Utah's fourth seat

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, long a champion of the grand compromise that would give Utah a fourth seat in the House in exchange for granting the District of Columbia a voting seat, now says he opposes the idea. His reason is that the bill, as currently written, would require Utah’s fourth seat to be at-large. In other words, everyone in the state would get to vote for a representative from his or her own district, plus one for the entire state.
Hatch’s point is that Congress has no business telling Utah how to divide its political boundaries. He’s right. (Read an account here, and another here.)
You may have thought this issue was dead. It should be.
As you read this, Census workers are finishing up the job of counting Utahns. Most likely, the state will get a fourth representative because of its growth. I can’t think of a reason on earth for the state to agree to this compromise at this point — a compromise that would increase membership in the House by two seats.
Hatch has always disagreed with me over the main reason this compromise should be rejected: It’s unconstitutional. The Constitution says the House “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” Washington is not a state.
I personally believe the district deserves a representative, but that should be done through a constitutional amendment.
Regardless, if Democrats in Washington want to pull off this compromise at this late stage, how about offering Utah a fifth representative, not a fourth?