A Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee on Thursday accused Republicans of opposing an effort to grant statehood to the District of Columbia because of "race and partisanship."

Thursday's hearing by the panel on legislation from the District's non-voting representative in Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton Eleanor Holmes NortonHopes for DC, Puerto Rico statehood rise Shakespeare Theatre Company goes virtual for 'Will on the Hill...or Won't They?' DeJoy defends Postal Service changes at combative House hearing MORE (D) marked the first House hearing on D.C. statehood since 1993.

ADVERTISEMENT

The measure would allow most of what comprises the nation's capital to become a state known as Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. That means the District, like any other state, would have two senators and at least one representative in the House.

Norton's bill would still maintain parts of the District as the seat of the federal government but those would be limited to the areas where the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court and other federal buildings adjacent to the National Mall are located.

Republicans are widely opposed to the proposal because of concerns that D.C. statehood would result in two more Democratic senators — given the left-leaning nature of the diverse city — as well as questions over political corruption in D.C. politics.



Rep. Gerry Connolly Gerald (Gerry) Edward ConnollyJudge issues nationwide injunction against Postal Service changes House panel advances bill to ban Postal Service leaders from holding political positions Shakespeare Theatre Company goes virtual for 'Will on the Hill...or Won't They?' MORE (D-Va.), who represents part of the northern Virginia suburbs outside Washington, argued that Republicans' opposition to D.C. statehood is rooted in racism, pointing to GOP efforts to restrict voting rights across the country.



About 46 percent of the population in D.C. is African American, according to Census Bureau data.



“When they say it’s not about race and partisanship, you can be sure it’s about race and partisanship," Connolly said.



One of the witnesses, Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar from the libertarian Cato Institute, pushed back against Connolly's assertion.



Pilon acknowledged that "there are partisan elements to this," but insisted that "this is not about race."

"I request that you withdraw that charge," Pilon said.



Connolly gave a one-word reply: "Never."



"It is about race and partisanship," Connolly added amid applause from the audience.



