Partisan Politics Shaping Debate on D.C. Vote

Critics Are Wary of Bill's Possible Implications in Congress and Beyond; Supporters Downplay Concerns

As the U.S. House of Representatives debates whether to give the District its first full vote in the chamber, lawmakers have focused their arguments on high-minded principles: respecting democracy, defending the Constitution, standing up for civil rights.

But behind the lofty rhetoric is another concern: politics.

Some opponents say they fear that the voting rights bill could pave the way for two full senators as well as a House representative for the District, a liberal bastion that gave 89 percent of its vote to U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the last presidential election.

"If this were a strong, powerful, conservative Republican enclave, there might be people who might not have quite the same conviction" about a vote for D.C. residents, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in a recent hearing.

Some critics say they worry that the legislation could lead in the long run to full congressional votes for U.S. territories, since the Constitution treats them and the District similarly. In addition to Washington, four non-states have delegates who can't vote on the House floor: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

All but Puerto Rico are represented by Democrats -- a point not lost on Republicans.

Sponsors of the D.C. bill say it is "partisan-neutral." It would permanently add two seats to the House, one for the District and one for the next state due to get a representative -- currently, Republican-leaning Utah. It would leave the U.S. Senate unchanged.

Still, even supporters say that the measure has become embroiled in partisanship. On Thursday, Democratic leaders pulled the bill off the House floor after Republicans moved to send it back to committee with added language that would overturn the District's strict gun laws.

Democrats called the move a temporary setback and said they would find a way to bring it back to the full House and pass it.

The Republican maneuver was just the latest indication of the staunch opposition the bill has faced. In the past two weeks, the White House has threatened to veto it, and Republican Party leaders have rallied to fight it.

There are various reasons for the GOP's stance. One is a suspicion of a hidden Democratic agenda.

Opponents fear that the House bill could set a precedent for eventually giving the District two voting senators. They note that the constitutional language on who can serve in the two chambers is similar. Adding two Democrats to the 100-member Senate could alter its balance of power more than an extra seat or two would affect the House, which has 435 representatives.