A Stitch in Haste

Oh, silly me, they don't hate the Constitution, they just love the District of Columbia:

The Utah legislature will meet in special session on Monday to debate a redistricting map adding a fourth congressional seat to the state's delegation as part of a deal to give the District of Columbia its first voting representative in Congress.
...
But that may not be enough to satisfy conservative critics opposed to giving the District a voting seat in Congress, which some lawmakers insist can only happen if Utah also gets a fourth seat in the House. The bill (HR 5388) would increase the size of the House to 437 members to accommodate both desires.

The tit-for-tat bill is likely going nowhere in Congress, but let's assume it did. Would it be constitutional?

Not even close:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States[.]

No Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Only states get to send voting representatives to the House. End of discussion. How on earth is this a difficult concept — especially to those who are actually in Congress? It boggles the mind.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the abstract concept of full representation for residents of the District. But it requires a constitutional amendment — either to alter the Article I composition of the House or by making the District a full State. We amended the Constitution for the sake of D.C. residents before; we can do it again. This is a difficult concept — how?

UPDATE: Congress quite properly scraps the legislation.