Contrary to The Eagle's optimistic Sept. 13 prediction, the Senate defeated a bill Tuesday that would have given D.C. its first and only congressional representative.
Perceivably, senators voted against the bill because they feared it might have partisan ramifications. Adding a seat in a generally liberal district threatened the Republicans' ability to regain their majority in the House. As such, the bill's authors sought to escape accusations of political gerrymandering by offering Utah, a traditionally conservative state, an additional congressional representative. It seemed that the bill's authors pre-emptively restored Congress' balance.
But the bill failed to address an inevitable question: What would happen if D.C. residents, eager to be more active in America's political processes, demanded two seats in the Senate? D.C.'s newly acquired voting rights, had the bill been passed, certainly would have justified residents' claims for further representation. Perhaps Republicans (and more moderate Democrats) who worried that D.C. would elect two liberals to the Senate voted against the bill in fear of a party imbalance. After all, legislators could not introduce new Senate seats in battleground states to boost the party numbers.
As a result, the bill's defeat sets a dangerous precedent. It turns a civil rights issue into a political debacle, and it does not bode well for other unrepresented and unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico and Guam. If anything, the Senate's undue political selfishness is reminiscent of America in the 1800s, when states were admitted to the union based on their political affiliation. It should not be that 200 years later, little has changed.
