Lisa I must tell you that I did not know anything about your topic before I read your paper. Obviously, you know your topic very well and you have put a lot of effort into it. Every time that I read some new article or book I learn a little more. Reading your paper was not an exception. Even though I spent two months this past summer in Washington, DC, I had no idea about the history of the jurisdiction. I did not even know that there were political movements for statehood.

Right from the beginning of your paper you captured my interest when you wrote that the history of Washington, DC is "a puzzling and involved story." It is very difficult for me to give you some ideas because I do not know anything about movements for Washington, DC statehood. Instead, I would like to ask you some questions rather than criticize you. Because of my lack of knowledge on your topic I will give you very general comments. Do not forget that my comments are according to my understanding, and that you are the one who knows more about the subject.

To begin, I believe that your first paragraph is your introduction. According to what I have learned, the purpose of the introduction is to tell the reader the idea or ideas that are going to be discussed. Are you writing a history of DC statehood or are you arguing a particular point of view along with the history? If you are arguing whether or not Washington, DC should become a state, I believe that your introduction is incomplete. It is not that clear to me, however, from what you have written it seems that you are in favor of DC statehood.

In your section on background history you write that the City of Washington was created in 1971. Do you mean 1971, or is this a typographical error? Also, it would be very interesting to see a map of the area so that I can visualize the problem easier. It would also be interesting to see how the boundaries have changed over time.

You write that the first democratically elected government in 1871 was corrupt. Could you please explain in what ways the government was corrupt? I would like to know how it compares with corruption in government today. Also, why was it considered "taboo" to add voting rights for Washington, DC as a rider to a national electoral reform movement?

In the section on the current state of affairs in Washington, DC you write that in the past, Congress has overturned decisions made by locally elected officials. I would like to know what some of these decisions were. It would help me to better understand what the conflicts were between Congress and locally elected people.

What do you mean by ANC? In your discussion of the DC Statehood Party and how they want to decentralize the government for fair representation, you write that they, the DC Statehood Party, want every "ANC" member to have a seat on the council. Could you please explain this more fully? I'm not clear as to what you are referring to when you use the term, ANC.

I have not yet studied U.S. American History. As a result, I am not familiar with a lot of the background history that you use in your paper. For example, I think it would be good to define, "Federalist number ten." I do not know what this document is, and it would be interesting if you defined the document, said who wrote it, and when. Also, I would like to know what purpose the document serves.

You end your paper with talking about DC Vote, The League of Women's Voters, and the DC Statehood Green Party. You mention that DC Vote, for example, has "an elaborate website." It would be good to have a footnote giving the website address for DC Vote, and also the addresses for the other two organizations. That way, it would be easy to contact the organizations you write about.