The real reason Washington, D.C. still isn’t a state

In a city defined by power, the people who live closest to it have the least of it. Washington, D.C.—home to monuments, museums, the president, and Congress itself—has long stood as the symbolic heart of American democracy. But for the people who actually call it home, the symbolism ends where the ballot box begins.

Because Washington, D.C. isn’t a state. It never has been. And in the eyes of the U.S. government, it still isn’t entitled to the same representation that every state enjoys. That tension—between national ideals and local disenfranchisement—isn’t just a constitutional quirk. It’s a living contradiction, felt every day by over 700,000 residents whose lives are shaped by a system they have no full vote in.

What happens when the capital of freedom becomes the exception to its own rules? What does it mean when the place that makes the laws doesn’t live by them?

Let’s get into it.

Start with the basics: Washington, D.C. isn’t in any state. That’s intentional. Back in 1790, the founders of the United States agreed that the nation’s capital should be a neutral zone—free from the influence of any one state’s interests. So they carved out land from Maryland and Virginia to create a separate, federally controlled district. It was never meant to be a place where people really lived. It was designed to house the machinery of government, not the everyday lives of its workers, teachers, artists, and families.

But cities don’t stay theoretical forever. As D.C. grew, so did its people, its communities, its contradictions. What was once a political zone became a real, vibrant, and deeply diverse city. Yet its political status stayed frozen in time—anchored to the past, resistant to the present, and nervous about what it would mean to update the rules.

Today, Washington, D.C. operates with a unique kind of double standard. Its residents pay federal taxes. They can be drafted into the military. They serve on juries and follow federal laws just like every other American. But they don’t have full voting representation in Congress. They have no senators. They have one delegate in the House of Representatives who can speak, propose legislation, and serve on committees—but not vote on final bills. Their city budget and laws are still subject to approval by Congress. In practice, that means lawmakers from across the country can overrule D.C.'s local decisions—even if they’ve never lived there or listened to the people who do.

The phrase that sums it up is stamped on every D.C. license plate: “Taxation Without Representation.” It’s not a metaphor. It’s policy.

If that slogan sounds familiar, it should. It’s one of the founding grievances that sparked the American Revolution. But instead of being a lesson from history, it’s a lived reality for Washingtonians. And the fight for D.C. statehood—like so many fights about who gets to belong—has become one of the sharpest unresolved tensions in American civic life.

Supporters of D.C. statehood argue that it’s a matter of basic fairness. They point to the population—over 700,000 people, more than the entire states of Vermont or Wyoming—and ask why a city of that size still lacks full rights. They note the racial dynamics: D.C. has long been a majority-Black city, and many of its statehood advocates are Black leaders who frame the issue as one of racial justice as much as political reform.

They also point to the data. In 2020, more than 86% of D.C. voters supported statehood in a local referendum. In 2021, the U.S. House passed a bill to make D.C. a state—renamed the “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” after abolitionist Frederick Douglass—but the Senate refused to take it up. The structure exists. The precedent exists. The votes just… don’t.

Opponents of statehood often argue that the Constitution doesn’t allow it. They say that turning D.C. into a state would require a constitutional amendment, not just a bill. Others argue that D.C.’s role as the seat of government means it must remain neutral and separate. But peel back the legal veneer, and a deeper worry surfaces: political power.

D.C. votes overwhelmingly Democratic—about 92% in recent presidential elections. Giving the city two senators and one representative would likely shift the balance of Congress. And for many in the current system, that’s the real issue. This isn’t just a question of structure. It’s a question of control.

What’s rarely said out loud, but often felt in the background, is how strange it is that the very city representing American democracy is the one place that lacks it. You walk past the Capitol, and it gleams with symbolism. You live near it, and you’re still waiting for full rights. The disconnect isn’t just bureaucratic—it’s existential.

It also reinforces a broader American habit: making exceptions when it's politically convenient. D.C. isn’t the only place in the U.S. with limited or no federal representation. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are also home to millions of citizens who live in a kind of civic limbo—recognized, taxed, enlisted, but not fully represented. The difference is that D.C. isn’t remote. It’s the capital. That makes the omission harder to ignore—and, paradoxically, easier to justify for those invested in keeping the status quo.

What’s most jarring is how normalized the situation has become. For people outside D.C., the lack of representation can feel like an abstract policy glitch. For those inside it, it’s personal. Imagine calling 911, sending your kids to school, voting in local elections—only to watch your laws get blocked by lawmakers from other states. Imagine trying to build safer streets or better hospitals, only to have those plans delayed by federal intervention. That’s not democracy with a lowercase “d.” That’s governance by permission slip.

Over the years, D.C. has gained more control over its affairs through “home rule” legislation, which allows a locally elected mayor and city council to manage many aspects of governance. But even that autonomy has limits. Congress can still overturn local laws, and has done so—most recently in 2023, when it reversed a D.C. crime reform bill despite local support.

The message, implicit but clear: you can vote, but we decide whether it counts.

And yet, the movement for D.C. statehood persists. It’s been rebranded, reframed, reintroduced. Its slogans have matured from protests into policy briefs. Its advocates include not just local residents, but national civil rights organizations and constitutional scholars. The logic is consistent. The resistance is entrenched.

Every few years, when statehood legislation resurfaces, the same talking points emerge. People ask: Wouldn’t this require a constitutional amendment? Couldn’t we just retrocede the land back to Maryland? What about creating a separate “federal core” for government buildings and carving out the rest as a new state?

All of those proposals are technically possible. None of them are politically easy. And while lawmakers debate pathways, the people of D.C. keep waiting—living with the daily reminder that their city is exceptional in all the wrong ways.

Some might argue that representation in Congress is symbolic. That decisions get made at the federal level no matter what. But symbolism matters—especially in a country founded on the idea that representation is not just a right, but a necessity. And in D.C., where so many decisions shape national life, the absence of voice is more than symbolic. It’s structural. It’s sustained. And it’s unjust.

The irony is that the capital city of a nation built on representation remains unrepresented. And that irony is quietly corrosive. It chips away at the legitimacy of laws passed without the input of all. It creates two tiers of citizenship—those who get a say, and those who get a postcard reminding them that their delegate can’t vote.

What would it mean for Washington, D.C. to become a state? It would mean full Congressional voting rights. Local decisions without federal veto. Budget autonomy. The ability to stand alongside 50 others not as a footnote, but as an equal.

It wouldn’t solve every problem. It wouldn’t fix crime, inequality, housing shortages, or traffic. But it would fix the message. It would say: your voice matters. Your vote counts. Your city isn’t an exception. It’s part of the whole. Until then, D.C. remains a symbol of everything the country claims to value—and everything it has not yet delivered.

Maybe this isn’t about legal theory. Maybe it’s about accountability. Maybe the reason D.C. isn’t a state is because power protects itself. Maybe the system works—just not for everyone. And maybe that’s the part that needs to change.