It has been pointed out to me, in connection with my article today on congressional representation for D.C., that Kenneth Starr and Patricia Wald, in the op-ed I criticize, only refer to D.C. residents getting “full voting representation in the House,” not in both the House and the Senate (I had referred throughout my article to “Congress” as a whole).  Fair enough, but hardly a distinction that helps the argument made by Starr and Wald.  If anything, a bill that gave D.C. voters representation in one house of Congress and not both would be even worse than what I described, for it would be a frank admission that one is playing monkeyshines with the status of the District under the Constitution.  Not a state, not even a “quasi-state,” not retroceded to Maryland—just a whole-cloth invention of a new House constituency, contrary to the Constitution.