Forget the 4th seat plan

Each time the bill that would give Utah a fourth House seat hits a snag, the clock ticks closer to the 2010 Census. And, even though reports this week indicate the Senate may now have the votes to pass the bill and avoid a filibuster, the snags ahead make one thing abundantly clear: Utah has no compelling need to continue supporting the effort.

Supporters of voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia say the nation can't call itself a true democracy when the people who live in the capital city have no representation in Congress.

This is a legitimate concern, but the bill in question is not a legitimate way to address it.

The bill is a grand compromise. It would expand the House by two members, giving one new representative to Utah and one to the District of Columbia. It is a compromise because the Utah seat surely would go to a Republican, and the District's seat would go to a Democrat.

But for people who believe the Constitution means what it says, the bill is a disaster. The Constitution says House members shall be "chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..." Inconvenient as it may be, the District of Columbia is not a state. Its residents are indeed worthy of representation, but the Constitution would have to be amended first. That's what happened in 1961 when the nation wanted to allow Washington three votes in the electoral college. The 23rd Amendment had to be passed to allow it.

The Senate is advancing quickly toward its summer recess. If the bill isn't considered by then, that would be another snag that takes time. If it is considered and passed, it would have to be reconciled with a House version and passed again by both chambers. More snags and more time.

Finally, the bill would have to survive a possible presidential veto, only to face the real chance of a legal challenge. Several months ago, a group of Republicans in Utah reportedly was readying legal briefs for just such a challenge.

Add it all up and Utah is far better off simply waiting for the next Census, which is sure to grant the fast-growing state at least a fourth, and possibly a fifth, representative.

Once that happens, advocates in the District of Columbia will have lost a giant lever in their fight for voting rights. That may be a shame, but this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the proper way — on its merits.