The Senate has passed and soon the House of Representatives will be voting on a bill to grant to DC a voting representative in the House. The law has also specified that there will be no Senate representation for DC, just the House. The bill also provides for an additional seat representing Utah due to an undercount in the 2000 census.
The Senate bill was introduced by Orrin Hatch (R) and Joe Lieberman (I).
Should DC have representation?
Is it constitutional?
Why won't they give DC Senate representation also?
Ken Starr (independent counsel in the Clinton/Whitewater investigations) and Viet Dinh (architect of the USAPatriot Act) penned a joint opinion that DC can have representation constitutionally. It is entirely up to congress. Apparently residents on former Maryland and Virgina land ceded to form DC had voting rights granted by congress in 1790. They argue that the Founders would have wanted it and that congress is well within its rights, according to federal court, to approve such measures.
http://www.standard.net/live/opinion/to ... es/166580/
What say you, citizens?