Because Utah would likely get a new congressional seat after the 2010 Census, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., agreed to give Utah an at-large seat with this bill so it would be "neutral" by not giving either party an advantage with an additional seat. The at-large distinction was put in to avoid redistricting attempts to squeeze Matheson out of his seat before the next census.

After the 2000 Census, Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents in the census tally but Utah challenged how the census counted residents.

The Census Bureau did not count missionaries serving overseas for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which would have added an estimated 14,000 people to Utah's population. The state also did not approve of how the bureau counted households it did not reach via phone or mail. The state argued the Constitution requires a full count of all citizens, not estimates.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected Utah's quest for an additional seat in the House, allowing North Carolina to keep its new seat.

Constitutional questions still exist on the pending bill. Some point to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution which says the House members need to be chosen by the people of the "states." The District of Columbia is not a state. Others say that Article 1, Section 8 says Congress makes laws for the district that is the seat of government for the United States.

Who the at-large member represents has also been brought up in discussions on the bill. All Utah residents are already represented by one of three House members, so the at-large member would in essence be giving Utah an extra vote until the new district would be drawn.

The act would mark the first time two additional seats have been added to the 435-member House since 1959.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com