The Los Angeles Times of August 4 has this op-ed, advocating that the number of California state legislators be doubled. The author is Ryan Coonerty, a member of the Santa Cruz city council, an author, and a lecturer in constitutional law. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
California State Senators represent more than 800,000 people, and California Assembly members represent over 400,000. Coonerty also advocates that the salaries of California legislators be cut in half.
Nah, the problem isn’t the numbers.
The problem is these:
1. Full-time legislature.
2. No bill limits per legislator within the session.
3. No county representation in the Senate (all popularly elected).
Fix those problems and the Legislature composition is getting somewhere.
Sacre bleu, Inspector! Someone has a clue!
California–2 words for you. New Hampshire. (State Representative, 400 members–$125 a year. State Senator, 24 members–$14,000 a year.)
You cannot have “county” representation in the State Senate. By court order decades ago it is one-man-one-vote.
I say have part-time legislature meeting 90 days only and districts not to exceed 100,000 people. Then and only then you might get better representation.
Total Votes / Total Seats = P.R. = a possible 3, repeat, 3 member legislative body.
However — to deal with the nonstop EVIL machinations in the executive branch a small army of legislators is needed in regimes with larger number of voters (and executive bureaucrats) to WATCH the executive branch.
Divide ALL larger State regimes — BUT FOR the EVIL deadlock in the gerrymander U.S.A. Senate — circa at least 5 States in current CA ??? — North, Central Coast, Central Inland, South Coast, South Inland.
I’m glad someone’s saying this. When the budget was being kicked around my Assemblyman sent out a sort of push-survey and promised he would read every response. I answered a question about reforms pointing out the horrible population ratio, so now Warren Furutani’s basically on the hook for being aware of the topic.
Also, did anything ever come of that lawsuit against the state over the size of the legislature? Last I recall the judge wanted time to consider the arguments, I wondered if he might discuss the issue at any length in his ruling.
Size does matter! Currently a California State Senator has a district with at least 30% more people than a Congressional District.
In states with smaller legislative districts, independent and alternative party candidates can talk to a significant portion of the voters, and other publicity costs less. In California each candidate for legislature has to hock himself to numerous interest groups to raise the money for media ads.
The result is not only a legislature bought & paid for, but legislators who are arrogant toward their constituents – until term limits get them.
My Lawsuit is still going. The judge has not ruled on the issue as of yet. However, all the authorities go in my direction. It is interesting to note that the Prison Guards have their attorney representing the Assembly!
Size does matter. My research shows larger districts make the reps less accessible. Also, smaller districts lend themselves to 3rd party candidates. If there are too many reps, the remedy is to split the state as per Article IV section 3 of the US Constitution.
Also, the larger the districts are, the more money goes into campaigning. This benefits those in office and hurts challengers. So the article in the Times shows!
My key authority sits with Amendments IX and XIV. The key case is United Public Workers v. Mitchell and a few others.
New Hampshire Senators make $100 a year. California’s make $160,000 after per diam’s and before graft!
You can have one Senator per County. It advances a legitimate state interest. Not a single county-senate case had one county one vote. They all had exceptions for population and some counties having more. This is why they were forced to go to population.
Two cases fortify this, Salyer v. Tulare and Brown v. Thompson.
Total Votes / Total Seats = P.R. fails in the end. It sounds nifty, but does not survive close scrutiny.
My website:
http://californiacommonwealth.com/pictures.html
#10 A *democratic* legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the Electors-Voters can NOT generally appear in person and vote on proposed legislation — requiring AGENTS-REPS. of the People – aka legislators.
Minority rule in ALL current State legislatures —
half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent indirect minority rule.
CA latest faulty fix — Prop 11 in 2008 (new gerrymander commission) that will do ZERO about the 25 percent minority rule – except perhaps make it a bit worse.
Some P.R. regimes with about 95 percent accuracy –
Israel, Germany, New Zealand.
STONE AGE minority rule / plurality regimes — U.S.A., U.K., Canada, etc. etc. — with their giant deficits and even more giant national debts.
Gary, you can implement a county-appointed Senate through a constitutional amendment if necessary. Considering the current rob-Paul-to-pay-Peter scenario in the CA budget, the counties would love it.
A one-senator-per-county ideal would increase the state Senate from 40 to 53–modest in number, but it would drastically change the way the state does business.
Yeah, there would still be some graft and corruption–that’ll never really go away–but a vertical check on the state government would be added, much like the states had on the feds pre-17th Amendment.
I believe that it was a federal decision that prevents all states from having county representation, not CA law specifically.