Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/10/2025 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SJR 6-WASHINGTON D.C. STATEHOOD
1:30:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 6 Supporting the admittance of Washington, D.C.,
into the Union as a state of the United States of America.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated this is the first hearing of SJR 6 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He invited the resolution sponsor
and her staff to put themselves on record and begin their
presentation.
1:31:17 PM
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, District I, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SJR 6, introduced herself.
1:31:26 PM
MAGGIE GRENIER, Staff, Senator Löki Tobin, Juneau, Alaska,
introduced SJR 6, on behalf of the sponsor. She presented a
slideshow titled SJR 6: D.C. Statehood.
MS. GRENIER moved to slide 2, D.C. Statehood:
[Original punctuation provided.]
D.C. Statehood
• Shrink current D.C to Federal Land
• Abides to Framers Intent
• Constitutional Amendment Unnecessary
MS. GRENIER said SJR 6 calls on the President and Congress to
enact legislation granting statehood to the people of
Washington, D.C. The goal of this legislation is to shrink the
size of the current federal District of Columbia to include only
federal lands and buildings. She drew attention to the maps on
slide 2, which showed the boundaries of the proposed areas,
stating that the smaller area would include the White House,
Capitol Building, U.S. Supreme Court, and National Mall. She
said SJR 6 envisions the new state would consist of the
residential areas of Washington, D.C. This area has a population
of about 712,000, which is greater than that of Vermont and
Wyoming.
MS. GRENIER said Washington, D.C. statehood would still abide by
the framers intent to keep the nation's capital out of the
hands of a single state.
MS. GRENIER said the legislation would not require a U.S.
Constitutional amendment. The U.S. Constitution limits the size
of the federal district to an area "not to exceed 10 Miles
square, but does not specify a minimum size. She said Congress
previously shrank the size of the federal district in 1846
without a Constitutional amendment and could do it again.
1:32:53 PM
MS. GRENIER skipped to slide 4, Taxation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Taxation
• Pay More in Federal Taxes
• Tax System Ranks 48th overall
• Prohibited to tax income of nonresidents
• High Property Tax
• Taxation Without Representation is wrong
Category Rank
Overall 48
Corporate Taxes 32
Individual Income Taxes 47
Sales Taxes 41
Property Taxes 48
Unemployment Insurance Tax 25
MS. GRENIER said the people of Washington, D.C. pay more in
federal taxes per capita than any other state in the union, even
though they do not have full representation in Congress. The
District of Columbia's tax system ranks 48th overall on the 2025
State Tax Competitiveness Index report. Federal law prohibits
the taxation of nonresident incomes, meaning D.C. workers could
benefit from lower income taxes by moving to Virginia or
Maryland, even if they continue to work in D.C. The District of
Columbia also has one of the highest property tax burdens in the
nation.
1:33:40 PM
MS. GRENIER moved to slide 3, Other Support:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Other Support:
2025 Legislative Session:
We are one of seven: Texas, North Dakota, New Jersey,
Montana, Massachusetts, California, and Minnesota
1,069+ Total Compact Elected Official Supporters
44 Total Compact States & Territories
MS. GRENIER stated that more than half of U.S. states and
territories have considered supportive measures since 2021, with
over 1,000 state legislators expressing support. She explained
that D.C. residents rely on citizens from the 50 states to
advocate on their behalf, as they cannot change the status quo
themselves.
1:34:08 PM
SENATOR TOBIN explained the rationale for SJR 6. She said in
1790, the federal government established the federal district in
the District of Columbia. Residents of D.C. pay taxes, vote, and
serve on juries, but they are not represented in the U.S.
Congress. For more than 200 years, they have been denied a voice
in the national government.
SENATOR TOBIN reflected on Alaska's journey to statehood and the
early advocates who pushed for statehood when Alaskans had no
voice in Congress. She recounted that James Wickersham first
proposed Alaska statehood in 1916 and in the 1950s President
Truman stood up and fought for fair representation for Alaskans.
SENATOR TOBIN noted that Alaska had its champions, shadow
Senators Bill Egan and Ernest Gruening, and shadow
Representative Ralph Rivers. Despite Alaskans serving in the
military and Alaska's strategic importance to the nation, the
state was still denied statehood. Prominent figures such as
Eleanor Roosevelt, James Cagney, and John Gunther supported
Alaska's statehood. Yet, efforts stalled until a coalition of
Senators tied Alaska's fate to Hawaii's and succeeded in
securing statehood and fair representation. She said this
resolution reflects Alaskan values. This country should not have
taxation without representation.
1:36:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced invited testimony on SJR 6. He invited
Shadow Senator Jain to put himself on record and begin his
testimony.
1:37:14 PM
ANKIT JAIN, Shadow Senator, District of Columbia, United States
Senate, Washington, D.C., testified by invitation in strong
support of SJR 6. He explained that he is one of two shadow
senators elected by District of Columbia residents to advocate
for D.C. statehood and represent the district's interests at the
national level.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN urged the committee to vote in favor of
SJR 6, which calls for the admission of Washington, D.C. as a
state of the United States of America. He said D.C. statehood is
not only vital to its residents but also important for all
citizens of the nation, including Alaskans, which is one of the
newer states to the Union. Under current law, all of Washington,
D.C., is considered part of the federal district. Congress has
given authority over this district to local government. He said
statehood would preserve a smaller federal district limited to
the federal monumental core, including the Capitol, White House,
National Mall, and surrounding federal buildings while granting
statehood to the city's residential areas. He explained that
under the proposed statehood legislation, D.C.'s local
government would lose authority over the federal core, which it
currently has, and D.C. laws would no longer apply there.
Instead, the federal government would have full authority over
the land surrounding major federal buildings.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN said D.C. statehood is the right thing to
do. D.C. is home to over 700,000 residents who contribute to the
prosperity of this country just as much as residents of any
other jurisdiction. Yet, D.C. residents have no voting
representation in either house of Congress. Furthermore, while
D.C. has a local government, Congress can dictate every law that
the local government passes. Most egregiously, Congress has the
power to remove our local government altogether.
1:39:33 PM
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN emphasized that the United States is the
only representative democracy in the world that does not give
voting representation in the national legislature to citizens of
its capital city. Instead, citizens of D.C. are treated more
like second class citizens, or citizens of a colony. Residents
of D.C. bear the responsibilities of citizenship, but do not
enjoy the full rights and privileges of that citizenship. He
said this is an abrogation of democracy. It has real
consequences that impact the lives of American citizens. He
cited a recent example in which Congress's federal budget
language inadvertently restricted D.C. spending to 2024 levels,
forcing the city to consider a billion-dollar midyear cut that
would defund schools, housing, and police services. This is only
possible because the federal government ultimately controls the
D.C. budget and would change with statehood
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN stated that D.C statehood is not a partisan
issue. Across the history of the United States, both Democratic
and Republican lawmakers have endorsed and advocated for
statehood and voting representation for D.C. residents. These
lawmakers include President Eisenhower, President Nixon, and
Alaska's own U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. The Alaskan senator
introduced a constitutional amendment in 2009 that called for a
first ever voting seat in the House of Representatives for
residents of D.C. He urged members of the Alaska Senate
Judiciary Committee to follow in U.S. Senator Murkowski
footsteps and report out SJR 6. It is time to make clear that
the residents of the 49th state agree that the people of D.C.
deserve to become the nation's 51st state and enjoy the same
rights and privileges that all American citizens share.
1:41:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the proposed smaller federal district
map on slide 2, asking if the President and his or her family
are the only people who would live in that in area.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN replied that is correct. The proposed
statehood bill includes a provision to address the issue posed
by the Twenty-Third Amendment, which currently grants Electoral
College votes to residents of the federal district. He said
there are a couple of options for resolving this issue. He
favors giving the Electoral College votes to the federal
district for the candidate who has the most Electoral College
votes from every other state, until the 23rd Amendment is
repealed.
1:42:45 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether, if that provision were not
included, the President could assign himself three Electoral
College votes.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN replied that the bill would not advance
without a provision addressing that issue. He said he would not
support passage without such a safeguard and emphasized the
importance of resolving the problem. He added that the bill
includes a provision assigning the federal district's Electoral
College votes to the overall winner of the Electoral College,
separate from the federal district vote.
1:43:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the proposed carve-out of the National
Mall, Capitol Hill, and the White House as part of the new
federal district. He inquired how other federally owned
buildings within the District of Columbia, such as the
Smithsonian Institution and cabinet department headquarters,
would be handled. He asked how the proposal ensures the federal
government retains control of those properties.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN replied that most federal government
buildings used for core federal activities are located close
together in a dense area that would remain within the new
federal district and under federal control. He stated that while
there may be one or two exceptions, the vast majority of federal
buildings would remain within the federally controlled district.
1:45:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited the next invited testifier, Shadow Senator
Strauss, to identify himself for the record and to proceed with
his testimony.
1:45:20 PM
PAUL STRAUSS, Shadow Senator, District of Columbia, United
States Senate, Washington, D.C., testified by invitation in
support of SJR 6. He said one of his personal heroes was Senator
Ernest Gruening, noting that as D.C.'s senior shadow senator, he
stands on the shoulders of Senator Gruening, Senator Egan, and
Representative Rivers, who were the first publicly elected
shadow congressional delegation in United States history.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS explained that the idea of shadow
senators originated in Tennessee and was later used by several
states in the early history of the country when many slave
states sought to block the admission of free states. He said
states such as California, Michigan, and Minnesota used this
plan, as did Alaska between 1956 and 1959, when its shadow
congressional delegation successfully applied the Tennessee Plan
in the twentieth century.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS stated that one argument historically
used against Alaska statehood was the significant amount of land
that was controlled by the federal government. He said Alaska
has a higher percentage of federal land relative to its
territory than the District of Columbia does. While most federal
buildings would remain within the federal district, there would
still be some outside of it, similar to how Alaska contains
federal lands despite being a state.
1:47:17 PM
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS emphasized that the motivation for D.C.
statehood is self-determination. He said residents of
territorial Alaska had more self-determination than residents of
the District of Columbia do today. He stated that while Alaska's
territorial legislature could pass its own laws, every law
D.C.'s locally elected officials pass must be approved by
Congress whose members often lack time or understanding of
D.C.'s local issues. He noted that every judge on D.C.'s local
courts, including the Family Court, must be appointed by the
President, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He observed that
senators from Alaska have sat on committees with jurisdiction
over D.C. issues when they should have been focusing on the
priorities that were important to the people of Alaska and this
country.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS stated that Alaskans understand the
importance of statehood and the challenges that come without it.
He said arguments once made against Alaska statehood are now
used against D.C., including claims that it would lean left and
counted on to always elect Democrats. He pointed out that Alaska
proved such predictions false, as did Hawaii, which was assumed
would always vote Republican. Therefore, Congress should not use
partisan politics as a predictor of what may or may not be when
making a constitutional decision to admit new states.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said that it is time for the Union to
grow again and ensure all Americans have political equality. He
expressed appreciation for Alaska's attention to the issue and
said he took great inspiration from the statue of Senator
Gruening, the only shadow senator represented in Statuary Hall.
He said both Alaska and D.C. share parallels, including
significant federal land ownership, and he appreciated Alaska's
symbolic and practical support for District of Columbia
statehood.
1:51:40 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked how D.C. would handle the differences that
typically exist between municipal and state governments if it
were to become a state.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied in the same way differences are
currently handled. He explained that the District of Columbia
already operates as a unitary government, simultaneously serving
as a state, county, and municipal authority. The district has a
unicameral legislature and exercises state-level powers,
including issuing its own license plates and enacting criminal
laws. It has political subdivisions and maintains 37 advisory
neighborhood commissions that function similarly to county
commissions. He stated that D.C.'s chief executive is called the
mayor only because President Johnson gave that nickname when he
replaced a three-member commission with a single appointed
executive. He explained that this was a way of advancing self-
determination before Congress granted limited self-governance.
D.C. voters approved a constitution that would essentially
transition the federal district government into a state
government. He emphasized that the only change statehood would
make is that the non-federal parts of D.C. would no longer waste
Congress's time on purely local issues. Statehood would allow
members, such as Alaska's congressional delegation to focus on
national issues. He noted that many of these same arguments were
made by Alaska's territorial advocates before statehood.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said D.C. is prepared for statehood,
citing its sound well-functioning government, longstanding
balanced budget, AAA bond rating, and robust economy. He stated
that D.C. would likely become a "donor state," contributing more
to the federal government, even as host-state to the federal
government, than it receives.
1:54:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether D.C. statehood would lead to the
reestablishment of separate cities and counties to create more
localized governments rather than one overarching structure.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied not necessarily. He said there
are no plans to recreate county-level offices, because the
existing system already functions effectively as a combined
state, county, and municipal government. Over time, the advisory
neighborhood commissions could evolve into more independent
entities similar to counties, but that is not necessarily the
most important priority. He stated that the immediate goal is
exercising self-determination and freeing members of Congress
from having to engage in purely local affairs. He said statehood
would eliminate the superfluous layer of federal oversight,
which occurs after the local process. He said most governance
challenges arise at the federal level and should not consume the
attention of federal legislators.
1:56:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL observed that one distinction between the District
of Columbia's and Alaska's path to statehood is that the U.S.
Constitution explicitly calls for a federal district. He cited
The Federalist Papers, summarizing James Madison's three reasons
for establishing a federal district:
• Ensuring the area was large enough to defend. He said this
reason may no longer be relevant given modern federal
capabilities.
• No state should be able to hold the national capital in its
"thrall," sort of surround or encapsulate the city, and
• Residents of the district would consent to this arrangement
through inducements to live there.
SENATOR KIEHL invited the testifiers to share their response to
the second and third reasons.
1:58:11 PM
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied that James Madison was an
advocate for democracy, equal representation, and opposed
taxation without representation. He said the intent of D.C.
statehood is not to eliminate the federal district but to reduce
its size to the portion that is truly federal. That area would
include places where Congress exercises exclusive authority,
maintaining its own police, sanitation, and governance.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS explained that the federal district had
already been shrunk once, and that same constitutional clause
set a maximum size for the federal district, but not a minimum.
The area started out as 10 Miles square in the Constitution. In
1846, a large portion on the Virginia side was returned to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, establishing a constitutional
precedent that the seat of government can be shrunk.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said the areas that D.C. seeks to admit
as the 51st state would consist of the residential, educational,
and commercial areas of D.C., such as his home, university, and
hospitals. He said none of these places have anything to do with
the federal government. The seat of the federal government would
be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. When visitors
come to Washington, D.C. again, they can visit the federal
district and will not have to pay sales tax when they buy gifts
at the Smithsonian gift shops or in other exclusively federal
areas. However, the rest of the city would be purely nonfederal.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS stated that this statehood proposal
aligns with Madison's intention. It ensures that the portion of
the city under federal control is the actual seat of government.
He compared the arrangement to the Vatican and Rome, where the
Vatican operates as a separate sovereign entity within the
larger city.
2:00:45 PM
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN replied that James Madison's concern would
be resolved because the federal government would retain control
of the land surrounding the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and
other federal agency buildings. He argued that if being
surrounded by a state posed a problem, that concern exists now.
He explained that Maryland and Virginia surround Washington,
D.C. He said they do not pose a threat, and neither would D.C if
it became the 51st state.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN said the Founding Fathers struggled with how
to handle the federal district and history reveals conflicting
arguments. Founders Fathers expressed concern that the creation
of a district housing eventually millions of residents without
representation conflicted with the principle of "no taxation
without representation."
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN expressed his belief that the Founding
Fathers never reached a firm conclusion on how to handle this
problem, leaving it to further generations. He said passing the
D.C. statehood bill would fulfill the responsibility of
preserving federal control over national government buildings
while granting full citizenship rights, including voting and
self-governance, to D.C. residents. He said that doing so would
follow in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers by perfecting
American democracy and making D.C. the 51st state.
2:03:12 PM
SENATOR STEVENS recalled that in the early history of the United
States, President George Washington strongly supported
establishing a capital city. He said President Washington became
frustrated when Virginia and Maryland initially agreed to donate
land for the new capital but later hesitated, until he persuaded
them to follow through. He noted that a portion of that land was
later returned to Virginia, which made sense since it was no
longer needed.
SENATOR STEVENS expressed support for the concept of shrinking
the central federal district to only the Capitol and other
federal buildings where no one resides except the President. He
questioned why, however, given that land had previously been
returned to Virginia, the remaining areas could not also be
returned to Maryland and Virginia. He asked why the federal
district could not simply be shrunken to the government core,
with the rest of the land returned to the states that originally
provided it.
2:04:32 PM
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied that Virginia got all of it its
land back, and it was not because the federal government did not
need the land. In fact, the Pentagon and several important
federal buildings now sit on that land and continue to function
effectively within a sovereign state. He explained that the 1846
retrocession was primarily driven by the politics of slavery.
When a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln came to the
district, he was actually trying to use Congress's oversight
powers to abolish the slave trade in the nation's capital. One
compromise Congress made was redrawing the district boundaries
to remove the slave-trading ports of Alexandria. This compromise
thereby excluded slave trade from the capital but continued
unimpeded in Virginia.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS stated that returning the remaining
portion of the district to Maryland is not a feasible solution
for two reasons:
• The transfer would require the consent of the governor of
Maryland. Maryland does not want the land back. It does not
want to dilute its senatorial representation.
• D.C. residents do not wish to become part of Maryland. They
want their own state.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said Alaska has been a member of the
Union since 1959. He pointed out that D.C.'s boundaries with
Maryland have existed since 1790, longer than Alaska has been a
state and longer than most state boundaries have existed. He
said it's a very old state border, and that is why retrocession
is not a practical solution.
2:06:36 PM
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN agreed, stating that recent polling shows
strong opposition to merging the District of Columbia with
Maryland. He said over 80 percent of Maryland residents surveyed
did not want D.C. to be added to their state. Similarly, about
87 percent of D.C. residents voted in favor of statehood during
a 2016 referendum.
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN emphasized that D.C. and Maryland have
distinct cultures, identities, and values. He stated that
advocating for D.C. to merge with Maryland would be deeply
unpopular among his constituents. Neither the people of D.C. nor
those of Maryland support reunification. D.C. residents want
their own state. He said forcing D.C. into Maryland would
violate the sovereignty of both jurisdictions.
2:07:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS sought more information about Maryland's concern
that reunification would dilute Maryland's congressional
representation. He observed that Maryland would not lose any
Senate representation and it might actually gain one in the
House with the current population numbers. He then asked how
statehood advocates would respond to broader concerns that
admitting D.C. as a state would dilute representation for
residents of existing states, especially in the U.S. Senate.
2:08:54 PM
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied that Alaska's statehood advocates
were likely asked similar questions, such as whether the
addition of a new state would diminish the representation of
other states. He stated that if the Union had taken that idea
seriously, the nation would still consist of only the original
13 colonies. He said the growth of the Union has always
strengthened democracy. He compared democratic representation to
an orchestra, saying that removing one section weakens the
quality of the whole. He added that when all voices are not
represented, the country loses the benefit of diverse
experiences and ideas.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said the main opposition to the
reunification of D.C. and Maryland has largely come from
Maryland's Republican Party, particularly the governor, who are
strong opponents of retrocession. Maryland has been Maryland
since 1790, without the people who live in Washington, D.C. The
residents of D.C. are ethnic Washingtonians. He emphasized that
D.C. and Maryland have distinct political and cultural
identities and operate under different laws. Forcing D.C. to
merge with Maryland would create more problems than it solves
and would require Maryland's consent, which is unlikely to be
granted. He said the real issue is the lack of self-
determination for the American citizens who live in the District
of Columbia.
2:10:52 PM
SENATOR STEVENS shared a historical narrative about Alaska's
path to statehood. He clarified a common misconception,
explaining that President Eisenhower was not opposed to Alaska
becoming a state. Rather, Eisenhower opposed admitting two more
Democrats to the U.S. Senate. At that time, Eisenhower held
control of the Senate by only one vote. Alaska's elected
leadership, its congressional delegation, governor, and others,
were all Democrats. He said the only reason Eisenhower agreed to
advance Alaska's statehood was that Hawaii's admission was tied
to it, providing a political balance since Hawaii was
predominantly Republican at the time. He said that was the
political reality for Eisenhower.
SENATOR STEVENS noted that under a Republican president such as
Donald Trump, it is difficult to imagine approval of legislation
that would likely add two Democratic senators to a narrowly
divided Senate. He asked for a response to the nation's current
political reality.
2:12:22 PM
SHADOW SENATOR JAIN replied that he could not predict the future
or the possibilities that may arise. He said the resolution
before the committee expresses Alaska's enduring position, not
one limited to this year or the next. It reflects the belief
that whenever the opportunity arises, Washington, D.C. should be
admitted into the Union as a state. He encouraged the committee
to think broadly and long term, noting that D.C. advocates work
continuously to build national support so that when a real
opportunity to achieve statehood presents itself, Congress will
be ready to act.
2:13:49 PM
SENATOR MYERS referenced a statement by Walter Washington, the
first mayor of Washington, D.C., concerning statehood and the
proposal to carve out federal buildings within the central area
of the city. The first mayor had expressed concern that creating
several small federal enclaves throughout the city would
undermine its integrity. According to Walter Washington, such an
approach would erode the fabric and overall viability of the
city itself.
SENATOR MYERS asked the testifier to respond to that
perspective.
2:14:31 PM
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS replied that Walter Washington stands as
a historic figure to the people of the District of Columbia. He
was a commissioner nicknamed Mr. Mayor, even though most
territories, including Alaska, were governed by a governor. He
expressed his belief that Walter Washington took home rule as
far as he could. Mr. Washington advocated at a time when, in a
political environment, just getting from an appointed mayor to
an elected one was a dramatic accomplishment. In 1968, when Mr.
Washington was first appointed, statehood was not really on the
table. It wasn't until 1979 that D.C. residents voted to become
a state for the first time. Support for statehood was reaffirmed
in a political referendum as recently as 2016, and the majority
of D.C. residents continue to support statehood to this day.
Walter Washington became a strong advocate for full self-
determination and consistently supported voting representation
in Congress, even while he was mayor.
SHADOW SENATOR STRAUSS said the two leading contenders for the
51st state are D.C. and Puerto Rico, and both seem to have many
interesting precedents similar to Alaska and Hawaii. A state
with a relatively small population, where the federal government
controls a lot of the land, and an island nation where people
actually spoke a different language and weren't connected to the
contiguous United States. He pointed out that many of the
arguments against D.C. statehood were similar to those used
against Alaska, and many of the arguments against Puerto Rican
statehood were similar to those used against Hawaii. Admitting
new states to the Union doesn't need to be a partisan issue, and
for the people of D.C., that is not what it is about. It's about
equality and our self-determination.
2:18:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on SJR 6.
2:18:44 PM
BARBARA HANEY, representing self, North Pole, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SJR 6, stating she taught at the University of
Notre Dame, the University of Illinois, and Eastern Illinois
University. She stated that she knew a little bit about the
Constitution, emphasizing that the Founding Fathers exercised
tremendous wisdom in establishing the District of Columbia. She
explained that the District was originally a ten-mile-by-ten-
mile area, formed from land taken from both Virginia and
Maryland. She stated that if District residents wished to have
self-determination, they should, like their Virginia
counterparts, return to their original state, expressing
confidence that they would be welcomed. She addressed the issue
of cultural differences, noting that every state contains
cultural distinctions, which are not a valid basis for drawing
state boundaries. She asserted that granting statehood to
Washington, D.C., would dilute the influence of not only Alaska
but of the entire western half of the United States. She
testified in opposition to SJR 6 because it is not
constitutional; it is against the wisdom of the Founding
Fathers; and it shifts the balance of power closer to the East
Coast interests.
2:21:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on SJR 6.
2:21:40 PM
SENATOR MYERS remarked that SJR 6 involved a lot of discussion
about carving up D.C. and forming federal enclaves. He asked why
this is not specified in the resolution.
2:21:56 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that she worked with partners and
stakeholders to draft the language, and she is happy to evaluate
it and consider changes from the committee.
2:22:16 PM
SENATOR MYERS observed that the federal area, enclave concept is
not reflected in the resolution's "Resolved" section. He stated
that for the measure to advance, that language needs to be
included in SJR 6.
SENATOR MYERS said that, during the discussion on D.C.
statehood, it was mentioned that the district has either the
highest per capita federal tax rate or ranks among the highest.
He asked how much of that figure results from the district and
its surrounding area having some of the highest median incomes
in the country.
SENATOR TOBIN replied that she will gather that data for the
committee.
2:23:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that, as he read the language of the U.S.
Constitution, it appears there was no way to avoid leaving a
federal enclave. It seems to be a given. He said the real
question concerns the size of the enclave and how many people
would reside there, which seems to be the central focus of
SJR 6. He noted that James Madison had emphasized the absolute
necessity for the federal government to maintain complete
control over its capital, and that every legislature follow
suit. He remarked that, in Alaska, the legislature's control
does not extend much beyond the curb outside the building.
[SJR 6 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 6 Version N 1.22.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Sponsor Statement Version N 3.6.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Research- NC Similar Resolution 1.30.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Research- MD Similar Resolution 1.30.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Letters of Opposition received as of 3.10.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Fiscal Note - LEG-SESS 2.24.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Presentation to SJUD 3.10.25.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 6 |