I actually like the idea of sort of slipping DC into Maryland. In fact, I think giving DC representation might require an amendment actually - since representatives have to come from *states* according to the Constitution. So, I don't substantively disagree with what's being attempted here; I'm just not sure that it's constitutional. But I'm open to being corrected.

I don't think they should do that. It's not a state. They ought to keep it simple. I thought that anyone living in the US could vote and that even though DC is different that they could still vote. They should go on the Maryland ballot.

Heavy is an exaggeration.

As far as the article is concerned, why not just add two non-voting Senators to the mix? Obviously they wouldn't have the power to vote, but it would certainly increase direct access--more power-- to the Senate, which couldn't hurt.

They can vote (for president, mayor, etc.) but they have no real representation in Congress. So they get no voice when it comes to federal taxes, etc.

Well, the Democrats don't want to combine DC (solidly democratic) with Maryland (likewise). They want a new district so that they get a free bonus representative without having to take over a Republican area. (EDIT: I guess that's why it took an agreement to give perpetually Republican Utah a new Rep too.)

To be honest, the fact that DC is staunchly Democratic is the main reason they have trouble getting representation: that turns it into a partisan issue. If the city's party mix hovered around 50/50, I bet they'd have gotten their Senators back in '78

I basically agree with SignalNoise, though: I think the people of DC deserve representation, but if this isn't a Constitutional amendment (and it sounds like not), it should get shot down by the courts. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but the section quotes above explicitly says the House of Representatives is made selected by the people of the states. So I would expect we'd need an amendment to change that, or maybe to declare DC its own state.

I don't see how having non-voting Senators would increase their power. What sort of leverage would they have?

The power would obviously be limited to their ability to persuade, which I grant isn't very much, but it's better than nothing, no? This is all under the assumption that no other recourse is possible.

This has been tried several times.

And would give three more Democratic Congresspeople, rather than the suggested one of giving them a voting Representative.

Yes, the Constitution requires DC to be under federal jurisdiction, but it doesn't have to keep all of the District. Arlington, Virginia was part of the District for a few decades before Congress returned it to Virginia, so Congress could keep the federal buildings, the Mall and some other real estate while handing the rest back to Maryland - "retrocession". Or a new state could be carved out of the Maryland and Virginia suburbs and DC given to that (this idea was proposed about ten or 15 years ago). DC statehood would require a constitutional amendment, which would get almost no Republican support (the last vote, in 1993 only got about 90 yes votes and only a handful were Republicans) - MaitreSinge is probably right - something might've been done long ago if DC were a two party area.
I'm not sure Maryland really wants DC back, but it's probably the only practical way for DC to get full representation.... but it would probably cause the idle secession talk on Maryland's conservative Eastern Shore to become serious.
EDIT - to add that while I think this legisation is probably unconstitutional, it's worth trying.

if nothing else, it would be a boon for the flag-making industry.

I've been a district resident most of my like, and beyond any legal arguements, over 90% of Americans think it's just plain wrong that any citizen of the United States (who pays among the highest taxes in the nation) has no representation on Capitol Hill and no Electorals. Not only is Eleanor Holmes Norton a non-voting member, when Newt and the 104th swept in, they took away her right to even speak on the floor. She's a good woman and did her best buttonholing people in the hallways, but you really can't call that any kind of representation. In some ways, it was better when the Feds ran the whole show. Then they set us up for failure with "home rule," which, in effect gives us a dense city infrastructure to maintain with no surrounding tax base to support it (so they could then say "we told you those people couldn't govern themselves"). The statehood movement has been around for years, but it's simply not practical. I kinda like the idea of receeding into Maryland that ericwine mentioned, and have been espousing it for years, but it doesn't even seem to register as an option. True, it really wouldn't give the dems any more power, but it would make us feel like real citizens.

What about declaring DC a federal tax-free zone...? It would help the DC economy, and remove the whole taxation without representation arguement!

But it's not just an issue of taxes. DC residents have no representatives in Congress. That means no influence on the legislative branch of the government and a minuscule effect on the executive branch, and that's just plain wrong.