The push for a fourth congressional district for Utah begins anew this week, with congressional debate scheduled on increasing representation for the state and the District of Columbia.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are supposed to take up the legislation this week, and its sponsors predict a full House of Representatives vote before the April 2 recess.

Utah Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, said people he's talked to have said it has the most momentum they have ever seen.

But there are aspects of the proposal that don't sit well with local leaders, and there may be significant constitutional hurdles to overcome as well.

The proposal calls for adding two new seats in the House for a total of 437. Residents of Washington, D.C., would get full voting representation, which they don't have now. Utah would receive the fourth congressional seat many think should have gone to the state following the 2000 Census.

If granted, the seat would be at-large -- representing the entire state -- until after the 2010 Census. That would render moot a redistricting plan hammered out by the Utah Legislature late last year to comply with a congressional request -- and it's reaching too far, said Valentine.

"It's a federalism issue for us," he said. "The federal government shouldn't be telling the states how to draw their districts."

It's also frustrating to have the proposal change so much, he added.

"If it takes at-large, we'll take at-large. But I'm getting a little annoyed. ... We feel like we're being messed with," Valentine said.

"We're willing to take what we're given. But make up your mind."

In Washington, the issue has been championed by Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and Tom Davis, R-Va.

Norton spokeswoman Doxie McCoy said the redistricting request came when Republicans were in charge last year. The new, Democrat-controlled Congress is running the show now, and the decision has been made to return to an at-large format contained in the original bill.

"Now, the players are saying the at-large will work," McCoy said. "That's what we decided to go back to."

Adding an at-large representative means that Utah's three current congressmen wouldn't have to run again before 2008: "It was in more of their best interest to have an at-large," she said.

One of those incumbents -- U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, who represents Utah County -- already has a potential challenger. Jason Chaffetz threw his hat in the ring at the start of the year specifically because of the chance for new districts and a special election.

Cannon supported an at-large version of the bill in the past, noted spokesman Fred Piccolo. But he's also sensitive to the work state leaders have done on drawing a fourth district.

"That part of the bill is going to be a huge consideration for Congressman Cannon," said Piccolo. "We do not want to take away in any way the state's role in this."

Staying out of an election is not a concern, he added: "If there's one thing Congressman Cannon knows, it's primary challengers. He's ready to run at any time."

Chaffetz -- an Alpine businessman who was once chief of staff to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. -- said he's not ruling anything out, including an at-large run. But he's doubtful that a fourth seat now is likely, or even a good idea.

"An at-large seat, where the public would be represented by two congressmen, is something that needs to be examined closely by the legal community. I'm not sure it will work," Chaffetz said.

He also noted that another seat would add to Utah's contribution to a Republican presidential campaign: "I have my doubts that the Democrats will want to give the Republicans another electoral vote going into 2008."

There's another concern with the D.C. part of the proposal -- it might violate the U.S. Constitution.

One section allows only states to have voting power in Congress. Several experts have testified that the District of Columbia was deliberately created as a "non-state entity" that was supposed to be a neutral seat of government.

Another school of thought, however, notes that Congress does have oversight power over the District, and that in other instances the District is treated like a state.