On December 1, a California voter filed a federal lawsuit, charging that the population of California legislative districts (the lower house in particular) is so vast, that Californians do not have true representation in either house of their state legislature. The lawsuit is filed in federal court and argues that the U.S. Constitution protects the ability of ordinary voters to have meaningful representation. It argues that given the 475,000 population of California Assembly districts, there is no real representation. The case is Warnken v Schwarzenegger, 2:08-cv-2891, eastern district (Sacramento). To read the complaint, which is very interesting and scholarly, see www.californiacommonwealth.com, or click here.
One of the interesting facts mentioned in the complaint is that California has 58 counties, but 42 of those counties do not have any resident in the lower house of the legislature.
Interesting…The Bay Area Council pushes for a constitutional convention…New America Foundation comes out with a plan reforming the way CA elects it’s legislature and the size of it, and now this lawsuit. Coincidence perhaps?
I’m not sure if the case will succeed, but it certainly touches on one of the many aspects of CA government that needs to be changed.
Sounds good. One of the things I found fascinating is that both New Jersey and California have the same size state legislature (80 assembly members, 40 senate members.) Considering California has four times as many congressional reps as New Jersey, something seems a bit off.
Over riding paradyme: California 2008 is just not governorable! Office holders’ field office[s] seem more like campaign out reach instead of constituant support
—— Donald Raymond Lake
“Used Abuse not Amused”
California, like most U.S. States, needs to be subdivided into new states. There was once talk of statehood for New York City. Internal secession is not prohibited by the Constitution. It should be possible by referendum to split California into at least six states.
The U.S. Constitution could accommodate 300 or more states. The Senate would have 600 members and the U.S. House could easily expanded to 3000 or more members.
One might concluded that the traditional tripartite political structure of government is optimal only up to a limited population. Federalism should allow the structure at the the level to replicate so that states do not become so populous as to become democratically ungovernable. Of course, if one opts for dictatorship…?
In 2004, the population of Alpine County was 1,210 out of 35,590,805 in California as a whole. Unless I’m missing something something really basic, in order to guarantee each county representation in the lower house, that body would have to have at least 29,249 seats. Or else be in violation of one-person one-vote.
So one must conclude that the alleged Constitutional right of each county to have a representative cannot be taken literally. If that’s true, where does one draw the line? How big does a county have be to be in order to be guaranteed a seat? Or does Warnken think the court might force California to combine some of its smallest counties?
It seems a little peevish to point out that the several counts related partisan gerrymandering were rendered moot by Proposition 11 several weeks before the suit was filed.
Donald’s right. The gerrymandering deal coupled with the auto-increases in the budget have created a $18B mess here that can’t be fixed–which may be part of the impetus behind the suit.
One more brain dead case to be thrown OUT of court.
Sorry – NO constitution has any mention of the population / seats maximum ratio.
Proper case — noting the UNEQUAL votes for each gerrymander district winner and the UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander district.
Remedy- P.R.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner (since each has ONE [EQUAL] vote in the legislative body).
Much too difficult for the armies of math MORONS in the U.S.A. to understand ???
I like Defendant #7, “Unknown Doe Robotic Pen(s)”
It appears that California has 27 counties with populations over 200,000. That means that at least 11 fairly large counties don’t have representatives in the Assembly, which seems suboptimal.
Dem Rep said:
Remedy- P.R.
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner (since each has ONE [EQUAL] vote in the legislative body).
He is starting with the exceedingly faulty premise that we have the proper number of reps. In the benchmark addendum that I filed, I note an expression from Harrington (in the Commonwealth of Oceana) where he suggests all things could be brought into proper balance with three representatives other than the fact that three is completely inadequate and only an imbecile would suggest it was.
The British referred to Oliver Cromwell’s Parliament, which at first had 70 members until he doubled (why I am not sure, but he did) to 140, the “Barebones Parliament” since it was so small. Well, they had only 5 million inhabitants at the time.
California has 38 million and 80 Assembly reps. I have lots of citations that suggest the lower chamber be responsive to the common person. Most prominently the federalist papers back me and I sue per the petition clause. I pay taxes, I should have the right and ability to petition and hear back. Even if its an auto-message.
Thanks for the thoughts!