Statehood for Washington, D.C.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s inflammatory demand for statehood for Washington, D.C., is full of specious arguments (“Statehood for the District of Columbia Would End Its Unfair Colonial Statue,” Op-Ed Page, July 24). Instead of making a reasoned appeal, Jackson brings in a collection of adjectives and nouns which poison the debate, words such as scandal, stain, outrage, intolerable and such exaggerated assertions that the city endures “congressional occupation” and that a “shocking colonialism” is at work.

All of this is pure sophistry and nonsense. If Washington deserves statehood because its population exceeds that of four of our states then what about New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco--should they demand statehood as well?

The District of Columbia was carved out of Virginia and Maryland but it should not be too difficult a matter for the Congress to work out a system that would permit the citizens of Washington to participate in national elections even while the city remains a special enclave under the jurisdiction of the Congress.

Virginia and Maryland might each gain a House seat, but there would then be no need to give the residents the privilege denied all of the other cities of America of having the right to elect United States senators representing only one city.

I’m afraid, though, that working out the complexities of such an arrangement would be of no interest to Jackson since his real intent is to provide himself with a senatorial seat that would otherwise be unavailable to him.

DAVID LEVY

Beverly Hills