D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat

Utahns, more than most, know the importance of the right to vote. The Supreme Court has said that "no right is more precious in a free country" than participating in the election of those who govern us. I agree and support legislation that would provide that right more fully to Utahns and for the first time to Americans in the District of Columbia

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act would give Utah its long-overdue fourth House seat. Only one state has a higher number of residents per House member, and that state, Montana, has a single at-large member representing the entire state. Utah's ratio is 30 percent above the national average. We need and deserve a fourth House seat and thought the 2000 census would provide it. That experience, however, showed the danger of putting all our representation eggs in the census basket.

I certainly hope the 2010 census gets it right and that the reapportionment process provides Utah a fourth House seat. It is not, however, a sure thing. Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census. Projections and hopes are, in the end, simply speculation. Because we must do as much as we can to get the representation Utah deserves, we need a Plan B.

Some say this bill is unconstitutional. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives "shall be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states." Merely observing that the District is not a state, however, begins rather than ends the matter. Let me mention a few additional factors to consider.

First, the District did not even exist when the Constitution described House composition in terms of "states." Representation and voting rights are the very core of the American political system. There is no evidence that America's founders intended to exclude some Americans from participation in self-government.

Second, America's founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress. The bill today would do exactly the same thing, treating the District as a congressional district so that Americans living there can be represented in Congress. That land was no more part of a state in 1790 than the District is today. No one argued then that such legislation violated the Constitution they had written. If Congress could provide voting rights for District residents by legislation then, Congress can do so today.