The New York Times editorial board penned a pro-D.C. Voting Rights piece today. “Washington’s lack of representation is profoundly undemocratic,” they write. “Of course, in a perfect world, fixing the disenfranchisement of residents of the nation’s capital would not be conditioned on giving another House member to a state that has not been wrongly deprived of one. But the compromise is still worth making.” The Times goes with the “District Clause” argument when pondering constitutionality, and takes a quote from EHN for its headline: “‘It’s 200 years too late,’ says Eleanor Holmes Norton, who now serves as the city’s nonvoting member of the House. ‘But we’ll take it.'” For those who missed the news late Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed to begin floor debate on the bill on Feb. 23, and a vote is expected on Feb. 24, making the bill one of the very first items of business for the Senate after they return from this week’s recess.