Partisan Politics Shaping Debate on D.C. Vote

For their part, many Democrats base their arguments for creating a D.C. seat on a section of the Constitution called the "District Clause," which gives Congress sweeping power to regulate the city.

Republicans note that such legal reasoning was rejected in 1975 by the Democrat-dominated House Judiciary Committee. That committee said "a constitutional amendment is essential" for full D.C. representation in Congress.

Democrats say they support the legislation because of democratic principles. They have decried the fact that Washington residents have fought in wars and paid billions of dollars in taxes without full representation in Congress.

But political considerations have also influenced Democrats' actions.

The party was reluctant to support the D.C. vote bill when Davis first proposed it in 2003, because members feared that a redistricting of Utah could hurt that state's lone Democratic congressman, Norton said. Democrats were especially concerned because then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) had promoted a highly partisan redistricting in his state without waiting for the census.

"Democrats, having just been victims of an unprecedented redistricting, couldn't possibly just say to DeLay, 'Here's another one,' " Norton said.

In recent weeks, House Democrats have tweaked the bill to make the extra Utah seat at-large rather than risk a redistricting that could endanger U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah). And they have insisted that the entire legislation be declared null if one part is struck down -- a reflection of their concerns that the D.C. seat could be eliminated in court while the Utah seat stands.

Democrats also recently used their power to strip Republican amendments from the legislation, stoking anger in the minority party.