By: Miriam Edelman
D.C. was originally created from parts of Virginia and Maryland. Virginia took back its land from D.C. in the mid-1800’s. Some Republicans prefer retrocession as an alternative to statehood. Retrocession means that D.C. (or most of it) would rejoin Maryland. However, this option is not feasible, as both D.C. and Maryland oppose it.
Under retrocession, D.C. residents would gain Congressional voting representation. Maryland would be likely to gain one or two House seats. However, current Maryland residents’ voting power would be diluted in the Senate since Maryland’s Senators would represent both Maryland’s approximately 6,263,220 residents (as of 2024) and D.C.’s around 702,250 residents (as of 2024).
Congressional Bills Granting Retrocession
In recent decades, there have been multiple bills regarding retrocession. In 2004, Representative Raph Regula (R-OH) testified to the committee, then known as the House Committee on Government Reform. His written testimony made the following key points:
- “The idea that the citizens of the District of Colombia do not have one of the fundamental rights of democracy confounds me.”
- “From 1987 to 1993 I served on the House District of Columbia appropriations subcommittee. Since my tenure on the subcommittee, I have introduced the District of Colombia [sic] Retrocession Act in every Congress to date.”
- “I am here to discuss H.R. 381, the District of Columbia – Maryland Reunion Act. Returning all but a small federal enclave to the state of Maryland is the most practical method to provide the citizens of Washington D.C. with full voting representation.”
- “Several efforts to achieve voting representation for the citizens of Washington D.C. have failed. First, the constitutional amendment to provide D.C. with two voting Senators and one voting Representative, though passed by Congress in 1978, never managed to spark the interest of the State Legislatures. Only 16 had ratified the amendment when time expired in 1985.
Secondly, in 1994 we saw the overwhelming defeat of the Statehood bill, H.R. 51, in the House of Representatives by a vote of 153 to 277. Retrocession is the only viable alternative to these failed initiatives. It is the best possible way to give District of Colombia citizens voting representation.”
- “Retrocession dates back to 1846 when the portion of D.C. west of the Potomac was returned to Virginia. This establishes a historical precedent proving that retrocession can alleviate the distress experienced by the people of the District of Columbia. More importantly, the residents of the District of Columbia would gain voting rights in a way more likely to be accepted by Congress.”
- “Through retrocession, current D.C. residents would become citizens of Maryland, with full voting representation. This would preserve Maryland’s historical intent that the land it donated be the seat of the government.”
- “We must follow the example of other democratically based nation’s [sic] throughout the world that provide voting representation in their national legislatures for its citizens residing in the Capital area.”
“Canada offers a model of how this proposal could and does work. Ottawa, like Washington D.C., is situated on the border of two larger political entities. The bulk of Ottawa lies in Ontario. However, a sizeable population resides across the Ottawa River in Hull, Quebec. The solution Ottawa has come up with is sending representatives to the Provincial Parliament in Toronto and to the Federal Parliament as part of the Ontario delegation.”
- “Voting rights for the citizens of D.C. has been an issue ever since these rights were lost in 1800. Over two hundred years have passed and we are still trying to extend constitutional rights to citizens who are living in the shadow of Congress.”
- “As an advocate of retrocession I believe this plan offers the best course of action. I implore my fellow colleagues to take action on restoring the rights and privileges to the people of the District of Columbia.”
On January 25, 2021, Representative Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduced H.R. 472 – District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act. The bill’s summary says:
This bill cedes the District of Columbia to Maryland after Maryland's acceptance of the retrocession. Furthermore, the bill declares that the National Capital Service Area in the District shall not be ceded and relinquished to Maryland and shall continue to serve as the permanent seat of the federal government. The bill maintains the exclusive legislative authority and control of Congress over the area.
Finally, excluding the District Building, the area shall include the principal federal monuments, the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the U.S. Capitol, and the Frances Perkins Building, including any portion of it north of D Street NW.
The bill had 25 Republican co-sponsors.
On April 22, 2021, Johnson’s office’s release, entitled “Johnson: I Am Opposed to D.C. Statehood, But Not Suffrage,” includes Johnson’s House Floor remarks about the bill:
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to D.C. statehood, but I am not opposed to suffrage. If your goal is truly suffrage rather than increasing Democratic control of the Senate, boy, do I have a plan for you. My bill would reunite the residential areas of the District with Maryland, as was done with Virginia in 1847. This plan would give full voting rights that we have heard so much about this morning without ignoring the Constitution or the practical realities of what constitutes a state. And so, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if your goal is truly suffrage, then let's do this together. Let's set aside the divisive rhetoric we have heard and work together to craft an appropriate and bipartisan solution to give representation to the people of D.C.
In 2021, Representative Ben Cline (R-VA) said, “The DC statehood power grab is an attempt to add two Democrats to the U.S. Senate.” He added, “To solve the 'taxation without representation issue,' we should transfer the residential portions of DC back to Maryland as was previously done with Arlington and Virginia.”
In early 2021, Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced an amendment to the budget resolution that would permit money to be spent on retrocession instead of statehood. On April 10, 2021, D.C.’s Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)’s office issued a press release entitled, “Norton Says Sen. Marshall’s Proposed Amendment to Senate Budget Resolution Underscores Need for D.C. Statehood.” Norton said “Marshall's amendment and the idea of retrocession have no support from either the District or Maryland.” She added, “While I continue to advocate for D.C. statehood, I will also fight proposals like Senator Marshall's that seek to legitimize a solution that neither D.C. nor Maryland want.”
On April 16, 2021, Representative H. Morgan Griffith’s (R-VA) introduced H.R. 2614 – Compact Federal District Act. This bill would have ceded
certain portions of the District of Columbia to Maryland while retaining particular portions of the District (the Federal District) under the exclusive legislative authority and control of Congress to serve as the permanent seat of the federal government.
According to the bill, Maryland would have had to “accept this retrocession for it to take effect.” The bill had zero cosponsors and did not become law. According to NRVNews.com, H.R. 2614 “was offered as the Republican motion to recommit H.R. 51 with instructions.” H.R. 51 would have granted statehood to D.C. and was passed by the House on April 22, 2021.
On April 19, 2021, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) introduced H.R.2651 - District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act. This bill would require, “Maryland’s acceptance of such retrocession.” The bill had ten Republican cosponsors.
On the day before the House’s D.C. statehood vote, Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would mandate a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate to approve a new state. The amendment contradicts historical precedent. After the original 13 colonies formed the U.S., all 37 states were admitted to the U.S. via a majority vote in both Congressional chambers.
On April 22, 2021, on social media, McClintock posted, “The attempt to create a state from the District of Columbia is a brazen abuse of power with the obvious intention to pack the U.S. Senate” and “Yesterday, I introduced H.J. Res. 42, a constitutional amendment to require a 2/3 vote for the admission of states. Such reform would assure that new states are only created with bi-partisan consensus.”
On April 22, 2021, Marshall introduced S. 1361 – District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act. This bill would have reduced
the size of the seat of the Government of the United States to the area composed of the principal Federal monuments, the White House, the United States Capitol, the United States Supreme Court Building, and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the United States Capitol, to provide for the retrocession of the remaining area of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes.
It also mentioned that this retrocession would happen “after Maryland’s acceptance of such retrocession.” The bill had zero cosponsors.
On the same day, Marshall’s office issued a press release, entitled, “Sen. Marshall: Dems want D.C. Statehood? Make it part of Maryland.” That release’s background section stated:
Democrats are pushing to admit Washington, D.C., as the 51st state under the guise of the need for equal representation for capital residents. However, the Founders never intended statehood for our nation’s capital. Instead, they intended for the capital of the newly formed United States to be a neutral site for co-equal sovereign states to conduct the nation’s business. In “The Federalist” No. 43, James Madison warned of the likely “imputation of awe or influence” onto the new national government should it be located within a state. Furthermore, the Democrats bill ignores the requirement of a constitutional amendment to grant D.C. statehood. If Democrats truly want representation for the residents of the capital, Congress should consider alternatives that make sense for the nation as a whole, not just the Democrat Party.
Senator Marshall’s bill would revert the majority of residential areas located within the boundaries of Washington, D.C., to the state of Maryland. The National Capitol Service Area – consisting solely of the National Mall and federal buildings – would remain the District of Columbia. Representative Dusty Johnson (SD) introduced a companion in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Senator Marshall also introduced a Resolution repealing the 23rd amendment. This is necessary to remove D.C.’s three electoral votes should the retrocession occur.
In the press release, Marshall said:
Three months into the 117th Congress, it appears Democrats are determined to rush through power grab after power grab. Their latest effort to grant D.C. statehood is just another example of their political greediness and goal to alter the very fabric of our republic. Americans recognize this blatant power grab intended to increase the number of Democrat Senators so they can enact their radical agenda and forever tip the scales of power in their favor. If the Democrats want D.C. statehood, make it part of Maryland.
On April 22nd, Griffith spoke on the House Floor against H.R. 51, saying:
- “D.C. statehood is unconstitutional. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have long interpreted the Constitution in that fashion.
One problem with D.C. statehood is that the two states, my home state Virginia and Maryland, that gave land for the seat of government, and they did not do so with the intent to create a new state. When Virginia’s land wasn’t used for the seat of government, Congress ceded it back to Virginia. It did not create a new state.”
- “Retrocession is our best course of action today.
Shrinking the seat of government, which is permitted by Article I, and returning the rest to Maryland for purposes of representation, offers D.C. residents a voice in the federal legislative branch and keeps faith with Maryland’s original cession of land for D.C., and it also works within the bounds of the Constitution.
I have introduced a bill, and it’s later going to be a motion to recommit.”
- “If you are worried about the details of D.C. government, this bill, this motion to recommit, takes care of them. As the old Prego commercials said, “It’s in there.
Congressional representation? It’s in there! The courts? It’s in there. The National Guard? It’s in there. Commitments to retirees? It’s in there. Tuition assistance? It’s in there. Preventing the remaining federal district from casting the three electoral votes meant for D.C.? It’s in there.
My motion to recommit, which I’ll offer in a bit, is the most practicable solution to giving D.C. residents a voice in Congress to give them a right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the Motion to Recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider my amendment to H.R. 51 to provide for the retrocession of land to the state of Maryland, rather than create a new state. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the Motion to Recommit.”
On April 16, 2021, Griffith office issued an e-newsletter, entitled “CONGRESSMAN GRIFFITH’s WEEKLY E-NEWSLETTER 4.16.21: Retrocession, Not Statehood, for D.C.” This publication’s key points included:
- “The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on statehood for the District of Columbia. Proponents have offered many reasons in support of the cause, some of these arguments having stronger justification than others, but they have yet to satisfactorily address what I believe to be the greatest counterargument against D.C. statehood: the Constitution of the United States.
Among the powers granted to Congress by Article I Section 8 is “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”
The purpose of this clause was wise. In a federal union, allowing one state to contain the seat of government would create the potential for that state to dominate it. James Madison wrote in The Federalist that “a dependence of the members of the general government on the State . . . might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to” other states.
Madison had been a member of the Continental Congress in 1783 when it had fled Philadelphia after Pennsylvania’s state government refused to defend it from mutinous soldiers. That episode weighed on the minds of the Framers.”
- “Further affirming the District of Columbia’s distinct status was the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, giving it votes for president and vice president in the Electoral College.
Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.
This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality. The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the “seat of Government of the United States,” not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”
- “Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal, but it must be done constitutionally. I have introduced a bill that meets this standard.
H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act, recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress by returning most of the District to Maryland. Residents could then vote for a U.S. Representative and Senators from Maryland.
Maryland would gain by the transaction. It would pick up a U.S. Representative and thus more political clout. The District has enjoyed solid economic growth in the 21st century, and Maryland could expect to benefit from this trend. Further, the District and its Maryland suburbs share similar voting patterns, and the bill provides for a smooth transition of administration, minimizing any political upheaval.
A smaller seat of the Federal Government would remain, preventing it from falling within Maryland and potentially being dependent on that state. Its residents would be required to vote by absentee ballot, however, removing their outsized representation in the Electoral College that would otherwise be created by the 23rd Amendment.”
In 2021, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) supported retrocession. On CNN, she said, “There is a way to ensure that the residents of DC have voting representation in Congress, and that is for DC to become part of Maryland, just as parts of DC became parts of Virginia many years ago.” She added, “That would give the residents of DC a new House member, and they would be represented in the Senate by Maryland senators.”
On March 23, 2023, Griffith (R-VA) introduced H.R.980 - Washington, D.C. Residents Voting Act. This bill would have ceded “certain portions of the District of Columbia (DC) to Maryland while retaining other portions as the Federal District, which falls under the exclusive legislative authority and control of Congress and serves as the permanent seat of the federal government.” According to the bill, Maryland would have had to “accept this retrocession for it to take effect.” The bill had zero cosponsors.
Opposition of D.C. and Maryland
Although retrocession of D.C.’s land from Virginia to Virginia happened in the 1840s, D.C. and Maryland both oppose retrocession of D.C. to Maryland while some in both jurisdictions support statehood. By voting for statehood with 86 percent of the vote, D.C. residents have made it clear that they want statehood. At a speech at Georgetown Law Center in 2019, D.C.’s Mayor Bowser said, “DC voters have already said loud and clear that we do not want retrocession, we want statehood.” According to Norton’s press release from April 27, 2021,
Retrocession would be inconsistent with the 2016 vote and the District's pursuit of self-determination. Retrocession concedes that the size of the federal district can be reduced by simple legislation, as the D.C. statehood bill would do. D.C. statehood does not require a constitutional amendment. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to admit new states, and every new state was admitted by Congress.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said, “The question of retrocession is an irrelevant distraction when the people of Washington have already written a state constitution and petitioned to join the union as their own state.” Likewise, according to a Washington Post poll in 2019, 57 percent of Maryland residents oppose retrocession.
Both of Maryland’s current Senators support statehood for D.C. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is the new leader of the Senate’s bill that would grant statehood to Washington, D.C. DCNOW’s blog’s post, entitled “New Leader of Senate’s D.C. Statehood Bill: Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD),” discussed Van Hollen’s leadership. Maryland’s other Senator, Senator Angela Alsobrooks, also supports D.C. statehood. In 2024, then-Senate candidate Alsobrooks signed the D.C. Statehood Pledge, which is “I pledge to support admitting Washington, D.C. into the Union as a state of the United States of America.” In January 2025, she cosponsored the S.51 bill that would grant statehood to D.C.
On June 26, 2020, Van Hollen and the rest of the combined Senate delegation of D.C.’s neighbors Maryland and Virginia [Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Mark Warner (D-VA)] issued the following statement:
Virginia and Maryland’s neighbors in D.C. deserve the representation that states have. Today, the House took a historic vote to pass legislation to make D.C. the 51st state. Leader McConnell should bring this bill up for a vote in the Senate immediately. There is no good reason hundreds of thousands of Americans should be denied their civil rights and subject to taxation without representation.
All three Senators were cosponsors of S.631 - Washington, D.C. Admission Act, the Senate’s companion bill to the House bill that was just passed. Their joint statement seemingly rejects retrocession of D.C. to Maryland. In The Washington Post, Robert McCartney wrote that retrocession has “been the favored alternative for Republicans and others who could tolerate seeing the Democrats pick up an extra House member as long as they didn’t get two more senators as well.”
Maryland’s State Legislature Recent Actions on D.C. Statehood
In addition, Maryland’s state legislature has been active on D.C. statehood. In multiple recent years, state delegates sponsored resolutions that support D.C. statehood. In 2019, then-freshman Delegate Gabriel Acevero introduced House Joint Resolution 7. In a press release, he said:
This resolution is about reaffirming Maryland’s commitment to the fundamental principles undergirding American democracy. It is unconscionable to me that residents in our nation’s capital are obligated to pay federal taxes, adhere to federal laws, and fight and die in our country’s wars, yet have no voting representation in the Congress that imposes those taxes, passes those laws, and declares those wars.
In 2024, 63 delegates sponsored House Joint Resolution 9, whose purpose is “declaring the State of Maryland’s support of and consent to admitting Washington, D.C. to the Union as a state of the United States of America; and generally relating to Washington, D.C. statehood.” Some of the resolution’s resolved section’s parts were:
- “RESOLVED, That the State of Maryland opposes efforts by Congress and the President that interfere with local self–government and Home Rule in the District, including federal laws disapproving of, amending, or repealing actions of the Council and Mayor of Washington, D.C., as well as federal budget riders that control and limit the use of locally raised tax revenue; and be it further”
- “RESOLVED, That the State of Maryland calls on Congress and the President to enact federal legislation granting statehood to the people of Washington, D.C.; and be it further”
- “RESOLVED, That the State of Maryland reiterates that the cession of land “for ever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction” now encompassing a portion of the District ceased to be within the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland or “within the Jurisdiction of any other State…or Parts of States” after the cession of land on December 19, 1791, and came under the jurisdiction and “exclusive Legislation in all Cases” of Congress on February 27, 1801; and be it further”
- “RESOLVED, That the State of Maryland provides, although unnecessary and redundant, consent to Congress to admit Washington, D.C. into the Union as a state of the United States of America; and be it further”
On March 11, 2024, the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee held a hearing on House Joint Resolution 9. The resolution is the fourth time in recent years that a pro-D.C. statehood resolution has been introduced in Maryland, and this resolution has the highest number of co-sponsors of any of these resolutions. D.C.’s current shadow Senators Ankit Jain (who did not hold that office then) and Paul Strauss both testified in favor of the resolution. DCNOW’s blog’s piece, entitled “D.C.’s Shadow Congressional Delegation,” mentioned these two elected officials.
Final Thoughts
Washington, D.C, will never be part of Maryland again. D.C. and Maryland both want statehood for the District of Columbia.
Comments