Partisan Politics Shaping Debate on D.C. Vote

"Everyone knows Democrats are salivating at the thought of having two guaranteed seats in the Senate," said Brian Robinson, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). The congressman tried to attach an amendment to the bill that would block future Senate representation for the District.

D.C. vote advocates, including Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a sponsor of the bill, don't mask their hope that the District will eventually get senators. But the bill's supporters say concerns of a future partisan advantage are overblown.

"You'd need a completely different coalition to get two senators" approved by Congress, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who originally came up with the idea to pair a House seat for the District with one going to Utah. He opposes adding D.C. senators.

The bill includes another element that worries some Republicans. It would give the extra House seat to Utah for now, but it would not necessarily stay there. It could move as part of the next reapportioning of congressional seats after the 2010 census. The seat could wind up in either party, but the District seat is expected to remain Democratic.

With the margins of power close in Congress and seats costing millions of dollars to defend, politicians are wary of giving any advantage to the other party.

Davis notes that the bill includes sweeteners for Republicans. They would be sure to get the extra Utah seat until 2012 and an accompanying electoral vote that could help in the 2008 presidential race.

"There's something in here that everybody can not like," Davis said. But he said the two parties need to compromise to correct a shameful denial of rights.

"The underlying issue is, is it important that the capital of the free world be allowed a representative vote in Congress?" Davis asked.

Much of the debate on the bill has focused on the Founding Fathers' intentions. Legal scholars have differed on whether Congress can single-handedly grant the District representation in the House. But in the acrimonious political atmosphere, each side has accused the other of using the Constitution to suit partisan purposes.

Opponents of the bill point out that the Constitution limits House representation to states -- and the District is not a state. They say that if the city wants representation, it should become part of Maryland or pass a constitutional amendment establishing D.C. voting rights. The latter approach was tried more than 20 years ago but collapsed when it failed to win ratification from enough states.

Supporters say the current legislation was deemed constitutionally sound by experts including Republican heroes Kenneth W. Starr, a former federal appellate judge and the special prosecutor who investigated President Bill Clinton, and Viet D. Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped write the Patriot Act.

"People who oppose the D.C. Voting Rights Act are wrapping the Constitution around themselves," said Ilir Zherka, leader of D.C. Vote, an advocacy group. "What this is really about is partisanship."