What if California adopted a new way to convene the Senate? What if we adopted a process which was more aligned with our original U.S. Constitution (legislature appointments) rather than the post 17th Amendment process (popular election)?
We currently have a bicameral Legislature comprised of 80 elected Assembly members and 40 elected Senators. While both technically represent “the People,” who represents “the counties”? The pre-17th Amendment federal legislature was designed so that the People were represented through the House, the States were represented through the Senate, and the Executive Branch represented the federal government. That system of checks and balances was designed to make State Legislatures more involved in the federal legislative process (and to make voters actually care about the State Legislatures).
How about expanding the California State Senate to 58 members? Each County would have a Senator who was appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. This would place an additional emphasis on the Supervisor elections and establish a system where the counties, as an entity, would have representation in State government.
This approach might just quell the secession movement.
Comments 13
Brian,
Is a change like that done by referendum? Or is it done through the existing legislative mechanisms. If it is the former, then there may be hope. I don’t see the current congressional/legislative members altering anything that would challenge their lock on power.
Happy New Year to you..
That would immediately turn the current super majority for the Democrats into a super majority for the Republicans. Could that perhaps be your true reason for wanting this change?
One Senator per county seems like a good idea to me. It would restore some balance between urban and rural constituencies. I’d keep the popular vote, however.
“Is a change like that done by referendum? Or is it done through the existing legislative mechanisms. If it is the former, then there may be hope. I don’t see the current congressional/legislative members altering anything that would challenge their lock on power.”
The change would probably require a constitutional amendment because of Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr. Unless appointing Senators works to get around the “one person, one vote” principle guiding those cases. But I imagine the Supreme Court would view “one person, no vote” as being a greater violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause than disproportionate representation. Too bad. Rural populations have gotten the short end of the stick since Reynolds and Baker were decided.
I think amendments have to be done by referendum.
Are most of the county boards of supervisors Republican majorities, HQ?
Happy New Year to you FF, Dave, and HQ
Brian,
Happy New Year to you as well and thank you for making me actually do some research. I still do not know if most County Boards are majority Republican, but according to the Secretary of State’s website, 30 counties have a plurality of registered Republican voters, not exactly a super-majority, but a Republican majority nevertheless in a state where registered Democrats exceed registered Republicans by 15%.
I’ve wanted this for a few years now. I looked into and it was a supreme court case Reynolds vs Sims that presents this. Why it applies to states and not to the federal Senate I leave that to the oddity of the supreme court. Here is wiki on the case:
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
Apologies. Post too soon before reading all of Dave’s posts.
Dave Rankin was saying that it requires a US Constitutional Amendment because it was a US Supreme Court decision not a California one.
Interesting concept
Good concept; like the U.S constitution’s balance between equal populations (house) and equal power between the states (senate). However, since the 1960s, the court mandate of one person, one vote requires districts of fairly equal population, which is why this won’t fly, even though it does fly at the federal level. But, the laughable part about that federal mandate on states rights, is that CA could on its own get rid of a bicameral legislature, meaning NO state senate at all. Yet, if the state chooses to retain a bicameral legislature, both houses must be made up of legislators representing equal populations. Catch 22. Or Catch 1964.
The court said a lot in the 1960s.