Brent Waldrop was one of two people to argue with the legislative redistricting committee at its public hearing in Provo on Monday morning. On hand were the bigwigs of Utah government; at stake was a possible fourth seat for Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives and a shake-up of who represents whom.

So he didn't hold anything back.

"It seems like we're carving up the state the same way I carved up the turkey this weekend," the Springville resident told the 10 state senators and representatives sitting in chairs normally occupied by the Provo Municipal Council.

Legislators, Waldrop and Brandon Plewe of Spanish Fork debated for about an hour at the hearing, throwing out new maps and different ideas, waving population distribution graphs and debating where to put a few thousand Davis County residents, and wondering out loud where Democrat U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson lives.

The public hearing is part of a process to get Utah a fourth seat in the U.S. House of Representatives by adding two more seats, the other of which will go to Washington, D.C. Utah designs the districts, all of which need to have about 588,000 residents, the Legislature picks a map and then it goes to the House for discussion.

Ten plans have been conceived; three were on the agenda to be discussed and a fourth, plan G, was amended and added for discussion. Waldrop said he supported plan G, which creates a huge district that's largely rural, except for St. George and south Utah County, two urban districts and one with a mix of the two.

There's just one little problem with that plan, Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, pointed out; 80 percent of Utah's population is along the Wasatch Front.

"That's good in theory, but you can't have just a rural district," he said. "There's not enough numbers in a total rural district."

For Plewe, a geographic information systems professor at BYU, the process seemed unduly elongated; he put a map together in 30 minutes on Monday morning that kept northern Utah intact and, with the exception of Davis and Salt Lake counties, divided primarily along county lines.

"Mainly, it seems like you've gone to some elaborate ends to balance some numbers when it is not necessary," he said, handing out copies of his map. "It is possible in half an hour to come up with some plans that I think are more reasonable."

But, Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, argued that taking into account only county lines ignored common interests or working relationships. Several legislators also said Plewe's map split cities apart, which could be confusing and demoralizing; several said residents of their cities felt a lack of continuity being in different districts. What they all eventually agreed on was there is no perfect districting map.

"Now we're debating which trade-off is preferential," Bramble said. "Is that fairfi"

The committee had two more hearings Monday and have three more today, then on Wednesday will meet at the state Capitol to discuss the map possibilities. A special session is tentatively scheduled for Monday to vote on a map.

At that point the fight leaves Utah.

The Constitution allows only states to have voting power in Congress, so it brings the legality of Washington, D.C., having a representative into question. Assuming it goes forward, the lame-duck Congress will convene and determine if it should be on an agenda. But what's happening in the nation's capital and what could potentially hit the floors of Congress and the courts doesn't change Utah's prerogative to draw and vote on a map.

"If they actually do it, it may go to court," Bramble said. "That's all out of our control."

The constitutional question is a valid one, according to experts who testified before Congress.

"Congress does not get to decide what bodies are represented in the House and the Senate," said John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, to a meeting of the subcommittee on the Constitution.

"It is the Constitution that decides that. ... Over and over in the Constitution, it is clear that only states may have representatives in the House and the Senate," Fortier said.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at The George Washington University Law School, also told committee members that enacting a voting seat for the District of Columbia is "fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level."

The District of Columbia was created as a "non-state entity" on purpose, he said, to locate the seat of federal government on neutral ground.

"The intention of the framers was to create a non-state entity, and the non-voting status was part of that intent," Turley said. "You are about to take one, frankly, grotesque curiosity of the District's current status and replace it with another. You are going to create some type of half-formed citizen that can vote in the House for a non-state entity. I think it is a mistake."

There are other options, but they're difficult. Congress could admit the District as a state, amend the Constitution or shrink the District so that it encompasses only the seat of U.S. government and cede the rest to Maryland.

"While the aim of the legislation is just, we have other courses of action that we are going to have to take because they are legitimate constitutional options," Fortier said.

That's not the only school of thought. Another part of the Constitution gives Congress significant powers to oversee the District, and in other instances -- voting for president, for example, or filing court cases -- the District is treated like a state. In that view, Congress can give the District voting representation.

Which constitutional interpretation will prevail is hard to know, said Charles Isom, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

"Whether or not that's going to be enough to scuttle it -- obviously, we hope not," he said. "People aren't really speaking out on this yet, since we're still waiting on what happens in Utah."

If the measure's going to pass, it will happen before the end of the year as one of the last acts of a GOP-controlled Congress.

"We don't exactly know when this session is going to end," Isom said. "This is the make-or-break point, I would imagine."

Four plans for redistricting

Plan A:

District 1: Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Cache, Rich counties

District 2: Tooele, central Salt Lake, Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Sevier, Beaver, Piute, Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, Kane, Washington counties

District 3: Utah, Wasatch, Morgan, Summit, Duchesne, Daggett, Uintah, Carbon, Emery, Grand counties

District 4: south Salt Lake County

Plan G.1

District 1: south and northwest Utah County, Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Morgan, Summit, Wasatch, Duchesne, Daggett, Uintah, Carbon, Sanpete, Juab, Millard, Sevier, Emery, Grand, Beaver, Piute, Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, Washington, Kane counties

District 2: north Salt Lake County

District 3: Utah County north of Mapleton and east of west Lehi, south Salt Lake County

District 4: Tooele, Weber, Davis, west Salt Lake counties

Plan I:

District 1: Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Cache counties

District 2: Salt Lake, Morgan, Rich, north Summit counties

District 3: Utah, Summit, Wasatch, Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, Carbon, Sanpete, Emery, Grand, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, San Juan, Kane counties

District 4: Southern half of Salt Lake, Tooele, Juab, Millard, Beaver, Iron, Washington

Plan J:

District 1: Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Cache, Rich counties

District 2: Salt Lake and Morgan counties

District 3: Utah, Summit, Wasatch, Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, Carbon, Sanpete, Emery, Grand, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, San Juan, Kane counties

District 4: Southern half of Salt Lake, Tooele, Juab, Millard, Beaver, Iron, Washington

Source: www.le.utah.gov

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page D1.