Congress’s recent unconstitutional attempt to grant Washington, D.C., a seat in the House included adding another seat for Utah, as a political tradeoff.  D.C. would be expected to vote Democrat, while Utah is considered a red state. It’s passage in the House has been stymied, for now, by the NRA.  Jonathan Turley notes the unconstitutional fallout if the bill does pass:

Political convenience has overridden constitutional principle. To sell this ill-conceived plan, sponsors resorted to trading a new vote for the “red” state of Utah for a vote for the “blue” District. To their credit, some Utah delegation members denounced the bill as unconstitutional. In doing so, Congress will create a second constitutional problem by creating an “at large” district in Utah (to avoid forcing members to hold special elections for newly configured districts). The result is that Utahans will be the only citizens represented by two House members – their original lawmaker plus an at-large representative – in violation of the constitutional concept of “one man, one vote.”

What Congress is about to do is dangerous and destabilizing. In claiming the inherent authority to create a new form of voting member, future Congresses could manipulate the voting rolls by creating new seats for any other territory or reservation. For example, Puerto Rico (with a population of 4 million U.S. citizens) would have equal claim to six seats.

If this flies, it will be another step in the destruction of our Constitution.  You can tell your Representative what you think about this here and your Senators here.