On October 1, the U.S. Supreme Court denied mandamus in Citizens for Fair Representation v Padilla, 18-123. This is the case in which some California local governments, minor parties, and voters challenge California legislative districts for having such huge populations that, effectively, ordinary people can’t influence their state legislators. The plaintiffs had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the U.S. District Court should appoint a three-judge court. The U.S. District Court Judge had first said she would appoint a three-judge court, but then she changed her mind, allegedly because the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit told her not to arrange for a 3-judge court. The plaintiffs had then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that it isn’t proper for the U.S. District Court to defer to any other court or judge, because the U.S. District Court Judge is the only one who will be familiar with the case. But the U.S. Supreme Court declined to get involved.
The case can proceed without a 3-judge court, of course. California legislative districts have almost 1,000,000 residents for each State Senate district, and 500,000 for each Assembly district.
Is it possible for there to be an initiative petition to increase the size of the legislature in California?
ordinary people can’t influence their state legislators —
since 1776 —
carryover since Brits in 1200s
—
PR and AppV — to have REAL effects.
@WZ,
There was such an initiative that narrowly failed to qualify. It was close enough that more scrutiny might have found enough valid signatures.
It was quite imaginative. It would have created assembly districts of 5000 persons and senate district of 10000. For the current population of California this would result in about 12,000 members. There would be committees of 80 assemblymen and 40 senators who would meet in Sacramento and conduct day to day legislative business.
Groups of around 100 legislators would choose their committee representative, and could recall him. All legislators would vote on final passage of any measure.
Individual legislators would be paid $1 per year. The expenses of the establishment in Sacramento would be reduced by 1/3. The proponents argue that the size of California districts requires large staffs that isolate legislators from their constituent.
Abolish the minority rule fixed gerrymander USA Senate —
larger States will self-destruct and divide —
CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, MI, etc.
@JR
Something less ambitious might carry more weight. Say, 2 Senators and 5 Reps for each member of Congress, and use the same districts. The Senators would be elected by ranked choice voting, and the reps by approval or cumulative voting.
@WZ,
An average Californian isn’t going to think that having more legislators will make any difference other requiring lobbyists to hire more hookers and buy more booze. California legislators make $100K+ per year plus $182 per diem while in Sacramento. As a side note, nesting of districts is a bad idea. Equal population districts results in some arbitrary division of communities. Nesting just replicates the problem to multiple bodies. Also California may lose a congressional district in 2020, which under your scheme would reduce the size of the legislature.
I don’t see how the case is justiciable under federal law. What is the standard for how large a legislative district may be under the US Constitution.
In the OMOV decisions of the 1960’s a concern was that the legislative process could not be used to remedy ant malapportionment. For example, in ‘Reynolds v. Sims’, the Alabama legislature was unlikely to propose an amendment to the Alabama constitution that would remove many of them from office.
In California the initiative is available and there was an active petition to increase the size of the legislature by 100x while the lawsuit was being litigated.
BTW, the proponent of the initiative is/was John Cox the gubernatorial candidate. IIRC, Richard Winger attended a speech he made, and he asked Cox which he preferred more, having the initiative pass or being elected governor, and he wanted the initiative.
When a 3 judge panel is appointed, the appointment is made by the chief judge of the circuit (the 2nd judge is from a district court in the circuit – often from a different district, and the 3rd judge is an appeals court judge.
What is more likely to have happened is that when the district judge asked for a 3-judge panel, the chief judge told her to review the circumstances before _he_ appointed the other judges. The plaintiffs are arguing that the appointment of the other judges is simply a clerical obligation on the chief judge.
What is likely to happen is the district judge will rule against the plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit will decline the appeal, and the Supreme Court will decline that appeal.
The USA 3 judge court is one more mess by the Congress HACKS —
should be automatic stay/appeal to USA Ct App (3 judges) if USA Dist Ct issues injunction about alleged unconstitutional USA/State law.