On August 1, attorneys for California’s Secretary of State sent a brief letter to the Ninth Circuit, to help with its consideration of the lawsuit Rodriguez v Newsom, 18-56281. Rodriguez v Newsom is a challenge to California’s practice of choosing presidential electors with an at-large vote. The California government letter points out that in June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Constitution permits gerrymandering, in Rucho v Common Cause. The letter suggests that this means that electing presidential electors at-large must also be constitutional.
1857 Dred Scott + 1860 gerrymanders = Civil WAR I
2019 Rucho + 2020 gerrymanders = Civil WAR II ???
Deja Vu all over again ???
The case is a part of the PERVERSION of the 1st AMDT –
which has ZERO to do with election *mechanics* —
– attacking all at large election systems having 2 or more offices – EC, local legislative bodies, multi-judge courts, etc.
See the book-
Sources of Our Liberties ed by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn 1959).
History of USA Const 1-8 Amdts.
Does California contend that they could elect the entire General Assembly as a single slate?
At large elections are illegal if they prevent members of racial minorities from choosing a candidate of choice. This suggests that as part of enforcerment of the 14th and 15th amendments could outlaw at-large election of presidential electors.
Replacement of 12th Amendment.
The 28th Amendment (the Hamilton Amendment).
(a) Electors apportioned among United States and their territories on the basis of citizen population over 18. At least one per 20,000 persons.
(b) Elector over the age of 18, US citizen for 5 years, resident of state or territory for one year, and not a federal or state officer.
(c) Electors to be chosen by direct popular vote. Congress given same time, place, manner authority as they have over Representatives.
(c.i) Vacancies filled by governor or official desdignated by Congress for territories.
(d) Electors to meet as single national body to choose President and Vice President by majority. May be physically separate as long as simultaneous communication established. Role of Congress eliminated.
(e) Repeal of 23rd Amendment, rendered superfluous as result of (a).6
This would permit citizens of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas to participate in election of US president. It would eliminate disproportionality among states due to senatorial electors and non-voter populations (aliens and minors).
Requires election of presidential electors without tempting gross federal interference in state elections. Congress is likely to exercise more authority with respect to manner of election, since they are not self-dealing. This would include more regulation of districting, or use of proportional representation, as well as ballot access. This could provide a comfort zone before extending the provisions to Congress.
Electors would be more clearly a deliberative body. Current practice of separate meetings does not lend itself to deliberation.
NOOOOO separate PREZ Electors scheme.
—
ONE election Day.
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of USA — USA Citizen, 18 + years olde.
EQUAL Nom PETITS / filing Fees,
SHORT terms – legis/exec [prefer ONE year], judic 1-4 years.
PARTISAN PR and NONPARTISAN AppV and TOTSOP
Well, Richard, when I read the letter it’s not really that unreasonable, and it’s not really about gerrymandering either. It’s only points out that proportional representation of parties isn’t required by the constitution.
People sometimes think that a neutral, non-gerrrymandered districting results in proportional representation. It doesn’t – if a party only has 30% of the vote and is not concentrated in certain regions, there is no way to draw geographical districts to give them 30% of the seats.
I didn’t express an opinion about whether the letter is unreasonable. I just wanted people to see it because it is interesting.
Thanks, it is interesting.
The Supreme Court was wrong in the gerrymandering cases.
If the one man-one vote is viable at all, then proportional distribution of electoral vote is mandated in all states/