has historically required the fulfillment of three criteria prior to admission. 1) 2) These criteria are: That the inhabitants of the proposed new state are imbued with and are sympathetic toward the principles of democracy as exemplified in the American form of government. That a majority of the electorate wish to secure 3) That the proposed new state has sufficient population and resources to support state government and at the same time carry its share of the cost of the Federal Government. Actually, consideration of the traditional criteria for statehood and determination of the state's readiness to enter the Union are not constitutionally required; only the guarantee of a 29 republican form of government, is constitutionally mandated: "[W]hen a new political entity.is being considered for admission to the Union, Congress has the duty to examine the proposed State Constitution to guarantee the Federal Constitutional requirement 1130 Since District of Columbia voters have of republicanism. already ratified their constitution, the only act remaining for 28H.R. Rep. No. 624, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2933, 2943. 29U.S. Const. art. IV, $3 cl. 1. 30Equal Citizenship, supra note 26 at 323. Congress before passage of a statehood bill is to certify that the constitution is republican in form. The second question is: Must the state of Maryland consent to District of Columbia statehood. The short answer is probably not. The District of Columbia originally was established in 1791 on land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. The land that was donated by Virginia was subsequently retroceded in 1846. After 1846, the District was located wholly on land ceded by Maryland. Article IV, §3, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other state. without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." This limitation of Congressional power to admit states has been relevant to the admission of four states, Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky and Vermont. West Virginia was granted its statehood without the consent of Virginia. Virginia seceded. from the Union in 1861; thereafter, "statehood leaders in western Virginia declared the secession of Virginia 'void' and proceeded to reorganize the 'government' of Virginia for the exclusive purpose of expediting the indispensable authorization for separation. Congress proceeded to legitimize the acts of the 'reorganized government' of Virginia by admitting West Virginia, in 1863, as the 35th ,,31 The admission of West Virginia could be State of the Union." viewed as a Congressional act that stretched the language of the Constitution to unprecedented limits. Thus, there is precedent for admitting the District of Columbia into statehood without the Some may suggest that the more prudent consent of Maryland. However, one could argue that when Maryland ceded land to the federal government, that it relinquished all rights over that land. Moreover, one could further argue that the District of Columbia is not within the "jurisdiction of any other state"; therefore, permission from Maryland to become a state would not be necessary. District of Columbia statehood could be viewed as a· congressional grant of federal land to the new state upon its admission into the Union. A third question is: What will become of the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the District becomes a state? Ostensibly, this question leads to the dilemma of whether 32 the 23rd Amendment necessitates a constitutional amendment to properly facilitate District of Columbia statehood. This issue. 32The 23rd Amendment provides: Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by the state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. seems to present a conflict between two constitutional provisions. Article IV $3 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to admit new states. Admission of the District of Columbia is a special case, however, because it is an entity explicitly recognized and provided for in the Constitution. A change in the status of the District from that set out in the Constitution to that of statehood must change the significance of the Constitutional language dealing with the District. The ultimate question becomes whether that change must occur explicitly via constitutional amendment, or whether it might take effect by implication. There is no minimum size for the District set out in the Constitution; there is merely a provision stating that the District should be no larger than 10 square miles. Since the proposed state constitution would merely reduce the size of the District, said District, as defined in the Constitution, would remain intact as a constitutional entity. The proposed state constitution would merely remove all residents (voters) from the District and place them within the borders of a state. It is difficult to see how this could be considered an attempt to "amend" the U.S. Constitution. Amendment is also an option. Repeal of the 23rd The fourth concern centers on the question: Can Congress impose limitations on the District as a condition for admission as a state, and if so, what kind of limitations? The answer to this question, unlike most arising from the issue of statehood for the District, is fairly straightforward, primarily because there is judicial precedent on point. Congressional "conditions" on admission to statehood have appeared in the past and have generated some constitutional challenges. These cases indicate that Congress may impose whatever conditions on admission that it deems wise, but that the binding effect of those "conditions" may be severely limited or non-existent after statehood is achieved, depending upon the substantive nature of the restrictions. 33 In Coyle v. Oklahoma, the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, had provided for admission of Oklahoma to the Union on condition that the state capital not be moved from Guthrie to Oklahoma City before 1913. After Oklahoma's admission to the Union, the state passed a law providing for removal of the state capital to Oklahoma City in 1910. The issue in the case was whether Oklahoma could be bound by the conditions in the Enabling Statute of 1906. The Court distinguished three types of "conditions" `that might be placed upon admission.to statehood. First, that which is satisfied upon admission: that is, binding the admittee only. until it has achieved statehood. A demand that the proposed state constitution conform to certain congressional requirements at the time of admission would be such a condition. Second, there is the condition that is intended by Congress to bind the state at a future time and which is within the scope of the conceded powers of Congress over the subject. Thirdly, Congress 33221 U.S. 559 (1910). |