WASHINGTON — Listeners to Kojo Nnamdi's radio program here have been calling for weeks, hopeful that the District of Columbia is finally on the verge of receiving a full vote in Congress.
The goal is tantalizingly close. For the first time in three decades, the Senate last week approved a bill that would grant a House seat to the district, removing one of the largest hurdles to the measure. The bill passed with a substantial majority, 61 to 37.
And yet Nnamdi, who hosts a public affairs show, has a sense of foreboding. The district has had its share of heartbreaks and near-misses -- the most recent being two years ago, when a similar measure died on the Senate floor after passing the House, just three votes short of approval.
"This is beginning to feel awfully familiar," Nnamdi said.
Before the legislation passed the Senate, lawmakers added language concerning gun rights that could delay, undermine or even scuttle the bill. Beyond that, opponents of the new House seat have vowed a court challenge to the legislation if it is enacted, which many legal experts think would be successful.
So what would have been a shining moment of triumph for voting rights advocates such as Nnamdi now feels a bit like a parade in the rain.
"It takes significant air out of the balloon," he said.
The voting rights measure, the product of a legislative deal, would add two seats to the House: one for the strongly Democratic district, which currently has a nonvoting delegate in the chamber, and another that initially would be awarded to Republican-leaning Utah. That seat would later be apportioned according to the 2010 census.
The District of Columbia, a federal territory, has never had congressional representation. Its residents can vote for president, in local races and on ballot issues.
In 2000, license plates here began to feature the slogan "Taxation Without Representation."
With Democrats holding large majorities in both houses of Congress, there never seemed to be a better time for action. But the gun rights language tacked to the bill Thursday created complications.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), the sponsor of the amendment, said it was needed because the district took steps to regulate guns after a Supreme Court decision last year struck down Washington's near-absolute ban on handguns.
But opponents say the language would gut all district gun regulations, including a ban on trafficking firearms obtained from nearby states where gun sales are permitted.
