From a commentary by Daphne Miller, staff counsel for the House Republican Study Committee:
The issue of statehood for the District of Columbia reveals the real possibility of Constitutional problems: does the District possess the diversity of population and interests that are necessary for statehood? Will it be able to enter the union on an "equal footing" with the other states of the union? Will it be able to sustain itself financially, and does it have the resources to also support its share of the federal government (without an annual federal payment -- a payment which no other state receives)? Is an amendment to the Constitution necessary?
Other questions arise: How will the American people accept the loss of what is essentially the nation's capital -- the federal city . . . ? Will they accept . . . essentially the mall and adjoining major federal buildings as their new national capital? How will the rest of the nation accept the fact that their "capital" will be completely surrounded by the new state? Is this what the founding fathers envisioned when they responded to the mob scene in Philadelphia in 1783, when Congress was chased out of the city? Is not this the very situation they sought to protect against when they fashioned the "District Clause" in the Constitution?
If "voting rights" is indeed the paramount concern of proponents of D.C. statehood, why do they not explore the possibility of retrocession to the state of Maryland of at least a portion of what is now the District, just as the Virginia portion was retroceded in 1846? Why not at least press the issue? . . .
Could it be that there is a hidden political agenda that could only be achieved by creating a separate state for this particular electorate?