1. Interesting! Especially since US House districts have populations over 700,000 as well since the 2010 Census:

   https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-08.pdf

   Maybe it’s time to discuss the real First Amendment again?

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

2. I agree that it is bad for the California legislature to be so small. However there is a difference between something being bad and something being unconstitutional. I predict this case goes nowhere.

3. Interesting that they hold up New Hampshire as a better example of a state legislature, since California would need 10,000 legislators to reach the New Hampshire ratio of citizens to legislators, according to their figures. Maybe California should move much of the state functions to the county level, and have county legislators on the New Hampshire plan. The county legislators could then elect the state legislators.

4. @John Anthony: If the Congressional apportionment amendment from 1789 were ratified today, it wouldn’t necessarily change anything in Congress. The amendment contemplated that eventually the House of Representatives would have not less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

   And now we have 435 Representatives, which is not less than 200. And at the last census, the population was 309,349,689, so we have about 0.07 Representatives for every 50,000 persons, which is much less than 1 Representative for every 50,000 persons. Thus the requirements of the amendment would already be satisfied with the present size of the House.

5. They are talking about the State Senate. New Hampshire has only 24 members of its state senate and 400 in the lower house.

6. Congress has enforcement authority with regard to the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Could Congress use that to dictate the size of state legislatures?

   Haven’t courts generally abstained on what the guarantee of a republican form of government means?

   In ‘Reynolds v. Sims’, and associated cases, there was a concern that the aggrieved voters had no ability to redress disability. A legislature elected from malapportioned districts is unlikely to approve a change that would cost them jobs. In the New York case, there was a provision for a constitutional convention every 20 years, but convention delegates would be elected based on the malapportioned senate districts.

   But California has the initiative. In fact, there is a petition being circulated right now that would increase the number of California legislators greatly. The litigants would be better off supporting that effort. The litigants should get behind initiative 17-002.

7. I completely agree, Nick. Well said.
   (Unfortunately, the Supreme Court all-too-often treats the Due Process Clause and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as if they do prohibit bad state/local laws.)

8. Article IV, Section 3. States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

   The right of the people within each state to petition to form a new state within an existing state is not prohibited; nor is prohibited to form a new state within an existing state. The problem lies with the veto power vested in the all state Legislatures to prevent a new state (in any other state?) being formed and the absolute veto of Congress. Effectively, the internal creation of new states is impossible – unless…

   It is a possibly fatal defect of the Constitution that it is extremely difficult for states to subdivide into new states on equal footing with the original states and all previously organized and admitted states. One subterfuge to overcome this defect would be a de jure secession by a state such as California. The state would then subdivide by de jure secessions into a number of states. Then all these legally fictitious “foreign” states would readmitted to the Union as “new”, separate and equal states.

   Or, a constitutional amendment could be crafted to expedite the revision of the number of states.

9. @Joshua K.: The amendment hasn’t been passed (unless Eugene LaVergne is right) . . . so it’s not a matter of law that would be involved in discussing it — but rather an issue of policy, and (if you’ll pardon the phrase) the intent of the Founders. A balance was struck between not having too few members (which would leave districts too big to represent) and not having too many members (which — or so the idea went — would wind up leaving decisions in the hands of only a few of those members):

   http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/four-stages/

   As your calculations show, we are a lot closer to the former end of the permitted range than to the latter. Is that where we should be? Or if you want a Constitutional question before starting the discussion — is it so far to the one end that it could threaten the guarantee of a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 1) in a justiciable way?

10. If you look at the “dissent” from Justices Thomas and Alito to the unanimous Evenwel v. Abbott decision, you will find that those justices find no basis for “one man, one vote” in the 14th Amendment. Reynolds is a farce, and if it was not, the Great Compromise would have been ruled unconstitutional. Stealing the Republic form of government from 30 states by judicial fiat that is guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution needs to be remedied. Our hope is this case will do just that.

11. Reynolds v Sims did not steal the republic(an) form of government from 30 states by judicial fiat. Every American state is still a republic, as guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Even California.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.