The Interocitor

Where does this idea come from that the proposal is unconstitutional? Of course it would require an amendmend to the state constitution, but that can be done by a simple majority of the voters.

#4 is uncommonly silly, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a lawyer. I'm saying it because if there is one thing worse than trying to make sense of laws written by people with law degrees, it's trying to make sense of laws written by people without law degrees.

There was a time when states had state senates divied up by county. Baker v Carr (1962) and Reynolds v Sims (1964) pretty much nixed that idea. Surely giving Los Angeles County the same representation as Alpine County would invoke the "one man, one vote" princple laid down then. The US Senate survives only because the Supreme Court is not yet ready to declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

As far as lawyers writing laws, anyone can hire a lawyer. I believe that many of the state assemblypeople, lawyers or not, have lawyers on staff. Inititiatives are usually proposed by non-lawyers, and they usually hire professionals to write them. Do you actually think it is healthy for one profession to utterly control the government? This isn't new -- Shakespeare expressed similar dissatisfaction. Contrary to some belief, there are educated, rational, intelligent people who are not lawyers.

But I did say the ideas were radical, and I put that one #4 for a reason. I note that an IRV initiative is out for signing, although I suspect it will run afoul of the 2-subject rule.

I don't think any one profession should control government, but on matters that do not affect the practice of law per se, I don't think it's unreasonable for law makers to be expected, albeit not required, to have a basic legal education.

And no, contrary to the popular meme, Shakespeare did not express any such dissatisfaction with lawyers. Quite the opposite; the Shakespearean character who (in-)famously pronounced "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" was Dick the Butcher, a villain plotting a violent revolution aimed at destroying civilization altogether.

Haven't had time to wade through the cases, yet, but did notice an interesting line frmo Justice Clark's concurring opinion in Reynolds v. Sims:

I, therefore, do not reach the question of the so-called "federal analogy." But in my view, if one house of the State Legislature meets the population standard, representation in the other house might include some departure from it so as to take into account, on a rational basis, other factors in order to afford some representation to the various elements of the State.

I think we have a golden opportunity to test that theory.

But since laws regulate all kinds of human endeavour, cannot one equally make the claim that the lawmakers have experience in these other areas? Economics, medicine and engineering come to mind. The errors due to lack of such education are not hard to find. The recent "deregulation" of power utilities, or the horrid DMCA are two fine examples.

Yes, lawyers should craft the laws, but who the decision-makers should be is far less obvious.

As far as districts are concerned, I believe the current test, which may actually be in the Voting Rights Act(?), is that districts shall not diverge in population by more than 5%.

Considering that any county-scheme in CA would also seriously diminish minority representation in the state senate, which is also a well-litigated no-no, I just don't see any point in trying this.

Politically, it's absurd as well. You would have to get at least a large minority of voters of the metropolitan counties to disenfrachise themselves, and that is not going to happen.

Legally, you may be right. Politically, I think it could fly. The CA constitution can be amended by a simple majority, so you really don't very many minorities voting to disenfranchise themselves. All you need is near-universal support in the smaller counties, plus a fair number of inner-city conservatives (white, minority, whatever) who feel that they've got nothing to lose since their "representatives" don't really represnt them anyway (i.e., me, two years ago).

There are enough North-South regional issues that I don't think I want to see all that power move north. Even though you'd lose all those boneheads in LA proper, you'd also lose a lot of the OC, SD, SFV, & Ventura folks who tend to vote the other way.

Splitting the state into SF, LA, Central Valley & South Oregon would do much the same with a lot less legal fuss.

May have a point there. Southern California counties are huge, while Northern California counties are tiny.