There has been a great deal of talk in recent days from President Trump about making our neighbor to the North, Canada, the 51st state. While the initial promotion of statehood for Canada stemmed from the President’s proposed tariff policies and criticism of an unequal balance of trade along with alleged complaints of lax border control, there was also talk of the security and economic benefits that statehood for Canada would bring. Not surprisingly, the Canadians were vigorously opposed to Trump’s offer of statehood citing their desire to remain a sovereign independent nation and refuting the claims of trade inequities and failures to protect the border.
The dispute over Canadian statehood raises the question of just how established countries or territories become part of the federal union as this issue has been raised in the past over the status of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.. So, let’s take a look at the constitutional process of statehood and the political implications of adding another star or stars to the flag.
The first step is for the territory or governing entity to hold a popular referendum in which its citizens cast their vote on whether they support a move toward statehood. Should the referendum reveal that there is support for statehood the next step is the calling of a constitutional convention to determine if gaining statehood would comply with existing federal laws and regulations. Should that step prove successful the supporters of statehood would petition Congress for an enabling act that reviews the proposed constitution and determines the benefits and drawbacks of admission to the Union. This step is critical to the process because the members of Congress in various committee hearings would explore the impact of adding a new state on the American economy and political system. There would likely be significant lobbying from many different interest groups and national public opinion efforts to sway the vote. If the members of Congress are on board with the petition for statehood a Joint Resolution of Congress would be introduced seeking a vote to determine the status of the country or territory. If the vote of the Joint Resolution is in the affirmative, the bill is sent to the President for his signature. Should the President veto the Joint Resolution, the Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in favor of statehood.
In the case of Puerto Rico, there have been a number of referenda held about the status of the territory with statehood, independence and a continuation of what is termed Commonwealth as the options. Although there have been close votes between statehood and a continuation of Commonwealth, support for the status quo has won out, in large part because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens with the right to travel to and from the mainland; they pay no federal income taxes and benefit from Medicaid support; and there are favorable corporate tax laws that attract US businesses and employ thousands of the islanders. Also, Puerto Rico remains an attractive tourist destination for many Americans with no need for a visa. Puerto Ricans, however, cannot cast a vote in national elections, although they can participate in pre-election primaries and party conventions.
As to Washington, D.C., the official governing body is made up of a mayor and a governing council with numerous other bureaucratic and administrative units, but the real power is held by the Congress that can approve or reject budget and taxing policies and intervene in local matters if deemed necessary. Because Washington, D.C. is not a state it does not have voting rights in the Congress but does elect a non-voting member who serves ”at large” and is permitted to sit on various congressional committees but without a vote. Residents of Washington, D.C. can vote in presidential elections and the district can award three electoral votes to the winner. Over the years attempts to pass a statehood bill and a District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment have failed, thus the D.C. license plate reads “No taxation without representation.”
Much of the issue over statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. and now perhaps Canada involves how the composition of the House and Senate would be affected. Although political viewpoints and party support among the residents of Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. can change over time and are never guaranteed, at the present time the Democrats would appear to benefit from statehood as Puerto Rico could gain two Democratic Senators and five Democratic Representatives, while Washington D.C. could gain two Democratic Senators and one Democratic Representative. Most of the current opposition to statehood has come from Republicans who fear the party and congressional ramifications of statehood.
As to Canada, a push by President Trump for statehood could have the same benefit for the Democratic Party. First of all, the Congress would have to grow to accommodate the representation of 41 million people, which means that Canada could net perhaps as many as 47 seats in the House plus the two national Senators. Because this push for statehood started with President Trump and is vigorously opposed by the Canadians, the Democratic Party could be the beneficiary of the President’s strategy and tariff threats. Then there is the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act that requires 435 seats in Congress. By combining the population of Canada with the United States the 47 new seats would require that existing states in the US Congress would have to be replaced by Canadian seats. The result could be small states like North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho. Vermont, Rhode Island and New Hampshire might lose congressional seats or have the number of representatives reduced or since California and New York with large congressional delegations that are often opposed to Trump, a reduction or reapportionment could be achieved in these states. Whatever the resolution of the composition of the House and Senate the result would certainly be a big congressional mess and a lot of complaints and lawsuits by the states.
There are those in the national punditry who believe that President Trump was merely engaging in his famous deal making negotiation strategy by bringing up Canadian statehood and will turn his attention elsewhere in the coming months to Gaza or Ukraine. But so far, he hasn’t given up on the idea of making Canada the 51st state. Stay tuned on whether we begin the process of adding another star to Ol’ Glory.