The plaintiffs in Citizens for Fair Representation v Padilla have written an amended complaint, designed to strengthen the case. This is the lawsuit that says ordinary voters in California have no true representation in the legislature, because State Senate districts have almost 1,000,000 population and Assembly districts have almost 500,000 population. Therefore, ordinary voters have virtually no chance to communicate meaningfully with their own state legislators.
The state does not agree that the court should permit an amended complaint. A hearing will be held August 25 on the issue of whether the amended complaint can be filed.
Sorry — NO magic max ratio in the USA Const.
Ger rid of the minority rule USA Senate.
Divide larger States.
P.R. and App.V.
I read most of the complaint and appreciated the constant reference to the current arrangement as oligarchy. That’s where the fight is.
Large or small gerrymander areas —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY — evil falsely claiming to be a democracy — for centuries.
P.R. and App.V.
The case is not judiciable because the plaintiffs have not exhausted their political options. There is currently an initiative that would greatly expand the legislature. That is where they should be expending their effort.
How come their lawyer is from Washington?
One of their attorneys is from Washington state, but another is in California.
Wouldn’t a better solution be to revoke California’s statehood, for failure to provide a representative form of government? The various parts of the territory could apply for statehood with new constitutions.
I’m not opposed to maybe tripling the size of the California Assembly, while also increasing the State Senate to 60 members. However, I view the initiative set for the 2018 ballot to create neighborhood seats is utterly impractical for California. Taking away the voters say about who exactly their Representatives will be is un-American. Also, think how long it would take to draw the boundaries after each census. Census tracts typically include 2,500-8,000 people. Beyond that census blocks many times can be a single very large apartment or condominium building/complex. Additionally, wouldn’t it make the state’s case even stronger should that initiative be decisively (60+%) rejected at the polls? The Secretary of State’s Office could say, “See, the voters had a chance to vote to increase the size of the Legislature and since they chose to not do so, California’s voters are satisfied with the current size.”
Redistricting could be done in parallel. Districts could be apportioned by county and then city. The districts could also be used to choose enlarged boards of supervisors and city councils. Or better yet, make the districts semi-permanent and weight the vote of the district based on its population. Every ten years, just get the census count. If a district becomes too large, then divide. If a district becomes too small merge it into another district.
It would also be simple to assemble congressional districts from these small districts.
It is highly unlikely that the court will rule for CFR, because the voters can change their legislative arrangements any time that they want to. If California voters feel that the legislature is too small to represent their interests, they can always resort to a ballot initiative remedy. There is no reason for a court to intervene.