D.C.’s big shot at statehood

Re “The Capitol riot could speed path to statehood for D.C.,” Opinion, Jan. 26

It’s a given that statehood for the District of Columbia would result in two more Democrats being elected to the Senate (of course, unless the GOP were to become a much different party).

If the Republicans ever find themselves unable to win a majority in Congress, instead of complaining about the composition of the electorate that disdains them, maybe they should change their politics.

As for the propriety of Democrats to push for this, if the Democratic Party is ready to lead us where it believes the country needs to go, why wouldn’t it do so within the boundaries of the law and the Constitution? Because it might displease the other side?

That’s a given too: Of course making the District of Columbia a state would upset Republicans.

Democrats, if you’re waiting for the GOP to give you permission, you’ll be waiting forever. There’s only one entity you need permission from to exercise power: the people. If the voters grant you the power to do something you want, take it and use it.

JEFF VAUGHN Encino

Our founders never intended for the “national seat of government” to have statehood, so it would probably require amending the Constitution.

The only possible alternative would be to have Maryland retake the District of Columbia’s land, from which it was originally ceded (allowing D.C. residents congressional representation), and to retain the small central core as a federal district.

This alternative would likely require a constitutional amendment as well.

SHELDON L. FREILICH Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

Law professor Ian Ayres claims that if the District of Columbia were a state, the governor could have deployed the National Guard to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6.

However, the new state would exclude the White House, the Capitol and other federal buildings and monuments, which would remain as the national capital separate from the new state.

SHELDON WELLES

Pacific Palisades