26 United States The EconomistAugust 8th 2020
2 Ewing, of Ohio’s transport commission,
saysarecent feasibilitystudyshowedit
couldbedone.Thepopulationisbooming
inColumbus,whichlostallitsrailservices
in1979,sothereisplentyofdemandfor
new transport—for example, to Chicago
andPittsburgh.Shesaysthepipescould
comeuponstate-ownedlandbesidemo-
torwaysor(wheretheyexist)railways.An-
otherroutebeingconsideredwouldlink
KansasCityandStLouis,bothinMissouri.
Whydoit?“Weseeitassomethingto
helpconverttheregion,”shesays.Looking
aheadtoprojectsthatwouldnotbecom-
pleteduntilmid-centuryiscommonprac-
ticefortransport planners.A hyperloop
couldallowspousestoworkindifferent
citieswhilestilllivingtogether,orOhioans
topopto Chicago’sfancy restaurantsor
concertvenuesforanevening.Inreality,though,suchschemeswould
onlybeviableiftheywereusefulfortran-
sportinggoods,too.“Mostlythiswouldbe
forfreight,”saysMarkPatton,whoover-
seestransportplansfortheColumbusre-
gion.PaulJudge,whorunsa thrivingplas-
ticsmanufacturer,Axium,inthecity,says
hewouldwelcomeitifitmeanthecould
runa bigfactory,cheaply,inonespotand
shiphisbillionsofunitsofshampoobot-
tles,hand-sanitisersandtheliketomar-
ketsintheregion.
Whowouldpayforit?Bothprivateand
publicfundswouldbeneeded.Somepub-
lichelpwouldcomefromprovidingthe
land,butinvestorshopeformore.MrWal-
dersaysheexpectsAmericawilleventually
seea $2trnnationalinfrastructureplanto
helprestarttheeconomy.Partofthatmight
throwtheMidwesta loop. 7W
ashington, dc was not always a
funky trapezoid shape. It took on that
form in 1847, when residents of Alexandria
City (now in Virginia) spearheaded an ef-
fort to leave the capital and be reincorpo-
rated into Old Dominion state. Years of ne-
glect from Congress and Washington’s
various governing committees had left its
infrastructure crumbling. Many slavehold-
ing residents also believed that the capital
would soon outlaw slavery, and cast an eye
to friendlier territory next door. Following
votes in favour from Alexandria residents
and Congress in 1846, the Virginia state leg-
islature met the next year to approve the
retrocession of all District lands south of
the Potomac river. That history is becom-
ing newly relevant as the campaign for dc
statehood has gained momentum.
Before the retrocession, the District was
ten square miles of land that included both
present-day Alexandria City and Arlington
County, Virginia, in addition to its current
territory north of the Potomac. This was its
original design as set out in 1790, when
northern political leaders met their south-
ern opponents to establish a capital on the
Potomac in exchange for a powerful na-
tional bank and an expanded role for the
federal Treasury. The story of this “dinner-
table bargain” has now been popularised
by a song in the musical “Hamilton”.
The original capital district was not just
geographically different from the one that
exists today. Its residents also enjoyed dif-
ferent rights. Between 1790 and 1801, peopleliving in the newly converted district could
vote for both the House of Representatives
and the state legislatures of Virginia and
Maryland, depending on which side of the
Potomac they lived. That is because the
District of Columbia was not officially in-
corporated until the turn of the century;
until then, de facto residents still enjoyed
all the de jure rights of a citizen living in the
surrounding state. In 1801 Congress passed
the Organic Act, a law officially establish-
ing Washington as a district separate from
its adjacent states. Residents were to be
governed by Congress, and were no longer
counted as residents of Maryland or Vir-
ginia. Their right to vote was stripped away.
This history is little-known outside the
capital city. Although its lack of voting
rights is a live issue among the 700,000
people who live there, most other Ameri-cans pay it little attention. Polling suggests
that those who have are split; statehood for
Puerto Rico has greater support than state-
hood for the Swamp.
Democratic activists are an exception.
They have embraced the issue not only for
the sake of residents’ voting rights, but also
for the two additional Democratic senators
the District, which is almost half black,
would undoubtedly send to Capitol Hill if it
became a state. In “It’s Time to Fight Dirty:
How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Major-
ity in American Politics”, David Faris, a po-
litical scientist, cites statehood for dcas
one of several “dirty” tricks Democrats
could pull to tilt the electoral system—
which confers advantages to Republicans
who represent sparsely populated, rural
states—back towards equality. In June a
majority of members of the Democrat-con-
trolled House of Representatives voted to
admit dcinto the union as the 51st state. Of
the 25 candidates who ran for the Demo-
cratic presidential nomination this year, 18
supported statehood.
The political implications of granting
statehood to dchave caused an uproar on
the right. Just before the House vote, Tom
Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkan-
sas, told the Senate that granting statehood
to the district and conferring voting rights
on its citizens constituted a “power-grab”
by Democratic politicians to “rig the rules
of our democracy and try to give [them]
permanent power”. That, of course, is part
of the appeal for some of the idea’s suppor-
ters. How could it happen?
Stahsha Rhodes, campaign manager of
an advocacy group called “51 for 51,” says
that “bypassing the filibuster and getting 51
votes is the most straightforward path to
statehood.” If Democrats did manage to
win control of the Senate and White House
in November, admitting dcas a state could
be on their agenda. Though some legal ex-
perts argue that Congress has the power to
restore the voting rights they rescinded
from District residents in 1801, others be-
lieve that the Constitution grants congres-
sional representation only to residents of
states. If that is so, advocates would need to
turn to a constitutional amendment to get
proper representation in Congress.
51 for 51 maintains that the fight for
statehood is about rights. America’s foun-
ders believed that proper representation in
government was key to a modern social
contract. Accordingly, many adopted “no
taxation without representation” as a rally-
ing cry during the war of independence.
The same demand for voting rights is now
the District’s unofficial slogan. Proponents
point out that, thanks to laws about voting
overseas, there is nowhere—apart from
prison—an American citizen can move to
and be deprived of their right to vote for
congressional representation. Nowhere,
except the District of Columbia. 7WASHINGTON, DC
Residents of the nation’s capital could once vote for Congress and for state
legislatures. Perhaps they will againDC historyWithout representation
DC5 kmWashingtonDistrict of
Virginia ColumbiaMarylandMarylandArlington
CountyPoto
ma
cAlexandriaAlexandria CityCity
DC land ceded back
to Virginia in 1847