Utah likely to get another Electoral Vote

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on how they word it.  Before the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, the delegates and the Resident Commissioner were part of the Committee of the Whole House where most business takes place.  It would be constitutional to add Eleanor back to the Committee of the Whole House, but as a Representative, no way it passes constitutional muster given Article 1 section 2 "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," since D.C. is not a State, they cannot elect a Representative.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why don't they just make D.C. a state and settle this thing once and for all?

The problem is D.C. wants to both be a State and still live off the Federal dole.  Without the Federal largess, D.C. has too small a tax base (because of all the government property in D.C.) to make it on its own.  What they ought to do is retrocede most of D.C. to Maryland, but even the Democrats in Maryland aren't that dumb as to take up that burden.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be a shame for Utah to spend all that money to hold an election for a Representative that never will be seated.  When the bill is struck down because of the D.C. provision the extra Utah representative goes bye-bye as well, since the bill explictly says the provisions are not severable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Constitutional arguments made in the source cited by muon are mush.  It invokes Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805) in a manner contradictory to the plain language of Marshall's opinion.  Marshall explicitly writes: (emphasis added)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Hepburn v. Ellzey said was that Congress could grant access to the inhabitants of Columbia to the Federal courts in the same manner as it had to the inhabitants of the States and to foreign citizens, but that the law as it was in force then did not and that it was up to the Congress and not the courts to correct the anomaly as Columbia was not a state under the constitution.

Since Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 clearly states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,"  Any court that upheld H.R. 5388 would have to overturn an over 200 year old precedent.

The next cited case National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co.  Involved whether when Congress finally chose in 1940 to eliminate that anomaly as Marshall himself practically begged Congress to so , whether it was constitutional.  It did so, not by finding that D.C. could be treated as a State but on the use of other powers, that were not dependent upon D.C. being treated as a State under the Constutution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OTOH, Hepburn does not seem to clearly address the precedent of voting rights afforded district residents between 1790 and 1800.

What precedent?  Congress did not assume sovereignty over the District until it was ready to move there in 1800. Until that happened, that territory still belonged to Virgina and Maryland.  I agree that retrocession would be a desirable course of action.  However that gets complicated by the 23rd Amendment.  If you remove all the residents of D.C., who gets to decide who those 3 electors D.C. has under the 23rd are?  Does Congress get to pick them?