Estimated read time: 1-2 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
What began as a rather appealing bi-partisan approach to getting Utah a fourth seat in Congress before the next national census in 2010 has unfortunately degenerated into the realm of political gamesmanship.
Now we wonder if it's worth the bother.
Earlier in the summer, key Washington lawmakers seemed to have achieved a compromise that made sense: Increase the size of the House of Representatives by two to 437 members. One seat would go to the District of Columbia, which would assuredly elect a democrat. The District has been seeking representation for decades. To balance that, the plan was to give Utah a fourth "at-large" seat, and do it now rather than after the next census in 2010 as expected. Utah's new seat, undoubtedly, would go to a republican.
The proposal seemed palatable to both parties.
Now, though, legitimate concerns are being raised about the constitutionality of the proposal. And partisan politics is coming into play over efforts to get around the constitutional issues.
As much as Utah deserves a fourth seat in Congress and would benefit from having another representative in Washington, what's happening now is not the way to go about getting it. Waiting until 2010 wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.
