According to today’s Salt Lake Tribune, last Friday, Rep Jim Matheson of Utah introduced the bill that will result in an elected Representative from the District of Columbia, and, for balance, a new, at-large fourth Representative from Utah. The new tool, OpenCongress.org, covers his bills up to March 5, so it is not listed there. I’d expect that the Utah paper is correct.
Dueling authorities hold opposite opinions that the bill is within the constitution.
Update [2007-3-13 10:55:11 by Books Alive]: H.R. 1433 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 was voted out by 24-5 this morning. Chairman Waxman’s hearing was webcast and lasted just short of two hours. Both sides confirm that they have consulted the parliamentarian. The sponsors agree this legislation would give the vote to 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia by statute. As Del Norton says, it “returns” the vote held by residents when the district was part of Maryland and Virginia.
so what are the merits of the constitutional questions?
By “merits” I understand you mean the questions raised by the plan which is now to add the fourth Utah seat as at-large, rather to carve out a fourth congressional district as originally proposed.
The debate is between these two approaches. The article began by mentioning the fear that by creating a fourth district and electing a rep from there would require all three current reps to run for election again.
Obviously, a situation like this is very, very rare.