Splitting states

[golden eagle]

Came across an article with some past proposals to split Texas.  Would be nice if it had a few maps:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mqd1.html

I think Texas will secede from the Union before being split up.

[Molandfreak]

4. Florida gets split into 3 states: Florida, Coast (anything within 20 miles of I-95), and the Conch Republic (Key West).

[cpzilliacus]

5. Puerto Rico and Washington DC become states.

Puerto Rico, I'm fine with them being a U.S. state.

District of Columbia?  Not so much. 

The Maryland General Assembly ceded what is now D.C. to the federal Congress in order to create a seat for the national government. 

As did Virginia, though the Virginia part of D.C. was retroceded back to the Commonwealth in 1845, and is now Arlington County and a large chunk of the City of Alexandria. 

No reason that Congress and Maryland could not agree for most of present-day D.C. to be retroceded back to Maryland, perhaps excluding the well-defined National Capital Service Area to remain as the federal District of Columbia.  It would probably not be fair to D.C. to retrocede it back to Maryland without the municipal D.C. government (in which case about half would go to Montgomery County and about half to Prince George's County), so the parts of the government that provide county and municipal services would remain, and retroceded D.C. would become an independent Maryland city (as Baltimore City has been for many decades).

Note that there is at least one active group in favor of D.C. statehood instead of retrocession, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the national Republican Party will do everything in its powers to prevent D.C. from becoming a state (never mind that it's not fair, but D.C. as a state is about 99.9% certain to elect two Democratic senators at the earliest possible opportunity).

[hbelkins]

Politics has never entered into my opposition to DC statehood.

My reasons are that the District of Columbia was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city, and everyone knows that and has known it for a couple of centuries. Don't like living in an area that doesn't have voting representation in Congress? Move to an area that does. Or have the city join Maryland.

[roadman65]

I was under the impression that DC was established not to be any state so that it would not be biased to the state it is in.  It was chartered that way so it would remain neutral so that it would be the same to everyone.

[vdeane]

I used to be in favor of DC statehood but over time I've switched to the position of giving the non-federal portions back to Maryland.  It would make an interesting fictional highways scenario too, particularly with the duplicated 3dis between DC and Maryland and the DC 295/MD 201 transition.

Canada seems to have no problem with Ottawa being part of Ontario.  The political climate today is very different than it was in the 1790s.  States aren't little nations any more.

[bing101]

WOw my backyard is always the scapegoat for splitting the state in 3 parts. Jefferson and south California hates Sacramento for politics and water. Solano county because Vallejo went bankrupt and Solano county was the capital of California back in 1850 and they also have a stake in the delta issue.

[roadman65]

I used to work at a resort in Orlando many years ago, and people who lodged with us from places like San Francisco and Sacramento would refer to themselves as the "Real California."  When I mentioned the fact I visited LA and San Diego once, they looked at me and said "They're not California!" 

If California did split up I do not think any love would be lost between North and South there.

The same with New Jersey, my homestate.  Many from South Jersey consider us from North Jersey as a by product of New York, and do not like to say we are fellow New Jerseyians.  I think North and South Jersey could work as well.

[cpzilliacus]

Politics has never entered into my opposition to DC statehood.

My reasons are that the District of Columbia was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city, and everyone knows that and has known it for a couple of centuries. Don't like living in an area that doesn't have voting representation in Congress? Move to an area that does. Or have the city join Maryland.

I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.


• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.


• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?


• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Getting back to your point above, I do find the colonial nature of the District of Columbia's governance to be offensive.  Why should Congress have veto power over city decisions?  Though I concede things are better now than it was when the city had a Board of Commissioners that was absolutely unaccountable to city residents.  And that includes former Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. - as bad as Barry was for the city, he was elected to the job four times.

I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

I also believe that in order for the colonial status of D.C. to be ended, retrocession is the only way - I do not believe that D.C. has any chance of getting admitted to the union as a state, and recent prosecutions and convictions of sitting members of the D.C. Council for corrupt activities does not help the chances for D.C. statehood at all.  Yes, I know that some might say that other jurisdictions in the U.S. do not lose their self-rule powers because an elected official is prosecuted (and the former county executive [roughly the same as a mayor] of neighboring Prince George's County is doing time in federal prison now for taking bribes - and on the other side of D.C., the former Governor of Virginia is under federal indictment for corruption during his term in office as well).

[cpzilliacus]

I used to be in favor of DC statehood but over time I've switched to the position of giving the non-federal portions back to Maryland.  It would make an interesting fictional highways scenario too, particularly with the duplicated 3dis between DC and Maryland and the DC 295/MD 201 transition.

Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

Canada seems to have no problem with Ottawa being part of Ontario.  The political climate today is very different than it was in the 1790s.  States aren't little nations any more.

Nor Brazil with Brasília (once ruled more directly by the Federal Senate of Brazil, though no longer) or Australia with Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

[oscar]

I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.


• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.


• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?


• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I see some more fundamental problems.  First, there's the issue of the commuter tax D.C. longs to impose on suburbanites commuting into the city.  Unless D.C. were permanently prohibited from such a tax (good question whether that would be permissible), that would create problems for Federal operations in the city:

-- makes Federal jobs in the city less attractive

-- increases already-existing pressures to move offices out of D.C. to suburban locations (some like my former agency are required by law to be headquartered in D.C., but it could move stuff out to its regional offices, and my former agency even once maintained a "regional office" in Falls Church VA)

Also, D.C. would have a remarkably un-diverse economy, heavily dependent on the Federal government, and otherwise service-industry dependent, with no heavy industry, mining, or agriculture to fall back on to keep the local economy viable.  And D.C. could turn into a smoldering crater economically if the Federal government got really serious about downsizing its operations and/or moving more of them out of the D.C. area, or worse still moved the capital to a more central location like Kansas City.  Maryland, if it took back D.C., would also be hurt by those moves, but would have more to fall back on, to make that less of a calamity.

I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

[kkt]

I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.

Lots of jurisdictions pay other places to house their prisoners.  I don't see that as such a great obstacle.

• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.

Lots of states are not self-sufficient in power.  I don't see that as a problem.

• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?

I'm not sure how that's behaving like a state (hello, New Jersey?)

• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lots of states are not self-sufficient in water, either.  (What percentage of L.A.'s water comes from the Colorado?)

Getting back to your point above, I do find the colonial nature of the District of Columbia's governance to be offensive.  Why should Congress have veto power over city decisions?  Though I concede things are better now than it was when the city had a Board of Commissioners that was absolutely unaccountable to city residents.  And that includes former Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. - as bad as Barry was for the city, he was elected to the job four times.

Yes.  I believe that if the people vote for bad government, they should get what they vote for.  Otherwise, they won't take it seriously next time.

Congress should have a limited veto over the city's decisions that affect Federal legislative and executive functioning.  No city cops going into the oval office during meetings with a foreign ambassador or the capitol.  Other than that, the city should broadly govern itself.

I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

I also believe that in order for the colonial status of D.C. to be ended, retrocession is the only way - I do not believe that D.C. has any chance of getting admitted to the union as a state, and recent prosecutions and convictions of sitting members of the D.C. Council for corrupt activities does not help the chances for D.C. statehood at all.  Yes, I know that some might say that other jurisdictions in the U.S. do not lose their self-rule powers because an elected official is prosecuted (and the former county executive [roughly the same as a mayor] of neighboring Prince George's County is doing time in federal prison now for taking bribes - and on the other side of D.C., the former Governor of Virginia is under federal indictment for corruption during his term in office as well).

Yes, D.C. was created with a lot of land attached because the founding fathers wanted to be sure no state could exert undue influence over federal operations.  With the balance of power favoring the Feds now, that doesn't seem to be a big worry.  If it was, the Pentagon, the NSA, and all three civilian airports serving D.C. would be under state control.

Yes, back in the 19th century the half of D.C. that Virginia contributed was given back to Virginia.  D.C. could give back 90% of Maryland's contribution, and reduce D.C. to the area around the Mall, from the Supreme Court to the Lincoln Memorial and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial.  The disenfranchised population would be tiny, countable on one's fingers.  They populated area of the city would get representatives in the House and share a vote for Maryland's senators.  No constitutional amendment needed.  (And you're right, the congressional Republicans would never approve a D.C. statehood plan that gave the Democrats two more safe senate seats).

[SP Cook]

IMHO -

DC.  DC is not a state because it totally lacks the characteristics of a state.  It is the capital.  Its only real industry is government and providing services to those that work in government.    Actually, the right thing to do would be to split the nearby counties of both Maryland and Virginia (and perhaps even West Virginia) and create a "Columbia" or whatever they want to call it, give that 2 Senators and (if my math is right about 5 House seats) and let the rest of Maryland and the rest of Virginia, which have productive economies, carry on.

If you want to play historian, really not only was that part of MD and VA mostly rural even as recently as the 40s, so was parts of DC.  And, even into the 60s people came to DC to work in government, not just politicians but what we today call policy wonks or bureaucrats, and lived a lifetime, but kept their legal residence "back home" and voted and were taxed and such three.  One of the main motivations was not so much voting, but access to state universities, since DC only had two (black and white) teachers' colleges for the locals.  This ended as the suburbs grew and people could live in VA or MD.

More broadly, leaving out discussions of red and blue, which change more quickly then you want to think, California is simply too big.  And the proper divide is not N-S but E-W.  Same can be said of all of the left coastal states. 

[vdeane]

Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

I presume the Maryland state routes that end at the DC line would continue on their logical extension on DC city streets until either hitting another state highway or a US route.

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

[hbelkins]

Corrections Corporation of America operates a private prison about three miles from my house. It currently houses prisoners from Vermont, and is currently in negotiations to house prisoners from West Virginia. Kentucky quit doing business with CCA a couple of years ago. So the idea of housing prisoners elsewhere is certainly not new. I occasionally see cars with Vermont license plates in this area and I'm pretty sure I know why they are here -- and it's not county collecting or rock climbing.

[cpzilliacus]

I see some more fundamental problems.  First, there's the issue of the commuter tax D.C. longs to impose on suburbanites commuting into the city.  Unless D.C. were permanently prohibited from such a tax (good question whether that would be permissible), that would create problems for Federal operations in the city:

-- makes Federal jobs in the city less attractive

-- increases already-existing pressures to move offices out of D.C. to suburban locations (some like my former agency are required by law to be headquartered in D.C., but it could move stuff out to its regional offices, and my former agency even once maintained a "regional office" in Falls Church VA)

I think D.C. (as a state) would be able to impose income taxes on non-resident workers, though Congress could presumably step in and forbid all states from taxing nonresident federal workers - but there are plenty of workers in D.C. that do not work for the U.S. government.  I suppose Congress could go one more step and forbid all nonresident income taxes (a lot of players in major league sports would appreciate that).

A D.C. commuter tax would cause more than a few employers to move out of D.C., probably to Northern Virginia.

Also, D.C. would have a remarkably un-diverse economy, heavily dependent on the Federal government, and otherwise service-industry dependent, with no heavy industry, mining, or agriculture to fall back on to keep the local economy viable.  And D.C. could turn into a smoldering crater economically if the Federal government got really serious about downsizing its operations and/or moving more of them out of the D.C. area, or worse still moved the capital to a more central location like Kansas City.  Maryland, if it took back D.C., would also be hurt by those moves, but would have more to fall back on, to make that less of a calamity.

All correct, though D.C. did very well during the Great Recession, becoming younger and more "hip" because it was one of the few places in the nation where recent college graduates could get a job.

I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

I think the answer is yes.  But even state legislatures, many of which have truly part-time legislative bodies, still have permanent employees in state capitals and other major cities.

[cpzilliacus]

So the idea of housing prisoners elsewhere is certainly not new.

Though Vermont presumably has to pay for those prisoners to be locked up by CCA.

D.C. felons are prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (even for crimes that would be handled in state courts elsewhere), and are officially in the custody of the U.S. Attorney General. 

That would not be the case under D.C. statehood.

[SP Cook]

Corrections #1 - Actually DC has a court system just like a state. There is a federal court, with federal judges and a US attorney, puting people in federal prison and national expense.  But there is also a DC court system, with DC judges and a DC prosecutor, putting people in DC prison at DC expense.  While it it true that the federal system does some things that the state would take care of in a state, because there are federal crimes that apply only to DC and most actions taken on federal property are federal crimes, and much of DC is federal property, it is wrong to say that there is not a parallel DC system, just like in a state.

Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

State Capitals - Yes, all states have capitals, and all state capitals have plenty of state workers.  but even the smallest towns that are capitals have far more diverse economies than DC.

DC income taxes - Will never happen.  Nor should it.

[hbelkins]

Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

I saw several news stories about this, in both KY and WV media. None of that was mentioned, so I wonder how they're trying to get around it. I'll have to Google to see what I come up with.

[cpzilliacus]

Corrections #1 - Actually DC has a court system just like a state. There is a federal court, with federal judges and a US attorney, puting people in federal prison and national expense.  But there is also a DC court system, with DC judges and a DC prosecutor, putting people in DC prison at DC expense.  While it it true that the federal system does some things that the state would take care of in a state, because there are federal crimes that apply only to DC and most actions taken on federal property are federal crimes, and much of DC is federal property, it is wrong to say that there is not a parallel DC system, just like in a state.

There is a Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which is roughly the same as a county circuit court in most states.  But appointments to that bench (and D.C.'s own appeals courts) are not by the D.C. Mayor, but by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate (but not lifetime appointments, unlike Article 3 federal judges).  There is also a D.C. prosecutor, but only with very limited authority.  Most criminal prosecutions in the District of Columbia, even in the D.C. Superior Court, and even those that are not on federal property, are by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.  Also, the District of Columbia does not have a sheriff's office - the de-facto D.C. sheriff is the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, which provides courthouse security for the D.C. court system.

Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

I have no problem with that, with one significant exception - state prison administrators should be able to break-up prison gang leadership by sending the top criminals to (ideally) distant states, perhaps taking a gang leader or two from the other state in return.

State Capitals - Yes, all states have capitals, and all state capitals have plenty of state workers.  but even the smallest towns that are capitals have far more diverse economies than DC.

Annapolis has the U.S. Naval Academy, sailing, and a whole lot of quaintness, and not much else, except some state government offices (though much of the Maryland state bureaucracy is located in Baltimore City). 

DC income taxes - Will never happen.  Nor should it.

D.C. as state, it could - but I don't think it will happen either. 

[cpzilliacus]

Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I presume the Maryland state routes that end at the DC line would continue on their logical extension on DC city streets until either hitting another state highway or a US route.

That would make sense for many Maryland routes that end at the line, especially Md. 396, Md. 190, Md. 355, Md. 390, Md. 650, Md. 212, Md. 500, Md. 214, Md. 4, Md. 5 and Md. 210.

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

In that case, there should have been provision that those resident in D.C. could vote "back home" the way that our active-duty military members do.

[1995hoo]

....

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

In that case, there should have been provision that those resident in D.C. could vote "back home" the way that our active-duty military members do.

Don't forget that when the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for US Senators (state legislatures appointed them), not all states' citizens voted to select presidential electors (in many states, the legislatures appointed them), and while congressmen were elected by the people the franchise was not nearly as extensive as it is today since many states imposed various restrictions. There was no standing army like there is today, either. Most likely the idea of "voting back home" as an issue never occurred to anyone.

No doubt part of the reason for DC's status can be traced to the problems under the Articles of Confederation. The states were a lot more powerful and important back then than they are today–or perhaps a better way to put it would be that the federal government was not yet anywhere near as powerful as it has become–and the Framers didn't want a powerful state government dominating the federal government, so they gave Congress plenary authority over the district that became the seat of government.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I agree about Baltimore I-395 becoming I-995 if DC becomes part of MD. For the two I-695s, I'd extend I-97 along I-895 up to I-95, with the section of I-895 South (West) of I-97 becoming I-297. DC I-695 could then become I-895. Problem solved

[cpzilliacus]

Don't forget that when the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for US Senators (state legislatures appointed them), not all states' citizens voted to select presidential electors (in many states, the legislatures appointed them), and while congressmen were elected by the people the franchise was not nearly as extensive as it is today since many states imposed various restrictions. There was no standing army like there is today, either. Most likely the idea of "voting back home" as an issue never occurred to anyone.

All correct or, as you say, likely correct.

No doubt part of the reason for DC's status can be traced to the problems under the Articles of Confederation. The states were a lot more powerful and important back then than they are today–or perhaps a better way to put it would be that the federal government was not yet anywhere near as powerful as it has become–and the Framers didn't want a powerful state government dominating the federal government, so they gave Congress plenary authority over the district that became the seat of government.

There was also the matter of Congress not getting the police protection it needed from state or municipal law enforcement of the interim capital city of Philadelphia during the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, which was one of the reasons (quite possibly the most important reason) that Congress got unfettered control of D.C. in the Constitution.

[cpzilliacus]

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I agree about Baltimore I-395 becoming I-995 if DC becomes part of MD. For the two I-695s, I'd extend I-97 along I-895 up to I-95, with the section of I-895 South (West) of I-97 becoming I-297. DC I-695 could then become I-895. Problem solved

I would ask VDOT to upgrade all of Va. 110 to a full freeway (it is somewhere between an expressway and an arterial today, with one at-grade intersection), then route I-66 along 110 to present-day I-395, then east across D.C. to D.C. 295/I-295.  The Third Street Tunnel could become I-166.

Perhaps we are getting perilously close to fictional freeways?