How is either provision legal?  Doesent the constitution prohibit a voting rep coming from a nonstate, and also give the state legislatures the sole power of determining how (i.e., districts/statewide) it elects its reps?

I am in favor of this, but I don't see how congress has the power to do it.  could someone who is actually smart w.r.t. constitutional law explain this to me?

If this passes, say goodbye to Matheson in UT-02. He'll be redistricted out of office and Salt Lake City will literally be drawn and quartered to dilute its blue voters.

Would be a nice plan if a huge chunk of it were not completely unconstitutional. I am speaking not of the DC part (which I support 100%), but on the Utah provision. Adding an at-large seat to the Utah delegation is unconstitutional, it will give each citizen of Utah double representation than what they currently have and what any other citizen in any other state has in the US House. Sadly, they have to assign this new seat a district to serve, meaning they will have to re-apportion Utah. I hate to see that, but the way you explain it that plan is unconstitutional. Hell, I would take it to court, on behalf of the state of Montana, which desperately needs 1 more Rep (we have 1 for the whole state, the 4th largest state in the union, not to mention the fact that Denny Rehberg is a known Horses Ass.) because Utahans would have more representation than any other people in the country. Each citizen gets to be represented by 1 house member. That is it! No more, no less.

This is blatantly unconstitutional.  The SCOTUS already ruled on this when one of the deep south states wanted to go to all at-large seats (can't remember the case name).  If it changes to become a 4th district in Utah, Matheson is gone and GOP will be up 2 more seats they don't currently have.

Regardless, the House should at least be 500 members, even 600.

I still think the Utah part is bogus. Utah will get a new seat in 2012. Wait your turn like everybody else, Mormons!

Just snarking.

As for DC, I think it's a nice idea on many levels. Not only does it give them a VOTING voice in the House (in the Senate too???), but it might make African-Americans feel more represented and give a boost to black power in American politics.

If this were to pass, DC would get one at-large district (Holmes would probably run for it, her first time as an actual Congresswoman!), and Utah would probably go with the "alternative" 4-member map from 2002 that they would have used if the Court had given them that extra seat.

Utah's new map (if it is the same as the alternative map from '02) is interesting as it creates a new district entirely within Salt Lake County. Jim Matheson (D) would probably fare better there than in the new 2nd district which would be even more rural and conservative. His base is in Salt Lake City anyway, and the new 4th would likely be much more Democratic. Thus, I would see Utah as going this way:

1. Rob Bishop (R)

2. New Republican?
   
3. Chris Cannon (R)
   
4. Competitive, but favoring Jim Matheson (D)?

Would this plan take effect in time for the 2006 elections, or 2008? Utah has already had its filing deadline, so perhaps 2008.

You are wrong on this. Actually we lose a seat overall. We gain a safe seat in DC, but by giving Utah 4 seats instead of 3 it will be gerrymandered so we LOSE the 1 democratic seat we have now in Utah in addition to giving the Republicans 1 for free.

The only solution that will solve the DC issue is STATEHOOD. This would give the Democrats 2 Senators and a Congressperson.

By the way, more people live in DC then in Wyoming. I think a better option would be to just take the senators and congressperson from Wyoming and give them to DC instead.

It is a matter of simple justice and, frankly, of ending racism, that DC should have voting rights in both the House and Senate.  Does anyone really think that if DC was, say, 90% white, that it would not have achieved voting rights years ago?

By the way I'm a DC voter and taxpayer.  Anytime the feds want to stop taxing us is when they will have any moral authority to deny voting rights to us.

In an ideal world, I think DC should effectively become part of Maryland for Congressional, Senate, and Electoral College purposes, but this won't ever happen.  This plan is at least a step in the right direction towards recognizing the lack of representation DC has, but it has some problems.  For one thing, as others have posted above, giving Utah an at-large seat is unconstitutional.  What they should do is give DC a seat for 2006 and add a couple of dozen seats to the whole of Congress for 2012.

I also support statehood or nationhood for Puerto Rico, but I don't know what the status of that is these days.

1. Utah will not get a new district or redistricting. This bill would add a temporary "at large" seat until the next Census.

2. I don't care if your state has all the land in the universe, if it doesn't have the people it doesn't get an extra vote. Montan may be very nice, but the rocks don't deserve representation. Meanwhile Utah will get another seat in 2012 due to population.

Sheesh. Read stuff people.

As a former DC resident, this is a great victory for the District.  I suspect that finally having competent government under Anthony Williams has smoothed the way for this to happen.  Big kudos to Eleanor Holmes Norton who has been fighting for this for a long, long time.  

This is is an important step towards DC statehood.  Too bad it has to be incremental but it is what it is.  Do they now remove TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, which I love, from license plates?

Do any other states have "at-large" representation in Congress?

Are you insane?!

Or are you just kidding?

The ramifications of adding that many people to that chamber would make a rank and file member useless. Committees and floor activities would be more controlled by the Party leadership than it is now.

It would weaken the chamber further against the Senate and President.

Damn folks...think these things through first...

This actually does very little for DC. The main beneficiary is probably Del. Norton herself. The real problem in DC is a lack of democracy in running the city. The decisions of DC's elected city government can be overridden by the Congress of the United States. There have been times when this has actually happened in the past, if I remember correctly, one instance of this was when the Congress stopped DC from implementing a needle exchange program. While it is true that DC residents pay taxes and don't have a vote in congress on federal issues, getting a vote would be a largely symbolic act. One vote out of 537 (and no Senate votes) will hardly affect federal policy either way. And the more egregious ill, federal control over local DC policy, will remain. In fact, statehood may be set back because people will think DC's issues have been solved.

State government policies can not be so blatantly overriden as DC's government policies can be. So the only guarantee of true democracy and independence for DC is to become a state. Becoming a state is very easy under the Constitution and of course has many precedents. What is being attempted here in giving DC only 1 vote in the House, as well as nothing in the Senate, is sort of a bizarre procedure that might be of questionable constitutionality.

For a detailed description of the difference between statehood and just representation, read this article by Sam Smith, a longtime statehood proponent: http://prorev.com/dcrep.htm

I think that if you look into the issue more thoroughly, you will conclude statehood makes more sense. (I would go so far as to argue that merging DC into Maryland or Virginia even makes more sense than what is proposed here).

The arguments against statehood are weak. One would be an argument against increased, "unfair" Democratic political power. This of course will only be made by Republicans who aren't particularly interested in democratic representation when it doesn't suit their ends. Let Democrats enact it over their objections when Democrats obtain power. Another argument is that 50 states is a nice even number. So it is, but is that really important than real democracy for DC residents? Another argument is that a state shouldn't have "control" over the federal buildings in DC. This argument doesn't hold water as there are federal buildings in states across the country, including federal agencies headquartered in Maryland and Virginia.

I have been reading constitutional analysis from Election law experts, and the at large provison is NOT unconstitutional.  See inter alia here.

I also wrote a post on my blog today about how this won't hurt Jim Matheson, and could even help him win a Senate seat in 2010 or 2012.

As a Utahn, I have to say we got screwed in 2000.  The Census didn't count temporarilly out of state LDS missioniares and so our seat went to North Carolina.  Jim Matheson's district in 2002 represented over 730K.  At the rate of growth for this state, it is probabbly close to 800K now.  That's way bigger than say RI districts.

This is a good deal and Democrats should support it in the House.

Are they honestly proposing that Utah's citizens each be given two Representatives in the House for four years while the rest of us continue to have only one?