Problems with a fourth seat

The compromise that would give Utah a fourth seat in the House and give the people of the District of Columbia a full-fledged representative as well got a good push-start last week when it roared out of the House Government Reform Committee by a 29-4 vote. But it has a long way to go — perhaps much longer than the four years before Utah likely earns a fourth seat by conventional means.

As much as we like this compromise — it would give Utah immediate representation and correct the age-old irony that denies democracy to the people who live in the capital of the world's greatest democracy — it does, upon closer scrutiny, raise thorny constitutional questions.

The Constitution is quite clear about how people are elected to the House of Representatives. Article 1, Section 2 says they are to be chosen every two years "by the people of the several states." They must be inhabitants of the state in which they are chosen.

The District of Columbia is not a state. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., says he has legal opinions from such legal luminaries as Kenneth Starr that his bill is constitutional. This, Davis said, is because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the affairs of the district, and the courts have never overturned an attempt by Congress to exercise that authority.

It may not be that simple, however. If it were, Congress could have just passed a law allowing the district three electoral votes in presidential elections. Instead, those three votes were granted in the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified by the states in 1961. If push comes to shove, the Supreme Court may well require a similar amendment to grant the district a seat in Congress. The Constitution, after all, says what it says, and on this point it is quite clear.

But an amendment would require a lengthy process likely stretching beyond the 2010 Census. That census probably will grant Utah a fourth seat regardless, thereby destroying the genius behind Davis' bill.

Republicans typically have opposed representation for Washington because it would add another Democrat to the ranks. But a new seat in Utah likely would add a Republican, especially since the bill requires Utah's seat to be elected at-large, at least until after the next Census. It also would increase the total number of House members by two, permanently.

We wish Davis well. It would be great to add to Utah's clout, even in a small way. And the extra electoral vote would come in time for the 2008 election.

But we suggest any budding fourth representatives out there tell the printer to hold off on making campaign buttons for a while.