Statehood and the Constitution
D.C. statehood is constitutional, and granting D.C. statehood does not require any new constitutional amendments.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to admit new states, and every state that has been admitted to the Union after ratification of the Constitution in 1788 has been admitted by Congress.
What would the D.C. Statehood bill do with federal buildings like the White House?
The Washington, D.C. Admission Act, introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, would create a state from the residential areas of D.C.
The bill would carve out federal land–including the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and other federal buildings–as a separate and distinct federal district.
The federal district would be two-square miles and called the Capital.
The 51st state, called the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, would have no jurisdiction over the Capital.
D.C. Statehood IS Constitutional... Here's Why.
We know Congress has the power to reduce the size of the Capital because it did so in 1848, when Congress returned most of Arlington and Alexandria from D.C. to the state of Virginia.
What about the 23rd Amendment?
The 23rd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1961 and gave D.C. residents the right to vote for president.
Making D.C. a state does not violate the 23rd Amendment—it simply makes the Federal District smaller. With D.C. Statehood, the president and their family would be the only residents of the resized Federal District.
Legislation to turn D.C. into the 51st state would recommend a process for quickly reviewing the 23rd Amendment, including the possibility of the president and their family voting in their previous home state.