing their dirty work – also by colluding with GOP.

But here we are again – and I sure as hell don’t want to vote for Biden – but neither
do I want to see Trump create any more immediate pain and suffering for poor/disabled/
sick – those unemployed. IMO, the only solution to this is to be on the streets. Right now!

We should be demanding that Bernie Sanders be recognized as head of the Dem Party –
and demanding that Pelosi announce that the DP will no longer take Elite/corporate money.

We are in a position right now to DEMAND – everyone is active at home base – able to better
understand what is happening in the nation.


1 Like

This is pretty cool though as a resident from WA if they start calling people from the state of DC Washingtonians instead of us I am going to be upset.

Common Dreams, why are we seeing “Media Cannot Be Displayed” so often lately within your Twitter posts? I was disappointed not to be able to watch Eleanor Holmes Martin’s address on DC statehood and Occasio-Cortez’s speech on black lives matter. Why does this happen, and what’s the remedy? Could someone answer this, please?

1 Like

Totally agree, Redpilled. That said, the “proportionate representation” you write about is called the House of Representatives (even with the GOP’s worst gerrymandering efforts). The Senate serves no use and is just another unncessary layer to protect the interests of the ruling class. It doesn’t need reform, it needs to go altogether. I can’t decide which is worse in the U.S., the two chamber legislative system or the two party system.

1 Like

Yup RR- the true beginning of the end…

Not sure, but i’ve been clicking on the link and going directly to the Twitter page to see the video.

Sorry dara but your suggestions, IMO, means citizens in rural areas would have no voice at all in the Senate. “100 seats elected at large”, or a “rural party”, you must be kidding me. I have to side with the founders on this one, where everyone has a voice. I suspect you would feel differently if the populated areas of this country were Trump supporters, and it was you who had no voice.

I don’t kid about any of my political opinions nor do any of them have to do with what state I live in. You haven’t explained why the current system works for a rural conservative voter in CA. They can’t write their senator in WY and express their concerns. All house and Senate members block most contact outside the district.

If a rural party isn’t viable then rural voters can decide to support a larger conservative party (Republicans or some split off from Republicans). But in my scheme minority voters in any state if they can band with enough other people around the country in a party that exceeds 1% then they can get a voice. I’m kind of disappointed in your outlook on this as I considered you a fairly rational poster here. There is nothing rational about the Senate unless you view the states as almost separate countries which I do not and didn’t think you did.

The Republicans aren’t the only party that engages in gerrymandering. The Democrats practice it with just as much enthusiasm in those states they control, such as Massachusetts.

“You haven’t explained why the current system works for a rural conservative voter in CA.”
It works about as well as my progressive votes work in my conservative state, not very well. I don’t believe I ever said the system was perfect, there will always be some that are marginalized, depending on your political beliefs, where you live, and what the majority’s political beliefs are in that area. Electing Senators at large is a joke, and why I called it so, leaving rural states with no representation at all. As far as rural third parties, that would work about as well as any third party has in our two party system, not at all.
What your scheme does, is ensures the populated areas of this country would always be in control. Less populated states might as well not bother to vote at all, knowing they will change nothing in the political landscape. I’ll repeat, that may sound good to you right now, as the politics in these populated areas lean your way, that may not always be the case in the future, a possibility you don’t seem to want to acknowledge .
Is the system is not perfect right now, and I might be open to changes in the future, possibly even removing the Senate, but I would only be open to changes that treated all areas of the country fairly. Not to a system that completely marginalizes areas because they have less voters than the most populated areas, I fail to see where that position makes me irrational.
My position on this is much like defending the Constitution, it’s easy to defend the parts that benefit yourself and you personally like, but much harder to defend the parts you don’t agree with.

And –

We still have no explanation yet as to WHY links can no longer be included
in our posts …???

There are also some bipartisan commissions doing the redistricting in Alaska (state districts only since they only have 1 rep), Arizona (passed by ballot initiative), California (passed by ballot initiative), Colorado (passed by ballot initiative), Hawaii (created by legislation in 1968), Idaho (created by legislation in 1994), Montana (state districts only), and Washington (created by legislation in 1983).
As with many things “Bipartisan” - that means major party politicians pick who is on these commissions and that third parties do not get a seat at the table. There is only one state with a truly independent commission - that is in Michigan where a 2018 ballot initiative created a commission whose members are randomly chosen citizens! I am very anxious to see how that exercise in participatory democracy pans out next year.

1 Like

For information sake, the Commission in California includes four representatives from non-major parties, 10 representatives (5 each) from the major parties. To actually draw new lines, however, three commissioners from the non-major parties have to agree. So non-major party members do have leverage over district lines. The Commission is required to meet publicly (Bagley-Keen Act) as well.

I happen to know an independent commissioner and they felt process was pretty rigorous and fair overall. They noted that one issue that did not get a lot of press in 2010: the State Auditors office spent considerable time getting commissioners up to speed on demographics, geography, and modeling tools.


Thanks for pointing this out - although those members are not from non-major parties - they are just not from major parties (i.e. independents who didn’t register as Democrats or Republicans). I don’t believe there has ever been a third party representative on the commission.

“Non-major“ was my description, I did not look up the law etc. so just take that loosely as not democrat or republican. I believe you are correct the last and so-far only round of commissioners included independent and major party commissioners. Given the commission has only done its work once, this could change in the future, especially if major party numbers dwindle to being not-so-major.

My personal feeling is the process will always be fraught, by its nature, but independent commissions are preferable to legislators drawing their districts.

In 2000 Nader got 2.7% of the US popular vote for president. I believe this is as high as the Greens have gotten in a Presidential race (our only national election). If a national election is held where everyone understands the math that when they vote for the Green party they will be increasing their # of seats in the 100 person assembly (there needs to be rounding math defined but that’s just details - for now assume a set of parties gets a whole number of % of the vote), then I think that number is going to go up. There are plenty of people who don’t vote Green because they don’t want their vote wasted when they know it is going to be one of two people winning the only national election we have. But in a national proportional election, I think it would be 5% or more (it won’t be 20% I realize) who would vote Green (I would) and there would be 5 Green Senators out of 100. On this forum, you have @Mr_Peabody and others often emphasizing what a big deal it would be to have a single Green candidate (Lisa Savage) elected to Senate - and I agree with him. Imagine what 5 Green Senators would mean.

Electing Senators at large is a joke

I really wish you wouldn’t be insulting like this to an idea that is very much discussed by serious political theorists. Because you don’t seem to know much about Proportional Representation doesn’t give you an excuse to be dismissive. I assume you can find your own articles, but here are a few I discovered which I’ve added to my reading list.




Oh, and in case I wasn’t clear - I am for keeping the House as it is - no proportional grouping for large states which is a band aid for a problem that a Proportional Representation Senate solves much better - your House Representative is accountable to the smallest number of people possible given we have 435 House members and districts can’t span across states. Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware of course all keep their 1 House Seat.

Yes - I definitely support independent commissions - though I would still label California’s system as bipartisan rather than independent - especially since the major parties can essentially veto all third party nominees (at the point where 20 nominees in each of the three groups are reduced to 12). Coincidentally, the applications for the next redistricting have already been reduced to 60 and the vetos by the major party legislature leaders are happening this week.

You can see a flow chart of how the process works at
and how the veto is set up so it is very unlikely that any third party commissioners will ever come into play.

1 Like