As soon as possible, the government of the District needs to apply for statehood. The status of Washington DC as the Federal Government's company town means that whenever there is a government shutdown, the city government experiences immediate problems and the District is currently operating out of contingency funds.
The lack of Congressional representation for the District's 632,000 residents is problematic. The original Constitutional provision not including the District in any state was a result of the Framer's desire for an area whose security was not dependent upon any state:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Note the focus on military buildings. Does anyone still think the Federal Government requires the protection of their own district in order to be safe from protestors?
This text allows for the existence of a Federal District. It does not require that there be a Federal District, or specify the minimum size. Congress may retain the National Mall, Capitol Hill, the White House, and the Supreme Court building as the Federal District and allow the rest to become the state of Columbia, or cede it back to Maryland - which could refuse to take it, I suppose.
More below the Orange Squiggle of Power.
Statehood for the District is always opposed by Republicans, for the simple reason that they do not want two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative added to the Congress for the foreseeable future.
Basic fairness plus political advantage provide sufficient motivation to press for statehood for the District. In the midst of the current GOP shutdown of our government, though, there are additional reasons.
One is to keep the issue of the shutdown alive politically even after the government re-opens. A strong argument for statehood is the impact of the shutdown on the ordinary citizens of the district. This puts oppositional Republicans in the position of arguing that they won't use the shutdown tool again - which is exactly where we want them. Make Republicans explain why shutdowns shouldn't happen very often, why they are rare, and therefore why they had to do it in 2013. This last explanation will be politically useful, as they have not articulated a clear purpose for the shutdown, and are not likely to get better at doing so in the context of saying they won't do it again, at least not soon.
A second reason is to encourage the Democratic base. While DC statehood has not been a hot button issue, it would be welcomed by the base, and would certainly provide a rallying point for continued action.
A third reason is to suck all the media oxygen away from Republican attempts to pivot from their shutdown to the deficit. They want to talk about spending; don't let them.
And a fourth, which is both a good and bad thing, would be to expose GOP racism. The cries of "Those People Don't Deserve a State" would certainly be heard. Rush Limbaugh would not be able to contain himself, among other leading GOP voices. Keeping the ugly side of the Republican Party in the minds of independents is politically useful, while inflaming racists is not a good thing.
So, Statehood for D.C.!
- It's fair
- It puts the Senate out of Republican reach for a long time to come
- It keeps the issue of the shutdown alive, and makes Republicans explain why they shouldn't have done it
- It encourages our base
- It prevents the GOP from trying to go on the offensive
- It exposes the ugly side of the Republican Party to independents