Cannon's comment about how the new rep would be in line for committee chairs after 6 terms (12 years) points out just what is wrong with the system. They ought to be leaving congress after a decade or a dozen years (two terms in the senate, five to six in the house). We need some churn in there, rather than electing and reelecting for a 50 year stint.

US Constitution, Article I; Section. 2. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
Why are Utah politcians so eagar to support this UNconstitutional bill? Is the benefit of having the earliest newly elected representative great enough to ignore the larger ramifications of this bill? We just can't understand why our politicians don't seem to understand the words and the very clear meaning of our constitution any more. (Sen Bennett's recent belated "Concern" for the far-reaching consequences of this bill is refreshing but Sen Hatch has apparently not thought about that, yet!!) Our country, from the beginning, was viewed by the Founders as a federation of STATES and that has worked very well for over two-hundred years now. How can they have the audacity to decide that Cities or Districts can now be considered to be on equal representative footing with STATES? IF THEY REALLY BELIEVE IN THIS CAUSE, WHATEVER IT REALLY IS, THEY SHOULD GO ABOUT IT PROPERLY AND INITIATE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!

Utah will get it's additional Representative soon by just following the Constitutional process without political horse-trading to back an UnConstitutional move. We should notify our senators that backing this bill does not properly represent the people of Utah. Washington DC IS NOT A STATE!! (One little sidelight: Why are they so certain that Utah's new representative will be Republican ..... One-third of our representatives right now is Democrat)

Let's hope that Cannon's comment about "a 33% increase in that type of funding" doesn't go unnoticed...I hope the 3rd District voters are offended that their representative thinks that's what his job is. Whatever happened to defending the Constitution?

BigAl: It's simply a question of numbers. We happen to have a second district where the Democrat can get more than 50% of the votes (about 59%), but District 1 saw Bishop garner more than 63%, and Cannon got nearly 58% in District 3. Bear in mind that the Democrat didn't get the remainder of that, either: Jim Noorlander of the Constitution Party got nearly 9% vs. Cannon. So while the margins are definitely narrowing, I think it's still a safe bet that any 4th seat (and of course I agree with you about DC's seat and the Constitution) would go to the Republicans. Especially since it looks to me like Clinton is a lock for the nomination (thereby keeping the Democrats home for that primary) where the Republican nomination may well still be a toss-up at that point.

The only reason we should support a DC district is if we can send Speaker Greg Curtis to Washington. Having watched him firsthand since he was elected to the legislature, I can tell you he is the front runner, both in ability and electability. He'd be a great congressman.

2008 vs 2012--the only difference is that there will be 2 more seats in the house.

The larger point is that, come 2012, this could easily result in two more Democratic seats. One for DC, and one somewhere else in the country that Utah won't take away from some other state due to realignment.

And oh boy, Utah gets to have one extra representative for all of 4 plus years. That'll give us lots more clout. Whoopee.

Will I would love Utah getting a fourth Congressional seat a couple of years early, this is not the way to do it. Because the bill giving us the seat elevates Washington D.C. at the expense of the other commonwealths and territories of the U.S.: namely, American Samoa, Guam, Saipan, the Mariannas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Has anyone bothered asking the (non-voting) representatives of those commonwealths and territories what they think of the bill?

stumblefall, I think you have a point, but I dont think Cannon meant what you think he did. He has voted against earmarks this year and he has voted with Flake on his crusade to end them. But, the problem with Flake's crusade is that even if he got rid of all earmarks, it wouldn't do a thing to the size of the budget. I know people say that if you got rid of earmarks, the budget would shrink naturally because they wouldn't have to pad it. Anyone who believes that the budget will shrink through "natural" processes, I have swampland to sell you in the Sahara.

Cannon has it right in that you can cut all the earmarks you want, or you can have more (and yes, the REALITY is that another Rep would bring more money to Utah...that is just reality), but what you need to do is start shutting down departments (Education being the first as Cannon says). You need to start cutting budgets (like Cannon did when he voted with only like 30 other members to cut the budget of National Public Radio to zero federal money). Jeff Flake and his crew have done good, but it is time to do what Cannon had said in an op ed not long ago, and that is shrink the budget instead of chasing earmarks.

I believe the state will gain a legal 4th representative after the next census. Why push it and give the Democrats an automatic seat. We may elect a Republican or a Democrat. Washington DC is not a state!

Frank, I wish I could share your optimism on Cannon, but your point is well taken, and I appreciate seeing some of the good things Cannon has done, since the debate has been so much about immigration. I do wonder, however, if we couldn't shrink the budget and ban the earmarks at the same time, ha ha ha! What am I saying, I'm not sure either one is possible. But it WOULD be nice to get rid of the department of Ed.

LJ, just so you know, Utah is basically a lock for the 4th seat in 2012. [I'm just trying to clarify that your 'I believe' is shared by almost everyone]. I have three projections based on my own modeling, the worst of which has us getting seat # 401 of 435 [the other two are 395 and 377; the models depend upon whether you are using 2005 or 2006 Census numbers, or the growth from 2005 to 2006]. Depending upon who you ask, we are also headed for a 5th seat in 2022, or else predicted to barely miss.

Why Bob Bernick, Jr. would talk to state representative Curtis about his potential interest in this seat and report on it, meanwhile neglecting one of the most obvious people who already has a statewide network, a solid fundraising base and the political network that Greg Curtis lacks - Gary Herbert, Lieutenant Gov. is beyond me.

What operatives/staff/support does Curtis enjoy? He barely won his re-elect to the state house, for heavens sake. Herbert has the team, the resources and the political acumen to make a race of this. Why wasn't he at least mentioned?

Cannon shows he's been in Congress too long. Pushing a 4th seat for Utah is fine, but giving DC the vote at any expenses shows a complete disregard for the US Constitution. A very sad commentary as we prepare to celebrate Constitution Day.

Cannon tried to sell Geneva for a quick buck in the 90's, and put all those people out work. I am afraid he will sell Utah down river for a short political gain and a long term huge debt. Thank you Chris for your total disregard for the Constitution.