But residents of other U.S. territories would get nothing, and representatives of those areas are OK with that.

In all, there are 16 territories or locales under U.S. control whose residents do not have a full-voting member of Congress to represent them, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And none of them is included in a bill that would give the liberal District of Columbia its first seat and balance it with one for Republican Utah.

"The citizens of the district should have a say in what we do in Congress," says Rep. Luis Fortuno, the nonvoting delegate from Puerto Rico, who generally supports the D.C.-Utah bill.

But "I understand that D.C. has a totally different background [from Puerto Rico]. The framers of the Constitution intended it to be a different type of situation as opposed to the territories. So we have a different pathway towards full civil rights and participation in American democracy."

Republicans opposed to the D.C.-Utah bill have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the plan that would increase the House by two members. Critics of the bill also have said they worry that if Congress can give a seat to the district, why not to other territories?

"If D.C. is not a state but is nevertheless entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives, then what about other federal commonwealths and territories?" asked a recent National Review editorial. "Are the good people of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also worthy of full congressional representation?"

Supporters of the D.C.-Utah bill say it's unfair to compare the District of Columbia's situation to that of territories.

"The two cases are uniquely different," the League of Women Voters says in a posting about the bill. "District citizens pay over $1.8 billion in federal individual income taxes. Residents of the territories . . . pay zero."

Residents of U.S. territories do pay some federal levies, such as Social Security and Medicare taxes, but not federal income taxes.

U.S. Virgin Islands nonvoting delegate Donna Christensen says she supports passage of the D.C.-Utah bill. She acknowledged in a statement that she and other territorial delegates want a full vote in the House but that she understands "our time has not yet come."

Passage of the bill in the House in April was a "positive signal for territorial representatives that their enfranchisement is closer than it has ever been," Christensen says. "I look forward to the day when all citizens under the American flag will enjoy the democratic right of full representation in their national assembly as well as a vote for our president and commander-in-chief."

Eni Faleomavaega, the delegate for American Samoa, doesn't see a similarity with his territory's lack of representation and that of the district. Residents of American Samoa are considered "U.S. nationals" who owe allegiance to the United States but are not citizens. Plus, there are only about 70,000 people in the islands.

Faleomavaega says he doesn't "see the numbers to justify full representation like other members representing states."

The arguments that the D.C.-Utah bill could lead to territories getting full representation is bogus, says Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, the main organization pushing for the bill.

"We don't see a precedent being set here for what would happen with the territories," Zherka says. "For opponents making that argument, they're just grasping at straws."

tburr@sltrib.com