This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
WASHINGTON - Utahns have complained for years that they were wrongly denied a fourth congressional seat, along with the extra clout and federal dollars tied to it.
They charge they were cheated out of their rightful representation when the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000 failed to count Utahns serving overseas religious missions.
But that perceived injustice hardly stacks up against the one claimed by the District of Columbia.
While Utah has three U.S. House members and two senators, the district's nearly 600,000 residents have no vote in Congress, which, in addition to its other powers, controls the district's budget and laws.
A potential solution - at least a partial one - is before Congress to couple Utah's political quest with that of the nation's capital. It would grant the state a fourth House seat and give the district its first voting member of Congress.
While Utah leaders eagerly push it, the bill's primary goal - and the only reason it exists - is to help district residents, who have argued for two centuries against their taxation without representation.
"The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for the last six years," Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. testified before a congressional committee in September. "I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation at all for over 200 years."
Once upon a time, residents of the area - then sparsely populated farmland - had a vote in Congress when they were part of a state. But the Founding Fathers, scared off by riots where they were meeting in Philadelphia, wanted their own jurisdiction, a place for the federal government to call home that wasn't under the control of other politicians.
The 100-square-mile district, carved from Maryland and Virginia, was created in 1800 when Congress moved to the new Washington City. (The Virginia part was later given back to the state.)
Over time, the structure of how the city operates has changed. But one constant is the fact that residents pay federal taxes with no voice in how they are spent.
"Regarding their political rights, residents of the nation's capital are not really citizens but practically aliens in their own country," Frederick Douglas declared in 1893.
"That's the way I feel, and a lot of people in the district feel that way," says Nelson Rimensnyder, a district resident since 1970 and a 25-year staffer on the former House subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
"We have all the responsibilities of citizens, but we don't have the rights. I'm a veteran. . . . I have a son in Iraq. Here we are subject to the rules of Congress, including being sent to war, but we have no one to stand up for us and vote yea or nay in Congress."
The advocacy group Let's Free DC lists 177 countries, from Albania to Zimbabwe, that give the residents of their capitals rights equal to those of their other citizens. The United Nations Human Rights Committee declared this year that district residents' lack of a vote constituted a human-rights violation.
Annie Miller, a former Utahn who lived in the district for 3 1/2 years, agreed residents are treated like second-class citizens.
"You're voting for a figurehead mayor and a council, neither of which has control over the budget," says Miller, who works for the federal government. "When you're voting, you sort of feel helpless."
Constitutional con- cerns: It wasn't until 1961 that district residents were allowed to vote for president, thanks to the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But other proposals to grant full voting rights have failed. In 1978, Congress sent the states another constitutional amendment that would allow the district to have a House member, but only 16 of the required 38 states ratified the change, and it expired in 1985.
The district also called a Constitutional Convention in 1980, a state constitution was drafted for "New Columbia," and it was submitted to be part of the union. But it was all for naught. The amendment didn't pass.
The latest effort - the bill that would add a district seat and one for Utah - has energized many voting-rights activists who believe it is the best chance for at least limited voting rights.
But questions remain whether it passes constitutional muster.
"Over and over in the Constitution, it is clear that only states may have representatives in the House and the Senate," John Fortier, a research fellow at American Enterprise Institute, testified in September. "The textual references are many, but the first is the most obvious: 'The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.' ''
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, says the nonvoting status of the district was "discussed regularly by the framers" of the Constitution. "It was viewed back then as an abomination," Turley says.
There are also those who oppose the current legislation on different grounds.
John Gill Sr. has lived his entire 84 years - minus a few overseas in World War II - in the district, where his family settled after the Civil War. He is a fifth-generation Washingtonian, and he doesn't feel any urgency in getting a vote in Congress.
"It's just fine the way it is," Gill said. "The people who have lived here and really understand it, that's how they feel. On the other hand, it would be nice."
A group called Stand Up 4 Democracy opposes the legislation because it doesn't grant the district full voting rights.
"Our local elected officials should not accept such painfully slow 'steps' towards full democracy," the group says.
'Third-class' citizens: Mark David Richards is a political sociologist who did his doctoral dissertation on the history of the District of Columbia. He says for much of the time the district has been seeking full voting rights, the opposition derived, at least in part, from racial undertones. Blacks make up 62 percent of the district's population, according to the 2000 census.
But now, Richards says, some of the opposition to granting the district voting rights is pure politics - if the city gained a House member or senators, there's little doubt the Democrat-filled city would elect only those with donkeys on their campaign signs.
Richards says that wasn't meant to be the case. The Founding Fathers "expected that when the population reached the minimum number for having a representative, it would happen through a constitutional amendment," he says.
Because it hasn't, district residents have fewer rights than other Americans. Residents of U.S. territories, such as Guam or Puerto Rico, don't have a voting member of Congress, either, but they don't pay federal taxes.
"I describe it as third class, I don't even think it's second," Richards says of district residents' status.
Former Utahn and now Georgetown resident Michael Kennedy says he would love to have a voice in Congress. Though he recognizes constitutional concerns, Kennedy is hoping for a fix.
"I don't think the founders envisioned the district to have a population close to many state populations out there," Kennedy says. The district has more people than Wyoming and almost as many as three other states. "We are being taxed without being represented. That's an equal constitutional concern."