Logosm.gif (1927 bytes)
navlinks.gif (4688 bytes)
Hruler04.gif (5511 bytes)

Back to Mark David Richards’ home page

U.S. Public Opinion on Political Equality for Citizens of the District of Columbia
Mark David Richards
April 12, 2000

Home

Bibliography

Calendar

Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars

DCPSWatch

DCWatch Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14

Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002

Elections
Election 2004
Election 2006

Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission

Issues in DC Politics

Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals

Links

Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition

Photos

Search

What Is DCWatch?

themail archives

History of Research on National Representation for D.C.
The 1999 Surveys
Awareness of D.C.’s Political Status
Support for Equal Voting Rights for D.C. in Senate and House of Representatives
Methods to Achieve Equal Voting Rights in Senate and House of Representatives
Discussion
Tables
History of Support for D.C. Home Rule, Local Self-Government
D.C. Public Opinion: A Review

Three new surveys of American public opinion on D.C. political rights confirm previous research showing large majorities of Americans support equal Congressional voting rights for D.C. citizens. The new surveys show that 72 percent of U.S. adults, 69 percent of college graduates who are registered to vote, and 82 percent of progressive state and local elected officials believe D.C. citizens should have equal voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

The surveys found more support for an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment than for statehood or a merger with Maryland.

History of Research on National Representation for D.C.

In 1996, Edward M. Meyers published "Public Opinion and the Political Future of the Nation’s Capital." Myers used focus group research to explore the issue. He found widespread support for voting representation for D.C. residents in Congress, with a majority favoring voting membership in the Senate.

In 1997, a poll by Mark Richards, a D.C. sociologist and professional pollster, found support for equal Congressional voting rights. In a representative telephone survey of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. adults, the large majority of Americans (79%) agreed that "U.S. citizens who are residents of Washington, D.C. should have voting representatives in the U.S. Congress, like other U.S. citizens." Fifty percent strongly agreed. Fifteen percent disagreed.

The 1999 Surveys

In 1999, Mark Richards designed three studies, using three separate opinion interviewing services to conduct the telephone interviews:

  • A representative sample of 1,011 U.S. adults over 18 years of age interviewed by Bruskin Audits and Surveys (formerly Bruskin/Goldring), October 22-25, 1999 (Margin of error is +3.2 percentage points);
  • A representative sample of 500 college graduates 21 years or more who are registered to vote, interviewed by TDM Research, November 12-21, 1999 (Margin of error is +4.5 percentage points); and
  • A representative sample of 174 state and local elected officials affiliated with 12 national and regional organizations typically associated with progressive causes, commissioned by Preamble Center with the support of New World Foundation, interviewed by RDI Fieldworks between August and October, 1999. (The lists from which elected officials were selected were provided by the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Green Party, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the New Party, the Northeast Citizens Action Resource Center, Revisioning New Mexico, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the Tribal Leaders Director, the National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac of the UCLA Asian American Study Center, and Western States Center.)

Back to top of page


Awareness of D.C.’s Political Status

The new study shows (see Figure 1) that over half (55%) of college graduates who are registered to vote were not aware that D.C. citizens do not have equal voting rights in Congress—46 percent said D.C. citizens already have equal voting rights in Congress, and 9 percent were not sure. (This question was only asked of the college educated sample.)

Figure 1: Awareness of D.C.’s Unequal Political Status
U.S. College Graduates, Registered to Vote, Nov. 1999

"As far as you know, do citizens who live in Washington, D.C., have the same constitutional rights as other U.S. citizens, including equal voting rights in Congress?"

%

Bar graph: no 45, yes 46, not sure 9

More men, older people, and those with higher levels of education and income were more aware than others that D.C. citizens do not have equal voting rights in Congress (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Demographic Differences
Awareness of D.C.’s Unequal Political Status

"As far as you know, do citizens who live in Washington, D.C., have the same constitutional rights as other U.S. citizens, including equal voting rights in Congress?"

%

Bar graph

*Correct answer.

Back to top of page


Support for Equal Voting Rights for D.C. in Senate and House of Representatives

In the 1999 studies, respondents were given some basic facts about D.C., and asked if they thought D.C. citizens should have equal voting rights in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Large majorities of all three groups said D.C. citizens should have equal voting rights in both houses (Figure 3).

Figure 3: % Support Equal Voting Rights for D.C. in Senate and House

"Now a question about the political status of the more than half million citizens living in Washington, D.C. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over the District government. Since 1964, DC citizens have had the right to vote in presidential elections. Since 1974 they have elected a limited home rule government funded 80% by local taxes. Unlike citizens in the 50 states, they do not have voting representation in Congress, neither in the House nor the Senate. In your opinion, should DC citizens have equal voting rights in the House and the Senate, or not?"

Bar graph: US adults 72, college grad voters 69; progressive officials 82

In all three surveys, majorities of demographic subgroups supported equal voting rights for D.C. in the Senate and the House:

  • Progressive state and local elected officials—82% total; 92% women, 76% men; 81% Caucasian, 94% African-American, 73% Hispanic, and 92% American Indian; 87% state elected official, 76% local elected official; 92% ideologically left, 77% center, and 76% right; 91% of those who have been involved in a political or social movement.
  • U.S. Public—72% total; 76% women, 67% men; 76% Northeast, 71% North Central, 73% South, 69% West; 68% of college graduates.
  • College graduates who are registered to vote—69% total; 77% women; 60% men; 75% Northeast, 72% North Central, 69% Southeast, 65% South Central, 54% West; 70% Bachelor’s degree, 65% Graduate degree; 81% Democrats, 71% Independents, 61% Republicans; 80% liberal, 79% moderate, 57% conservative; 78% self-described environmentalist; 63% self-described business oriented.

Back to top of page


Methods to Achieve Equal Voting Rights in Senate and House of Representatives

Those who supported equal voting rights were told "There are several ways for D.C. to gain equal voting rights. For each of the following, tell me if you would support or oppose D.C. citizens if they took that approach." They were asked about three methods: an amendment for equal Constitutional rights, statehood, or merging D.C. with the state of Maryland (those who said "no" or "not sure" were not asked).

Most said they would support an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment. In fact, the Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment was the only method of the three that gained majority support among all demographic groups.

Figure 4: % Who Would Support an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment
(Among Those Who Said They Would Support Equal Voting Rights)

Bar graph: adults 82; college grad voters 88; progressive officials 72

%

Bar graph

Fewer supported statehood or retrocession. College graduates/registered voters preferred retrocession over statehood. Progressive officials preferred statehood over retrocession.

Figure 5: % Who Would Support D.C. Statehood
(Among Those Who Said They Would Support Equal Voting Rights)

Bar graph: US adults 57; college grad voters 43; progressive officials 65

Figure 6: % Who Would Support Merging D.C. with Maryland
(Among Those Who Said They Would Support Equal Voting Rights)

Bar graph: US adults 59; college grad voters 63; progressive officials 35

Among college graduates who are registered to vote, those who opposed equal voting rights in the Senate and the House (25%) were asked why they were opposed. Here is what they said:

Total %
  • D.C. is not a state, doesn’t have responsibilities of state, need to be a state to have representatives, go through process to become a state
7
  • D.C. citizens are not typical of other citizens, they are too political, too involved, close to federal govt., too many deal makers
4
  • D.C. is a city, one square mile, not equal to a state
2
  • D.C. is too small, population is too low, not enough people for representation, Senators would have more power than other states
2
  • D.C. is a special District, political center, the seat of government for all Americans, neutral gathering place for political representatives, clear of politics
2
  • They live there voluntarily—if they want rights, they should move
1
  • They are already represented in their home state—they are in a state already, it’s like two states in one, already in two states, part in Virginia, part in Maryland, already represented there
1
  • D.C. has other benefits, part of federal government, supported by federal government, gets more of everything, federal money, don’t pay federal taxes
1
  • Constitution doesn’t provide for it, established by law, restricted by federal law, would need to add an Amendment
1
  • D.C.’s history, performance in government is dismal, they don’t know what they’re doing, bad judgment, out of control
1
  • D.C. should be part of, merged with, Maryland or Virginia
1
  • Too close to the government, could influence it, conflict of interest
1
  • It has worked the way it is for a long time, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it
1
  • D.C. is protected by Congress, represented by Congress
1
  • D.C. isn’t their permanent residence — most don’t live there
1
  • Everyone has a home state, they only go there to work during day
<1
  • Shouldn’t have two Senators
<1
  • Population is vulnerable—would add more problems
<1
  • Should have vote in House, but not Senate unless a State
<1
  • Their needs are limited
<1
  • Personal prejudice
<1
  • Don’t want to say
<1

In the survey of state and local elected officials associated with progressive organizations, we asked those who said D.C. should NOT have equal voting rights in the House and the Senate (18%) if they would support or oppose allowing D.C. to vote in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives; allowing D.C. to vote in the House only, but not in the Senate; or keeping D.C. as it is with no voting rights. Most who opposed equal voting rights did not support partial voting rights either.

Those who said DC Should Not Have Equal Constitutional Rights (18%): Opinions on Other Policies
(Progressive State and Local Elected Officials)

"Do you support of oppose the following: [For each one] Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose…?"

Support % Oppose %
Allow D.C. to vote in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives 29 58
Allow D.C. to vote in the House only, but not the Senate 20 68
Keep D.C. as it is with no voting rights 68 26

Back to top of page


Discussion

Although many Americans were not aware that D.C. citizens do not have political equality, when asked if they support equal voting rights for D.C. in the Senate and the House, citizens—with or without facts—responded that they do, in overwhelming numbers. This was true across ideology and political party lines, too. D.C. can argue its case for political equality knowing that the "court of public opinion" is mostly with them. In fact, support for D.C. equal voting rights is so high there is hardly room to go up—although there is some evidence that a portion of those who disagreed that D.C. should have equal voting rights could change their mind to support D.C., if D.C. went through the process to become a state, pass an Amendment, or retrocede.

The majority said they would support an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment for D.C. Americans were more divided on statehood and retrocession. While there is a good base for D.C. to build on, many Americans will need to be convinced of why D.C. should be a state or merge with Maryland. Because many people have not thought about this issue, their opinions are likely to be fluid and changeable.

It is the author’s opinion that consensus among D.C. citizens is needed (perhaps 70 percent support in each Ward) if D.C. is to achieve any one of the possible approaches. In February 2000, a majority of D.C. citizens (58%) supported statehood, according to Washington Post polls. Fewer (19%), supported retrocession, according to a 1994 Wirthlin poll. The idea of an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment has not been tested, to the author’s knowledge.

Back to top of page


Tables

Sample Characteristics

US Adults
(1011)
College Graduate Voters
(500)
Progressive State and Local Elected Officials
(174)
Women 52 52 41
Men 48 48 59
18-34 30 12 4 (35 or less)
35-54 39 45 54 (36-550
55+ 27 42 41 (56+)
Caucasian 76 92 39
African-American 11 2 19
Hispanic 8 1 31
Asian 1 1 3
American Indian -- <1 8
Liberal -- 12 30*
Moderate -- 42 62*
Conservative -- 45 8*
Democrat -- 23 80
Independent -- 29 7
Not registered -- 0 0
Republican -- 41 13
New Party -- -- 4
Green Party -- -- 1
State legislator -- -- 43
Local elected official -- -- 45
Judicial -- -- 7
Tribal government -- -- 5

*Political philosophy—more to the left, in the center, more to the right

% Support Equal Voting Rights for D.C. in Senate and House

U.S. Adults College Graduate Voters Progressive State and Local Elected Officials
TOTAL 72 69 82
Women 76 77 92
Men 67 6- 76
Caucasian -- -- 81
African-American -- -- 94
Hispanic -- -- 73
American Indian -- -- 92
Liberal -- 80 --
Moderate -- 79 --
Conservative -- 57 --
Democrat -- 81 --
Independent -- 71 --
Republican -- 61 --
Northeast 76 75 91
North Central 71 72 81
South 73 -- --

Southeast

-- 69 87

South Central

-- 65 65
West 69 54 89
Occupation

Business

-- 66 --

Education

-- 72 --

Government

-- 71 --

Professional services

-- 67 --

Other

-- 72 --

Not employed

-- 69 --
State legislator -- -- 87
Local elected official -- -- 76

% Support Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment
(Among Those Who Said They Support Equal Voting Rights)

US Adults % College Graduate Voters % Progressive State and Local Elected Officials %
TOTAL 82 88 85
Women 86 91 82
Men 78 83 89
Caucasian -- -- 83
African-American -- -- 94
Hispanic -- -- 90
American Indian -- -- 75
Liberal -- 87 --
Moderate -- 92 --
Conservative -- 82 --
Democrat -- 92 --
Independent -- 92 --
Republican -- 83 --
Northeast 86 86 87
North Central 79 91 92
South 84 -- --

Southeast

-- 87 90

South Central

-- 83 87
West 80 91 78
Occupation

Business

-- 91 --

Education

-- 87 --

Government

-- 89 --

Professional services

-- 86 --

Other

-- 84 --

Not employed

-- 87 --
State legislator -- -- 83
Local elected official -- -- 88

% Support D.C. Statehood
(Among Those Who Said They Support Equal Voting Rights)

US Adults % College Graduate Voters % Progressive State and Local Elected Officials %
TOTAL 57 43 65
Women 61 47 67
Men 54 38 64
Caucasian -- -- 65
African-American -- -- 82
Hispanic -- -- 63
American Indian -- -- 50
Liberal -- 47 --
Moderate -- 43 --
Conservative -- 41 --
Democrat -- 52 --
Independent -- 38 --
Republican -- 40 --
Northeast 55 43 67
North Central 52 41 77
South 65 -- --

Southeast

-- 44 65

South Central

-- 43 61
West 54 51 63
Occupation

Business

-- 48 --

Education

-- 38 --

Government

-- 37 --

Professional services

-- 47 --

Other

-- 44 --

Not employed

-- 32 --
State legislator -- -- 67
Local elected official -- -- 66

% Support Merging D.C. into Maryland
(Among Those Who Said They Support Equal Voting Rights)

US Adults % College Graduate Voters % Progressive State and Local Elected Officials %
TOTAL 57 63 35
Women 56 62 30
Men 64 65 39
Caucasian -- -- 40
African-American -- -- 21
Hispanic -- -- 32
American Indian -- -- 50
Liberal -- 57 --
Moderate -- 60 --
Conservative -- 70 --
Democrat -- 65 --
Independent -- 64 --
Republican -- 65 --
Northeast 65 57 36
North Central 62 67 31
South 54 -- --

Southeast

-- 57 40

South Central

-- 72 50
West 60 69 29
Occupation

Business

-- 68 --

Education

-- 63 --

Government

-- 63 --

Professional services

-- 63 --

Other

-- 49 --

Not employed

-- 65 --
State legislator -- -- 33
Local elected official -- -- 36

Back to top of page


History of Support for D.C. Home Rule, Local Self-government

Year Source
1949 Gallup July 2-7, 1949, 1,500 in-person interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

"At present, people who live in Washington, D.C. cannot vote for their city officials since they are appointed by the President of the United States. Do you think the people of Washington should elect their city officials – or should they continue to be appointed by the President?"

Bar graph, citizens elect 65; appointed 20; no opinion 15

1965 Harris September 1965, 1,250 in-person interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 2.8 percentage points.

"As you know, the city of Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) can vote in Presidential elections, but does not elect its own city Government. Congress is soon going to vote on whether or not to give the city of Washington home rule. Would you favor or oppose home rule for Washington, D.C.?

Bar graph: favor 66; oppose 10; not sure 24

1997 Richards September 12-14, 1997, 1,049 telephone interviews with U.S. adults. Margin of error is 3.2 percentage points.

"I am going to read you some statements about Washington, D.C., where the federal government has authority to decide how that city is governed. For each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. First… Residents of Washington, D.C. should have the right to elect their own local officials to run their city government, like other U.S. cities."

Bar graph: strongly agree 65; somehwat agree 22; somewhat disagree 5; strongly disagree 5; don't know 4

Back to top of page


D.C. Public Opinion: A Review

Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment

An Amendment would not make D.C. citizens equal in the same way as citizens of states, but it would be a great improvement. The 23rd Amendment (March 29, 1961) gave D.C. the right to “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.” The 23rd Amendment, which limits D.C. to electors equal to the smallest state, is a limited Amendment, what Historian Constance Green and many D.C. citizens call the “half loaf.”

In August 1978, Congress approved the 27th Amendment by 67-32 (one vote more than the two-thirds majority needed) proposing to give D.C. voting representation in both houses of Congress. Congress allowed D.C. seven years to get the Amendment ratified by 38 states (three-fourths of the 50 states). Time ran out on August 22, 1985, during the Reagan years, when only 16 states had approved. The campaign had little budget, was opposed by the Statehood Party as well as conservatives like Judith Best and Orrin Hatch). Best called the Amendment “nominal statehood.” Some have said that the Amendment was approved by many in Congress because they knew it would not be approved by the states.

Timothy Cooper, President of Democracy First, advocates the Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment, but not a more limited Voting Rights Amendment. He has discussed possible wording with Constitutional lawyers, including Professor Raven-Hansen. He proposes the following Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment wording: The residents of the District of Columbia shall be treated as citizens of a state for all constitutional intents and purposes.” This amendment would include full voting representation under Article 2 of the Constitution and the 17th Amendment, the right to a republican form of government under Article 4, the right to 9th and 10th Amendment powers and privileges, and the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. An amendment would be tremendously hard to pass and would require a significant amount of resources, but this opinion research shows that an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment would likely be more politically persuasive to the U.S. public than statehood or retrocession.

Some oppose an amendment because it would be less than equal to the rights enjoyed by citizens living in a state ("not a whole loaf"), and it could be reversed.

This author is not aware of opinion studies among D.C. residents that examine support for an Equal Constitutional Rights Amendment.

Back to top of page


Statehood

D.C. citizens have made great efforts to become a state. In 1969, the D.C. Statehood Committee was formed by Doug Moore, Chuck Stone, Jesse Anderson, and other African-American activists. Sam Smith first explained statehood in the D.C. Gazette in June 1970 (“The Case for Statehood”). In the fall of 1970, the Statehood Committee established the D.C. Statehood Party. Julius Hobson, Sr. was the first statehood candidate. He ran against Walter Fauntroy (of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference) for the District’s non-voting Delegate seat and won 15,000 (12%) votes.

In 1980, D.C. citizens approved a Citizen Initiative to call a statehood convention—sixty percent voted in favor of the Statehood Initiative. Philip Schrag provides a detailed account of the Constitutional Convention (“Behind the Scenes,” 1985). A majority of all but one Ward supported the Initiative: only 38 percent of Ward 3 approved. In November 1981, forty-five delegates were elected to draft the Constitution of New Columbia within ninety days on a $150,000 budget (compared to $1,500,000 for the Hawaii Convention in 1967). The restrictions were placed on the Convention by the D.C. Council. Participants included three Council members—Hilda Mason (S), David Clarke (D), and Rev. Jerry Moore (R), and School Board member Barbara Lett Simmons. The media largely ignored the elections to the convention, and The Washington Post noted that few of the city’s top elected officials seemed interested. Voter turnout was very low—six percent.

The Constitution was controversial, especially the “bill of rights” which included the right to work and to strike. One delegate termed it the “bill of lefts.” A Congressional appropriations rider made it illegal for the District to use its own public money in support of the Constitution, and The Post editorialized in opposition. The Constitution was ratified by vote on Nov. 2, 1982—52.8 percent approved. It was approved by a majority in all Wards except Ward 3 (19.4%) and Ward 2 (48.6%).

In 1993, Congress voted on and rejected D.C. statehood by 63 votes (277 against, 153 for, 4 not voting). A bill can be reintroduced. (It took Hawaii 56 years to achieve statehood.) Polls by The Washington Post show that majorities of D.C. residents support statehood.

Favorability to D.C. Statehood Among D.C. Residents
“Do you favor or oppose the District of Columbia becoming a separate state?”

February 2000

Pie chart: favor 58, not sure 6, oppose 36

Support for D.C. statehood is increasing after several years of division in the District.

The Trend: Favorability to D.C. Statehood Among D.C. Residents
“Do you favor or oppose the District of Columbia becoming a separate state?¨

Line chart

In 1994, the Federal City Council sponsored a poll by The Wirthlin Group. They found majority support for statehood in the District, but not in the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia.

Support for D.C. Statehood (1994)

Bar graph: DC favor 53, oppose 36, no opinion 11; suburbs, support 32, oppose 57, no opinion 11

Back to top of page


Retrocession—merging D.C. with Maryland

Retrocession was discussed numerous times in the early 19th century (1803, 1804, 1818, 1834, 1846) by the citizens of the two cities that preceded Washington City and the District of Columbia: Georgetown (originally in Maryland) and Alexandria (originally in Virginia). Washington City was never interested in retrocession. In 1846, foreshadowing the Civil War, the Virginia legislature voted in support of accepting the Virginia portion of the District back into that state. The federal government voted approval, with the stipulation that citizens of that part of the District vote approval in a referendum, which a majority did (763 for 222 against). Citizens of the country portion were excluded from the vote, were very upset, and protested with no result.

There has been disagreement about the wisdom of having retroceded the Virginia portion. Lincoln urged reclaiming it in 1861, but after he was assassinated the issue was not discussed. In 1875, an attempt was made by an individual in Alexandria to get a decision by the Supreme Court, but the court held that since U.S. and Virginia were the parties to the act and both were satisfied, it was not competent for a private litigant to question the constitutionality. In 1886, the Senate Committee on D.C. considered whether the Virginia portion could be restored to the District (the McMillan plan revived interest). But, the Justice Department wrote that the constitutionality had not been determined. In 1902, a joint resolution was introduced in both houses of Congress directing the Attorney-General to bring suit to determine the constitutionality. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee determined that it was a political, not a judicial question, a fait accompli.

Today, if the Maryland legislature voted in support of retrocession, if the Congress and President supported retrocession, and if D.C. citizens approved of it in a referendum, D.C. could unite with Maryland. The Committee for the Capital City is promoting this approach as "reunion." Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening wrote in opposition to retrocession: "I am adamantly in opposition to retrocession... It would be a difficult adjustment for many who have invested heavily to suddenly find all the rules changed. … For three hundred years, the economic and political power center of Maryland has been the greater Baltimore area.  That has been slowly changing over the past half century, with the Washington suburbs growing in population and influence. To suddenly add the District of Columbia to Montgomery and Prince George's counties would make them the new center of power in Maryland, without the opportunity for the rest of the State to adjust to this change.  Ironically, the new power base in Maryland would be created by people who are not Maryland residents.   One can only begin to imagine the economic, social and political chaos this would create.  …  No one will be better off as the result of retrocession, either in the short term or long term."

A 1994 study of 1,003 D.C. adults and 513 suburban adults in Montgomery, Prince George, Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax counties (October 25-November 5), sponsored by the Federal City Council by The Wirthlin Group, found little support for retrocession.

% Approve Giving Land Back (Retrocession) to Maryland

Question: "A few possible solutions for the issues facing D.C. are being considered today. For each one of these possible solutions that I read, please tell whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove…. Giving land back to Maryland."

Bar graph: support DC 19, suburbs 25

Back to top of page


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)