A U.S. District Court in Sacramento heard arguments in Warnken v Schwarzenegger, 2:08cv-2891, on January 21. The case is very unusual. It argues that the U.S. Constitution guarantees that U.S. citizens have a right to have a meaningful opportunity to communicate with their state legislators. Then, it argues that because California has an average of 424,135 residents in each Assembly district, it is impossible for an ordinary person to have that communication with his or her legislator. No other state has an average population greater than 139,360 in a lower house state legislative chamber. See www.californiacommonwealth.com for more about the lawsuit.
The judge did not dismiss the case, and said he would study Warnken’s brief before ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss. The state argues that Warnken doesn’t have standing.
I read the brief.
While I’m sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position, and I’m hopeful he prevails, I was disappointed with how poorly it was written.
Aaron. You obviously did not read the brief. It was extremely well written. It more than refuted the silliness of the other side.
There are many problems with the Warnken thesis, not the least of which that he is seeking judicial relief against a defendant who does not have the power to grant such relief. This is a classic “political question” for which the remedy is legislative, not executive or judicial.
The solution is not to increase the size of the state legislature but to move most of legislation and administration down to the level of small townships or wards of, say, 3000 people each, about the size of a voting precinct.
See my blog article, Dynamics of Deliberation, at http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/dynamics-of-deliberation.html
I’m glad to see someone realizes we are being governed by the “Ruling Elite” and not by representatives representing the people. I hope the plaintiff wins and this concept runs through the states and to Washington like a virus.
ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders control ALL in the U.S.A.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas = about 25 percent minority rule.
Much worse for the U.S.A. Senate gerrymander and much, much, much worse due to primary math (when there is NO incumbent in a primary).
P.R. legislative – Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.
ONLY 2 parties in world history —
MORE govt — taxes / borrowing for special interest gangs — monarchs – oligarchs and their flunkees.
LESS govt — poor suffering taxpayers — putting up with the schemes of the more govt types [until things become INTOLERABLE — see 19 Apr 1775 in Mass.].
A.V. executive / judicial.
Jon, I can’t disagree with your idea, and it has a lot of merit, but I’ll propose a simpler one.
From 1787 to 1913, the States had a check on the federal government in the form of the Senate. The 17th Amendment removed that check, and it’s been downhill ever since.
The proposla is simple: universal bicameralism. First, revoke the 17th Amendment, but then extend the concept down the governmental ladder:
States appoint US Senators to check Congress
Counties appoint State Senators to check state legislatures
Cities appoint County Senators to check county oligarchies.
By extension, the People will elect US Representatives, state house legislators, county house legislators, and city officials.
Yes, it would increase government at the county levels and the state level in Nebraska. but it would also create a much better voice of the people in each level of government, which is much needed.
The proportional representation argument of Warnken can then be applied to the People’s houses, and your idea would have a much better chance of succeeding.
Michael, even if we repealed the 17th Amendment, it’s questionable whether that would trickle down and improve accountability. In the end, one is still left with politicians watching over politicians or in some cases appointing them (we’ve seen the problem that presented in recent weeks). With the current system, rarely do we see the people’s interests represented. A larger legislative body would certainly increase representation and makeup of perspectives therein however.
Joel, it would require a large paradigm shift, undoubtedly. But what I’m proposing and a larger legislative body for better representation are not mutually exclusive, either.
How many folks on this list are totally delusional ?
People HATE and LOATHE the existing number of statist legislators (and most certainly do NOT want ANY increase in the number of legislators).
— see the related term limits mania (WRONG remedy for the problem due to morons brainwashing the public).
P.R. (to end the gerrymander) and nonpartisan A.V. (to end blatant partisan enforcement of the laws).
# 6 More delusional stuff.
The State legislatures in 1789-1913 were totally corrupt in *appointing* U.S.A. Senators — totally under the control of various special interest gangs — land, railroad, oil, steel companies, etc.
Due to the many very small gerrymander States the U.S.A. Senate is possibly THE most ANTI-Democratic legislative body in a nation in so-called Western Civilization.
The party hack Supremes have been nonstop corrupt due to being *appointed* by party hack U.S.A. Prezs and confirmed by the party hack U.S.A. Senate — total EVIL.
ALL of this accumulated statist stuff is coming to a very major crisis — possibly NOW due to the current Great Depression II — due to hundreds of years of earlier statist stuff.
At the time of the 17th Amendment most states were already conducting public referenda to nominate U.S. senators, who were rubber-stamped by the state legislatures. There were good reasons for that. Selection of U.S. senators by state legislatures was well-intentioned but did not work out as expected or intended, nor could it. State legistures simply do not defend the role of their states in a federal system. All they do is try to get more federal money, and are willing to accept whatever central government control that comes with that.
If we want something like proportionate electoral representation about the only good way to do that would be with a kind of proxy voting in the U.S. House, with each member casting the number of votes he got in the last election. See http://www.directrep.org/ for one such approach.
The only way anyone has found to dispel undue influence by special interests is to replace elections with a complex sortition process. See http://www.constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm But as we have seen with juries, even that won’t work unless there is a profound revolution in the state of civic virtue.
All else is ghost dancing: measures that can’t work even if adopted.