The D.C. Voting Rights Act has passed through cloture in the Senate, 62-34. It is now a certainty to pass into law.
The act grants D.C. a full voting member in the House of Representatives, a seat which will be held by a Democrat for a long, long, loooong time. Currently, the seat is held by Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is a frequent guest on the Colbert Report. In exchange, the Act also grants a fourth member of Congress to Utah (currently Utah has three Representatives, two Republicans and one Democrat). Since Utah was next in line to receive an additional Representative, this is the sort of bi-partisan compromise I can live with. We end a great stain on our Republic by giving D.C. representation in the U.S. House, get a new, uber-solid Democratic seat, and all it required was giving Utah something it would have received in 2012 anyway.
This will temporarily increase the number of full voting members in the House to 437, and makes the partisan breakdown 257-178, with two vacancies (NY-20 and UT-04).
For the 2012 elections, D.C. will keep it's full voting rights, but there will be only 434 House districts seats outside of D.C. The increase to 437 seats is nice (and also ends the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College, since there are now 539 electoral votes), but I'd like to see the number of members of the U.S. House increased even more. 449, 599, or an even higher number would be fantastic. The House originally fixed the number of seats at 435 back in 1911 the 1920's, and since that time the population of individual districts has more than tripled. If there were 599 seats in the House, each district would have about 510,000 members, which is roughly the current population of Wyoming and D.C. Also, with 599 members, everyone would know how many seats are required for a majority (300), how many to override a veto (400), and we would have a wave of fresh faces in Congress that could potentially shake things up.
Update: Errors corrected, thanks to the commenters.