A series of Warren Court decisions, which were at the time very controversial but which have come since to seem anodyne, created a "one person, one vote" rule for legislative districting.
The U.S. Senate was the single great exception to this rule, created by Constitutional language specific enough to avoid being interpreted away. Its "districts" are state lines and of course they can't be re-worked with each census.
But as for House districts, or state legislative districts, including that of the 'upper chamber' of a state bicameral house, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Warren era mandated one person, one vote. This is why every census year since then has been a starting line for a scramble to re-write district lines to comply with this rule and allow for the demographic changes of the preceding ten years.
Key decisions in this line?
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)
Reynolds v. Sims (1964).
Of course there have been epicycles to work out. Gerrymandering within the limits created by Reynolds is logically possible and there have been lots of efforts to have the court make doctrine much more restrictive about what districts can look like. But as a floor, if not as a ceiling, the rules created by those three cases have held.
Yet now comes new from Colorado of the dream of one Gubernatorial candidate there: to give the lovely Rocky Mountain state its own electoral college. so they can elect their Governor in the sort of cockamanie way that the US elects a President rather than (gasp!) letting the recipient of the most votes in the gubernatorial election become Governor.
In case you think I am kidding: Colorado GOP candidate wants to eliminate statewide popular vote so Republicans can win more races | Salon.com
Maybe the thinking is that SCOTUS, having toppled ROE, will in the coming sessions be ready to go after REYNOLDS.
Bicameral took on a different kind of meaning when Julian Jaynes wrote his thought provoking book, some years ago. His assertion was that early men were afflicted with bicameral minds and those made decision making onerous. So they consulted oracles, the gods; soothsayers and the like. Through some passage of time and evolutionary change, things got better---consciousness, itself improved as breakdown of the bicameral mind emerged. Of course, bicameral, in present day usage, does not fit the definition Jaynes was discussing. It does seem, however, that our legislators have trouble making up their minds.
ReplyDeleteYes, I find Jaynes fascinating, though probably more wrong than right.
ReplyDelete