There were senators, representatives, members of the administration, diplomats, special guests, and even D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. Yes, the District’s top man got himself an invite from the First Lady to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address. Not that it’s anything new — given that the District gives so much of itself to the federal government, it’s only courtesy that the city’s mayor be given a chance to sit in on one of Washington’s most important nights.

No one questions the invitation, but should they question the attendance?

Late last year the five candidates looking to replace Williams this year participated in an open forum on development issues in Ward 3. During the question and answer period, the issue of District voting rights was brought up, with one resident asking what each candidate would do to remedy the city’s longstanding disenfranchisement. After the usual round of responses, the questioner continued, inquiring as to whether or not each candidate would boycott the State of the Union address to protest the lack of movement on District voting rights. The candidates seemed somewhat taken aback by the question. One by one they responded, siding either with attending for the sake of glad-handing and lobbying for District issues or staying home to make a small yet symbolic point about the District’s second-class status.

Williams, citing a close relationship with President Bush and a variety of proposals he has endorsed that benefited the District, would never not take the First Lady up on the invite, but should his successor? Was the questioner at the forum on to something? If Congress does not act decisively on District voting rights this year, should next year’s State of the Union address feature one less guest?