But while no one at the hearing came out against voting rights for District of Columbia residents, some witnesses took issue with this particular bill.

Jonathan R. Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has testified against the bill before the House and Senate before, said the "bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for district residents."

"I'm afraid that this bill is the wrong means," Turley said.

Elwood, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Legal Counsel Office at the Justice Department, reiterated the administration's opposition to the bill, also on constitutional grounds.

Elwood said a vote for district residents could only be achieved through a constitutional amendment.

"The district is not a state," according to Elwood's testimony. "In the absence of a constitutional amendment, therefore, the explicit provisions of the Constitution do not permit Congress to grant congressional representation to the district through legislation."

Elwood said President Bush's advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who heads the Senate Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee that held the hearing, said he would be looking to get a commitment from the Justice Department that if this bill would pass, that it would argue in favor of it in court.

"The test is that there is a reasonable argument in favor of this, it is indisputable that there is a reasonable argument in favor of this and the Justice Department is obligated," Feingold said.

---

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com