Dems, GOP look to kill California's top-two primary system in 2018

Restore Free Elections in California

• In a crooked back room midnight deal Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP and the Dems "reformed" our primaries.
• The result was independent candidates, and smaller political parties like the Greens and Libertarians being banned from all future general election ballots.

(Los Angeles Times)  -  Political parties and open primaries are the electoral equivalent of oil and water. They may coexist, but they don’t mix.

So it’s hardly surprising that neither California’s dominant Democrats nor its fading Republicans have ever really embraced Proposition 14, the sweeping ballot measure that abolished partisan primaries six years ago.

Some, in fact, say they’ve seen enough. It’s time to scrap it.

“If we don't get California straightened out for every party, at least give them some kind of chance, then why the hell are we involved in politics at all?” asks Tom Palzer, a Republican from Rancho Cucamonga.

Banned From The Ballot
Laura Wells was the 2010 Green Party nominee for
Governor of California.  The Democrats & GOP have worked
together to ban all smaller political parties and independent
candidates from the general election ballot.  The Elites
have even declared that your write-in vote is illegal
and will not be counted.

Banned From The Ballot
Chelene Nightingale was the 2010 nominee of the
conservative American Independent Party. The GOP
wants to keep Conservative parties off the November
ballot. The GOP could care less about your freedom
to vote for who you want.

Palzer, who recently launched his second straight long-shot bid for the U.S. Senate, is the author of a proposed ballot initiative for November 2018 that would wipe out the top-two primary. It would restore the role of parties in picking who’s on the ballot in California's general elections.

While he’s an activist who’s largely been doing this on his own, Palzer’s effort was crafted at the same time rumors swirled in Sacramento this summer of powerful political groups hoping to do the same thing. That effort, in a perfect world, would have produced an initiative which included “reform” items like new campaign money rules while also repealing the top-two primary. But in an unusually quiet ballot measure year, it never materialized. And it would surely have been fought by self-styled good government groups.

The original champion of the top-two primary, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called its passage “a clear message that Californians are tired of partisan gridlock and dysfunction” the day after the June 2010 election. The promise was that it would help centrist candidates beat out ideologues.

Its impact has been “inconsistent,” concluded an April study co-written by Eric McGhee, a researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Perhaps the state’s leading expert on the top-two primary, McGhee believes there’s only been a slight increase in moderates (all Democrats) elected to the Legislature. Even then, the state’s independent redistricting rules and the 2012 revamping of legislative term limits may deserve just as much credit.

“To the extent that they can be known, the causes of that greater moderation seem to be about evenly split” among all three of those changes, McGhee said.

The only undisputed winners in changing the primary rules have been unaffiliated “independent” voters, who used to be banned by some parties from voting in their primaries. Now there’s one large slate of candidates, and everyone can vote for anyone.

It’s also unleashed a torrent of campaign spending, mostly by independent political action committees that raise money in unlimited amounts.

“This has become a special interest boondoggle,” said Shawnda Westly, a Democratic strategist and former leader of the state party.

An analysis by the nonpartisan California Target Book shows that independent committees spent more than $29 million on legislative races in 2016, much of which came from business and education groups.

"Overwhelmingly, California's voters want money out of politics,” Westly said. “The only thing top-two did was expand its role.”

Read More . . . . .

Welcome to Authoritarianism
An example of the phony "top two" system.  In 2014 it was a Democrat vs. Democrat choice for voters in the 6th State Senate District.
.
The corrupt "top two" phony election system gives the voters a choice of only one political party.  There was no Republican on the ballot and all small opposition parties and independent candidates are banned.  The corrupt Elites have even made your write-in vote illegal.  (More)

A One-Party U.S. Senate Election.
In 2016 California voters were given the pretend "choice" between Democrat Kamala Harris and Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Voters were not allowed any other choices on the general election ballot.

One-Party Rule
The People's Republic of California is now a one-party state where small opposition parties are banned from the general election ballot. Other countries where only one party is on the ballot include Communist North Korea, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist Cuba.
.
Now the People's Republic of California joins their overseas Brothers in holding mock, pretend elections.

Another phony Democrat vs Democrat "election"

Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown and challenger Eloise Reyes

"Corruptus in Extremis"

• California's phony "election reform" has given us this Democrat vs Democrat contest - one of 16 such races in the state.
• Not only do voters have no meaningful choices on their ballots, but the candidates are nothing more than the bought and paid for lackeys of outside special interest groups.
• Local voters have no real choice. They only have the right to vote for bought off candidate "A" or bought off candidate "B".

(89.3 KPCC)  -  As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton battle for the White House, races further down the ballot in California are getting heated — and expensive.

Outside groups are spending millions in local races to help their favored candidates reach Sacramento. This year, no state race has seen more outside spending than the 47th Assembly District in the Inland Empire.

There, outside groups have thrown more than $3.7 million into the election, with more than $1.4 million of that coming since the primary. Oil industry and labor groups have been the biggest spenders.

This working class, largely Latino and African-American area includes Colton, Fontana and San Bernardino. The election pits two Democrats against each other, attorney Eloise Reyes and incumbent Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, who was first elected to the seat in 2012.

Their contest hinges on economic and environmental issues. "The region desperately needs jobs, but it also has significant environmental concerns that need to be addressed," said Karthick Ramakrishnan, who teaches political science at the University of California, Riverside.

Read More . . . .

The 47th Assembly District in San Bernardino

One Party Rule - California Democrats could regain supermajorities in Legislature

"Corruptus in Extremis"

• As the pathetic GOP vanishes into the dust bin of history California "elections" become Democrat vs Democrat affairs. Election "reform" has taken away any other choices for voters.
• Other countries where only one party is on the ballot include Communist North Korea, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist Cuba. Now the People's Republic of California joins their overseas Brothers in holding mock, pretend elections.
• Election Reform  -  But the idea of true election reform is dead on arrival.  All hail corrupt elections and the one-party state.

(Sacarmento Bee)  -  One hundred state legislative seats will be filled four weeks hence, and the Capitol will see a final wave of newcomers as 20 legislators depart under the state’s old term-limit law.

Under revised term limits enacted in 2012, legislators may remain in one house for up to 12 years, dampening the forced turnover that had seen about a third of the 120 seats change occupants every two years.

After this year, for instance, no Assembly member will be forced to leave until 2024. Thus, this could be the last election until then for interest groups to have a major effect on the Legislature’s partisan makeup and the tenor of its Democratic majority.

This could be a very rough year for Republicans as California turns ever bluer. The GOP’s share of registered voters has dipped to scarcely a quarter while those of Democrats and declined-to-state voters continue to swell, with the latter now just three percentage points behind Republicans.

Moreover, it’s a presidential year, which means a higher voter turnout that favors Democrats, especially as they gleefully use Donald Trump as a club to batter GOP legislative and congressional candidates.

Democrats gained two-thirds supermajorities in both legislative houses in 2012, but lost them two years ago, when voter turnout plunged to a record low. They need two more Assembly seats and one more in the Senate to regain their supermajorities, and there are enough shaky GOP-held districts to make it possible in at least one house.

Four first-term Republican Assembly members who grabbed seats two years ago, all in districts with Democratic registration pluralities, are under siege – David Hadley, Young Kim and Marc Steinorth in Southern California and Catharine Baker in Contra Costa County.

Two open Senate seats in Southern California that had been held by Republicans also could change partisan hands this year.

That said, even if Democrats regain supermajorities, it may not mean much in policy terms, given the substantial number of moderate Democrats who are unlikely to support such liberal goals as tax increases.

Therefore, the real legislative election issue this year is what kind of Democrats fill the seats that they either regain from Republicans or are vacant due to term limits.

Thanks to the “top-two primary,” another recent change in election law, there are 11 Assembly districts and five Senate districts that have Democrat-vs.-Democrat runoffs, and several of them are clearly contests between moderate and liberal Democrats.

The most significant is Eloise Reyes’ challenge, backed by unions and other liberal groups, to San Bernardino Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, who belongs to the Assembly’s moderate bloc. Brown is receiving heavy support from business interests, which have counted on the bloc for support on key issues such as reducing carbon emissions.

Interestingly, all of the Senate’s Democrat-on-Democrat duels, and several of those in the Assembly, including the Brown-Reyes runoff, are also contests between candidates of different ethnic backgrounds, reflecting intraparty rivalries of another kind.

more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article107368922.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article107368922.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article107368922.html#storylink=cpy

Read More . . . .

Free Elections in Germany

But NOT in California

American readers do not be frightened 
by all these parties on the ballot

Multiple political parties on the ballot and winning seats is what the rest of the world calls free elections. You can actually find parties on your ballot that you can believe in.
.
Maybe, just maybe, we should try free elections in the United States.
.
Berlin state election, 2016 

California's Pretend One-Party Elections

Welcome to Rigged Elections

• Big Fucking Wow.  A U.S. Senate "debate" was held between two open borders, big government loving, high taxes loving Democrats.  
• All other political parties and independents have been effectively banned from all future general election ballots by the corrupt "election reform" pushed through by the GOP and Democrats.
• Nothing to report on this staged, phony "debate". I refuse to even vote for that office.

(Mercury News)  -  The two candidates for California’s open U.S. Senate seat clashed in a series of pointed exchanges Wednesday over each other’s competence and ability to get things done, highlighting the stakes in their only televised debate.

State Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, both Democrats, dueled over issues from crime to terrorism, seeking to sway voters in a race that has been largely overshadowed by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The tone was often sharply critical. Harris used the hour-long matchup at California State University, Los Angeles, to repeatedly criticize Sanchez for her poor attendance record in Washington, saying the race is about “who shows up, and who gets things done.”

Read More . . . .

Sample of a Free Election

U.S. Senate elections are more of a bidding war between Cartels of Billionaire Special Interest Groups than true elections where the people select a representative.  

,

Still in the past the voters had multiple political parties to choose from. Today in the corrupt People's Republic voters get a one-party only U.S. Senate "election".

1992 special United States Senate election, California

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Democratic	Dianne Feinstein	5,853,651	54.29
	Republican	John F. Seymour (incumbent)	4,093,501	37.96
	Peace and Freedom	Gerald Horne	305,697	2.84
	American Independent	Paul Meeuwenberg	281,973	2.62
	Libertarian	Richard Benjamin Boddie	247,799	2.30
	No party	Write-ins	122	0.00%
Invalid or blank votes			591,822	5.20
Total votes			11,374,565	100.00
Voter turnout			54.52%
	Democratic gain from Republican

One-Party Rule
Other countries where only one party is on the ballot include Communist North Korea, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist Cuba.
.
Now the People's Republic of California joins their overseas Brothers in holding mock, pretend elections.

GOP voters passing on Calif. U.S. Senate race, poll finds

Republicans and Independents

are sleeping through the election

• The corrupt "top two" election system is giving voters a choice of an open borders leftist Democrat or of an open borders leftist Democrat.  So many voters are planning to not bother voting at all.
• My 2014 Ballot  -  In November, 2014 I left all of the statewide offices on my ballot blank. I refused to vote for any of the corrupt Republicans or Democrats who forced this anti-freedom "election" system on voters.

(Los Angeles Times)  -  Half of California’s likely Republican voters and a third of independents said they wouldn't vote for either candidate in the state’s U.S. Senate race this November, according to a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The survey found that 28% of all likely California voters said they didn’t support state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris or Orange County Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and 14% said they were undecided. Harris and Sanchez are Democrats.

Among those backing a candidate, 38% of likely voters supported Harris, compared with 20% for Sanchez.

Support for Harris appears to have dropped since the June primary election, when a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll showed her with a 47% to 22% lead.

The two Democrats will face off in the November election, setting the stage for the highest-profile contest between two members of the same party since California adopted a top-two primary election system.

In the June 6 primary, Harris received 40% of the vote and Sanchez nabbed 19% among the 34 candidates on the Senate ballot. Duf Sundheim, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, landed in third place with 8%.

Read More . . . .

Sample of a Free Election

Below is that last election for the Senate of Australia.  Voters had multiple 

parties to choose from with eight parties winning seats in the Senate.

.

Maybe, just maybe, Californians should adopt the free election system 

of Australia instead of the current one-party authoritarian state.

Voters gather around to view the rare and nearly
extinct California Republican elephant.

Mexicans vs Blacks - Racism in U.S. Senate Contest

Democrats Play the Race Card

Both Leftist Democrats beat the race drum for votes

(Sacramento Bee)  -  Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, in an interview with Univision 19 that aired this weekend, suggested that President Barack Obama’s endorsement of U.S. Senate rival Kamala Harris was in part based on race.

Sanchez was asked why the president had endorsed Harris in the unusual race between two Democrats this year. Speaking in Spanish, she noted that Obama and Harris are longtime friends, then added: “She is African American. He is, too.”

Sanchez, in a statement after the interview aired, said she “in no way” implied or intended to imply Obama endorsed Harris for racial reasons. “I was stating the fact that the endorsement was based on their long-term political relationship,” she said.

Her remarks come days after she ripped Obama for endorsing Harris, arguing he should be focused on helping Democrats win the presidential race rather than inserting himself in a contest between two party members.

“California’s Senate seat does not belong to the political establishment – it belongs to the people of California,” Sanchez said, adding she believes voters will make their own choice in November.

Anxieties between African Americans and Latinos have been an underlying, yet seldom discussed, issue in California politics. Sanchez has aggressively courted Latinos in her campaign to succeed U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. She has spoken about her Mexican American roots and her ability to speak Spanish. “I think we need a Latina in the U.S. Senate,” Sanchez said in January.

Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, Harris said after the shooting of five officers in Dallas that she doesn’t know a black man, be he a relative, a colleague or a friend, that has not been subjected to racial profiling or an unfair stop.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article91430872.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article91430872.html#storylink=cpy

Read More . . . .

Insane Democrat Racism
Loretta Sanchez wants the voters to hire her for the U.S. Senate because she is Mexican and speaks Spanish.
.
Meanwhile a half Black Comrade Obama endorses a half Black Kamala Harris.

The People's Republic of California
jj
November brings us yet another phony pretend election where voters are given the "choice" between a Leftist Democrat for Senate or a Leftist Democrat for Senate.
.
Under the corrupt top two primary system all small opposition political parties and independent candidates have been banned from the ballot.  You are allowed to vote only for the parties the special interest Elites allow you to vote for.
.
Other nations who also ban opposition parties from the ballot include Communist Cuba, Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist North Korea.

California GOP in total collapse

Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez

The Death of Democracy

• Corruption  -  In November California voters will be given a "choice" for U.S. Senate between a Left-wing open borders Democrat and another Left-wing open borders Democrat.

By Gary;

Californians can say goodbye to Democracy, but I fear the mouth-breathing voters do not even have a clue.

Slack-jawed troglodyte Californians are much more interested in their newest phone app, tweets about trendy causes and what their friends ate for lunch than in freedom.

For the few of us who can still think the rotten fruits of the corrupt "top two" primary system have come home to roost. Voters will have a U.S. Senate "choice" between two Democrats:  Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.

There will be no Republican at all on the ballot.  But that does not bother me too much since it was the GOP that created this corrupt "top two" system in a midnight back room deal with no public hearings.

But worse, the Dems and the GOP have prevented voters from voting for minor parties or independent candidates plus your write-in vote is illegal.

It will be Democrat vs Democrat.  Welcome to the true birth of the People's Republic.

From California Secretary of State

Californians gather to view the remains of
the nearly extinct Republican elephant.

A
California GOP Corruption
Under the corrupt leadership of GOP State Senator Abel Maldonado and GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (and backed by other Republicans) party primaries were abolished in California and only the top two vote getters were allowed on the general election ballots..
This was deliberately done to weaken the voting power of Conservatives.
.
Four opposition parties from both the Left and the Right were effectively banned from the November ballot - The American Independent Party, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party.  Maldonado not only wanted opposition parties banned, but independent candidates also.  In addition all write-in votes were made illegal.
.
Both Republican and Democrat leaders were happy to eliminate ballot opposition.  Other nations that ban opposition political parties are Communist China, Communist Vietnam and Communist Cuba.

California’s Secretary of State Wages War on Term ‘Independent’

"Corruptus in Extremis"

• Both the Democrats and Republicans have rigged California's elections so the voters are allowed to only select from those two parties in November.
• Now the war against democracy goes on with attacks on the word "independent."

By Richard Winger;
Editor of Ballot Access News

California election laws and election officials seem determined to stamp out the word “independent.” The state seems eager to suppress that word, on voter registration forms, on ballots, and even in the Official Statewide Voter Guide.

1. Voter Registration Forms

California is one of the 30 states in which the voter registration form asks voters to choose a party, or to choose independent status. But the California form refuses to use the word “independent.” Instead, the form asks voters if they wish to choose a “political party preference.” 

The “NO” box says, “No, I do not want to choose a political party preference.” The form never affirmatively asks voters if they are independent voters.

2. Ballot

In most states, independent candidates who get on the ballot have the word “independent” or “independent candidate” next to their names on the ballot. California formerly was one of those states, and California still lets independent presidential candidates have the ballot label “independent” on the ballot. 

But when California adopted Proposition 14 (which implemented the top-two primary) in 2010, that law deprived the ability of independent candidates to be “independent” on the ballot. Instead, whether on the June primary ballot or the November ballot, their party label is “Party preference: none.” This is a very unappealing label.

Independent candidates have filed lawsuits to regain the use of the label “independent,” but have not won those cases.

3. Party Name on Ballot

After the independent candidates who wanted to use the word “independent” on the ballot lost on court on that issue, it occurred to them to create a party named the “Independent Party.” California ballots for Congress and partisan state office print party labels on the ballot for members of qualified parties. 

These labels do not include the word “party.” So, a registered Republican running for Congress or partisan state office in California has “Party preference: Republican” on the ballot, whether on the June ballot or the November ballot.

If there was a ballot-qualified Independent Party, then a member of that party could have “Party preference: Independent” on the ballot. In this way, if the Independent Party could have got on the ballot, then independent candidates could simply join the Independent Party and thus get their preferred label on the ballot next to their names. The plan was that the Independent Party would have no platform, except to say that the Independent Party was there to help independent candidates.

But the secretary of state said that no party is permitted to be named “Independent Party.” He said this even though eleven other states have ballot-qualified parties named “Independent Party,” either currently or in the recent past. There is no California law saying no party may be named “Independent Party.”

When the Independent Party sued to force the secretary of state to let the Independent Party try to qualify for the ballot, the judge ruled against the Independent Party and said there “might” be confusion. The state presented no evidence that the existence of an Independent Party would confuse voters, and the Independent Party presented evidence that in the states with an Independent Party, no harm is done. It is not known if the Independent Party will appeal.

4. Candidate Statements in the Statewide Voter Guide

California lets candidates for U.S. Senate and statewide offices write a statement about themselves, and then prints this in the government-distributed Voter Guide. The government charges $25 per word, so not all candidates take advantage of this opportunity to educate voters about themselves.

One candidate in the 2016 U.S. Senate race, Paul Merritt, did submit a statement for the Voter Guide. He described himself as “a registered independent voter.” This was true; Merritt is a registered independent voter. But the secretary of state censored out that sentence, without even telling Merritt. Merritt only learned that statement had been deleted when he saw the Voter Guide.

One can only conclude from this that the state legislators who write the laws, and the secretary of state, who administers the election laws, are terrified of independent candidates and the power of the word “independent.”

Read More . . . .

34 candidates on California Senate ballot

"Corruptus in Extremis"

November could see two Democrats running against each other

• In a corrupt back room deal the Democrats and Republicans abolished the primary system allowing only the top two candidates to appear on general election ballots.
• Now as if by "magic" the voters are only allowed to vote for Democrats and Republicans in November.  The corrupt big parties have effectively banned all independent candidates and smaller opposition parties from all future general election ballots.
• Other countries who have banned opposition parties include Cuba, North Korea, Iran and China.

(Los Angeles Times)  -  If elections officials could send just one message to California's 17.2 million registered voters about the U.S. Senate primary in June, it would probably be this: Read the instructions carefully.

"It's not necessarily intuitive on how to properly mark this ballot," said Kammi Foote, registrar of voters for Inyo County. And a mistake could keep a ballot from counting.

On primary day, the race to replace retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer will feature 34 candidates. Only four of those candidates have received appreciable support in public polling so far, and five will appear at the first Senate debate Monday night.

But the full field is larger than any single roster of statewide contenders since the colossal list of 135 candidates who ran in the 2003 special election that recalled then-Gov. Gray Davis. (To make the ballot, candidates must pay about $3,500 or collect 10,000 signatures.)

A
Welcome to Authoritarianism
It's Democrat vs. Democrat.

In the 6th State Senate District the corrupt "top two" phony
election system gave the voters a "choice" of only one political party. 
There was no Republican on the ballot and all small opposition
parties and independent candidates are banned.  The corrupt Elites
have even made your write-in vote illegal. (More)

In some ways, the Senate election is so far beyond the capacity of the system that it’s requiring a unique set of solutions. "You're not just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, you're trying to fit a skyscraper in a round hole," said Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley.

In most races, with a handful of candidates, names appear in a single column on one page of the voting booklet, a clear sign to voters that they should only pick one. But with 34 candidates, the geography of ballot templates tends to favor listing the names in two, side-by-side columns, on facing pages of the voting booklet.

That's where the trouble lies for the Senate race, as voters could mistake the two columns as two distinct races and choose one name from each list. That would result in an "overvote," a ballot cast for two or more candidates, which is thus disqualified.

Some counties have been able to fit all 34 names in a single column on the June ballot, making clear that those candidates are competing against one another. California holds a "top-two" primary that sends only the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, to the Nov. 8 general election ballot.

Los Angeles County's electronic voting machines will require two entire pages of Senate candidates. The first page will include a large red warning icon with instructions to vote for only one candidate.

Read More . . . .

.Sample of the old free elections in California

Voters had real choices on their ballots

California 48th congressional district special election, 2005
Party		Candidate	Votes	Percentage
	Republican	John Campbell	41,450	44.7%
	Democratic	Steve Young	25,926	28.0%
	American Independent	Jim Gilchrist	23,237	25.1%
	Green	Bea Tiritilli	1,242	1.3%
	Libertarian	Bruce Cohen	880	0.9%
Totals			93,138	100.0%
Voter turnout			%
	Republican hold

[

Supreme Court justices are about to tip the scales in California politics

Shaking up California Elections

A Supreme Court ruling could limit the 

influence of non-voting immigrants.

(Los Angeles Daily News)  -  California politics could be shaken up this spring when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decisions in two potentially landmark cases.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution thought they were keeping the judiciary out of politics, but it hasn’t worked out that way. Today the Supreme Court exercises so much power over our lives that if one of the justices mentions retirement, half the country experiences chest pains. And the stress is not unwarranted: Policies that were created by judges can be reversed by judges.

Right now the Supreme Court is considering whether to change the rules that control state redistricting, and whether to abolish mandatory union dues for public employees. The impact of the two decisions could make California’s predictable elections a lot less predictable.

In the redistricting case, Evenwel v. Abbott, the issue is whether Texas should be allowed — perhaps even required — to draw its legislative district boundaries based on eligible voters instead of total population.

The 5th State Assembly District
California state legislate seats are the largest in the U.S. with 500,000 people in each.
They are far, far too large for anyone to represent the people or to campaign in.

For example, an Assembly district might have a population of half a million people but far fewer citizens who are eligible to vote. The court’s ruling could result in the district’s boundaries being redrawn to take in new geographical areas with more citizens and fewer immigrants. The decision could scramble the political map in Texas and potentially in other states with a high proportion of non-citizens, including California.

Until the mid-20th century, the federal courts stayed out of state redistricting. That changed when Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to get involved.

As governor of California in the 1940s, Warren had opposed a plan to draw district lines based on population instead of geographical area. At the time, rural Senate districts with fewer voters had the same political power as urban districts jammed with voters. The votes of city residents were, in a sense, unequal to the votes of rural residents. Los Angeles was outvoted on everything.

As chief justice, Warren had second thoughts about the fairness of that arrangement. In two landmark decisions, Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, the court imposed a “one person, one vote” standard that required voting districts to have roughly equal populations.

But the Evenwel case could be a new landmark.

Read More . . . .

A
A Legislature that Represents the People
In California the 80 State Assembly members represent districts of 500,000 people. With super-sized districts only millionaires or candidates willing to be bought off by big special interest money can win election to office.
kk
Meanwhile in Pennsylvania the 203 members of their lower house represent districts of only 63,000 people.  Average people have the ability to seek and win public office.
l
It is way past time to reform the California legislature.
.
Pennsylvania House of Representatives