Should D.C. have full House representation?

The top of Page 1 of the Washington Post reports that Northern Virginia's Republican Rep. Tom Davis is leading legislative efforts to give a full seat in the House of Representatives to Washington, D.C.

A photograph in this story's jumpover shows a smiling Davis next to a broadly grinning D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who currently has no vote in the House.

TRENDING: Employee fired for having Parler and Gab social-media accounts

"D.C. stars are aligning, Davis says," is the headline, with the subhead: "Co-sponsor sees enough support on House panel."

Not one word in this Post news story by Lori Montgomery and Elissa Silverman mentions anything about a similar voting right in the House for Puerto Rico – with its 4 million people – when the District of Columbia has only 550,000.

What will happen if this Davis-Norton D.C.-full-representation drive is amended by the Hispanic Caucus to provide say, four fully authorized members of Congress from Puerto Rico?

And then, even though the Virgin Islands' population is only 110,000 – why should their delegate to Congress not be made full-fledged, as well as Guam's (168,000) and American Samoa's with 57,000?

If this mischief shows any signs of impending passage, it should be immediately amended to require similar full congressional representation for Puerto Rico, at least.

This full vote for D.C. proposal is coupled with a provision to give an additional congressional seat to Utah – whose voters gave President Bush his highest margin of victory in 2004.

This would mean that instead of returning to the House of Representatives membership of 435 after the 2010 census, the 437 number would be permanent – which is clearly discrimination against Puerto Rico's 4 million.

This unfairness should be stopped in its tracks, before the Davis-Norton team comes up with another wild idea: statehood for the District of Columbia – with U.S. Sens. Jesse Jackson and (a quickly relocated) Al Sharpton.