Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.” My position is that since the District of Columbia is not a state, it isn’t to have House members.
Presently, DC and some territories have delegates in the House. They are allowed to vote in committees, which I see as unconstitutional. The politics of the question are highly race-correlated, so although all of the delegates are Democrats, it’s unlikely that Republicans will ever rectify the situation.
“The people of DC deserve to be represented in Congress” sounds to me like an argument for a constitutional amendment; it is indeed very similar to arguments that were offered in relation to the Electoral College in support of the 23rd Amendment.
The right answer is to retrocede the residential areas of DC to Maryland in the same manner that about one-third of the original DC was retroceded to Virginia (its entire original contribution), keeping only the federally owned areas. Then DC residents could participate fully in the politics of Maryland. This does not require a constitutional amendment, since the Constitution does not specify a minimum area for the national capital (only a maximum area).
Daniel Clyde Cummings firstname.lastname@example.org