Rural counties and large cities.

[dneal]

There seem to be several initiatives from rural areas attempting to "secede" from metropolitan areas that generally control a State, due to Reynolds v Sims.

Western Washington and Oregon have had petitions of one sort or another, usually to join Idaho and "escape" Seattle and Portland. Variations of a California breakup aren't particularly new either.

Recently, Illinois has joined the "secession" movement (although I don't know where they'll go).

The NY Post has a piece on the issue, found through 𝕏 member Owen Gregorian's post (which also has a Fox clip on the topic).

Reynolds v Sims is a 1964 decision that applied the 14th amendment. Wikipedia has a fair article on the topic

The case originates in Alabama, whose bicameral legislature was made up of a House of Representatives that apportioned representatives according to population, and a Senate where each county had one senator (regardless of population). That of course mirrors the federal constitution framework, and was the system many other states had (the wiki piece gets into more detail).

The Warren court ruled that this violated a "one man, one vote" principle, and that the Alabama state senate must also apportion senators according to population. After the ruling, other states changed their senates to comply with the ruling.

The problem has been described in the forum during various discussions of democracy, the electoral college, and other related topics; and it is a problem of preventing a "tyranny of the majority" - or "two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner".

The framers sought to avoid that wolves/sheep problem by adding a senate. Washington is rumored to be the originator of the "senate is the saucer to cool the 'hot tea' of the house", and Madison said it was a “necessary fence” against the "fickleness" of the House. Reynolds v Sims removes that fence.

California, New York and Illinois are the most clear examples, where voters in NYC are numerous enough to decide the law that will apply to the rest of the state. With Illinois, one may see the concentration of power in each house revolves around the Chicago metro area.

The Illinois Senate has 59 seats. 29 of them belong to districts in the greater Chicago metro area. While the Illinois house (rightly) is overwhelmingly represented by Chicago, the rural areas that constitute the majority of the landmass of the state are at Chicago's mercy; since the Senate votes along the same lines as the house - being little more than a "rubber stamp". The passions of a House are much more constrained when the "two wolves" know they must gain the "sheep's" agreement on the dinner menu.


I don't see how a secession approach would survive any sort of legislative or judicial process, and any solution would require overturning Reynolds.

A question (mainly for kazoolaw or other attorneys on the forum) is: how would/could these counties challenge Reynolds?

[dneal]

This is a puzzle I've pondered off and on for some years. My wife's uncle lives in Illinois, and often complains about living under the thumb of Chicago.

I simply can't see a viable strategy for these affected counties to change their situation outside some civil disobedience/nullification or violent means, which I think would be extreme and unlikely to accomplish anything useful. At best, they might get an amendment on the ballot; which would likely lose because voters in those metro areas. Nearly half of the population in New York live in NYC. Around 9+ Million of Illinois 12M population lives in the Chicago metro area.

A more practical (but long shot) approach: It would take a red-state to change their constitution on principle to create the challenge for SCOTUS to reconsider Reynolds. Gorsuch and Thomas might be amenable. Scalia (I believe) noted that he found the decision flawed.

[Warbler]

There seem to be several initiatives from rural areas attempting to "secede" from metropolitan areas that generally control a State, due to Reynolds v Sims.

Western Washington and Oregon have had petitions of one sort or another, usually to join Idaho and "escape" Seattle and Portland. Variations of a California breakup aren't particularly new either.

Recently, Illinois has joined the "secession" movement (although I don't know where they'll go).

The NY Post has a piece on the issue, found through 𝕏 member Owen Gregorian's post (which also has a Fox clip on the topic).

Reynolds v Sims is a 1964 decision that applied the 14th amendment. Wikipedia has a fair article on the topic

The case originates in Alabama, whose bicameral legislature was made up of a House of Representatives that apportioned representatives according to population, and a Senate where each county had one senator (regardless of population). That of course mirrors the federal constitution framework, and was the system many other states had (the wiki piece gets into more detail).

The Warren court ruled that this violated a "one man, one vote" principle, and that the Alabama state senate must also apportion senators according to population. After the ruling, other states changed their senates to comply with the ruling.

The problem has been described in the forum during various discussions of democracy, the electoral college, and other related topics; and it is a problem of preventing a "tyranny of the majority" - or "two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner".

The framers sought to avoid that wolves/sheep problem by adding a senate. Washington is rumored to be the originator of the "senate is the saucer to cool the 'hot tea' of the house", and Madison said it was a “necessary fence” against the "fickleness" of the House. Reynolds v Sims removes that fence.

California, New York and Illinois are the most clear examples, where voters in NYC are numerous enough to decide the law that will apply to the rest of the state. With Illinois, one may see the concentration of power in each house revolves around the Chicago metro area.

The Illinois Senate has 59 seats. 29 of them belong to districts in the greater Chicago metro area. While the Illinois house (rightly) is overwhelmingly represented by Chicago, the rural areas that constitute the majority of the landmass of the state are at Chicago's mercy; since the Senate votes along the same lines as the house - being little more than a "rubber stamp". The passions of a House are much more constrained when the "two wolves" know they must gain the "sheep's" agreement on the dinner menu.


I don't see how a secession approach would survive any sort of legislative or judicial process, and any solution would require overturning Reynolds.

A question (mainly for kazoolaw or other attorneys on the forum) is: how would/could these counties challenge Reynolds?

I was under the impression that states could not be subdivided. If they could, I would want South Jersey to be split from North Jersey.

[dneal]

I was under the impression that states could not be subdivided. If they could, I would want South Jersey to be split from North Jersey.

That's what makes the initiative somewhat pointless - mainly because it takes the same state legislatures the folks are trying to get away from, to agree; and then there's the federal government and lots of second order effects (changes to representation based on population, more senators if a new state is created, etc...)

There's some precedent with West Virginia (which was part of Virginia), and Maine to a lesser extent (which belonged to Massachusetts).

[welch]

There seem to be several initiatives from rural areas attempting to "secede" from metropolitan areas that generally control a State, due to Reynolds v Sims.

Western Washington and Oregon have had petitions of one sort or another, usually to join Idaho and "escape" Seattle and Portland. Variations of a California breakup aren't particularly new either.

Recently, Illinois has joined the "secession" movement (although I don't know where they'll go).

The NY Post has a piece on the issue, found through 𝕏 member Owen Gregorian's post (which also has a Fox clip on the topic).

Reynolds v Sims is a 1964 decision that applied the 14th amendment. Wikipedia has a fair article on the topic

The case originates in Alabama, whose bicameral legislature was made up of a House of Representatives that apportioned representatives according to population, and a Senate where each county had one senator (regardless of population). That of course mirrors the federal constitution framework, and was the system many other states had (the wiki piece gets into more detail).

The Warren court ruled that this violated a "one man, one vote" principle, and that the Alabama state senate must also apportion senators according to population. After the ruling, other states changed their senates to comply with the ruling.

The problem has been described in the forum during various discussions of democracy, the electoral college, and other related topics; and it is a problem of preventing a "tyranny of the majority" - or "two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner".

The framers sought to avoid that wolves/sheep problem by adding a senate. Washington is rumored to be the originator of the "senate is the saucer to cool the 'hot tea' of the house", and Madison said it was a “necessary fence” against the "fickleness" of the House. Reynolds v Sims removes that fence.

California, New York and Illinois are the most clear examples, where voters in NYC are numerous enough to decide the law that will apply to the rest of the state. With Illinois, one may see the concentration of power in each house revolves around the Chicago metro area.

The Illinois Senate has 59 seats. 29 of them belong to districts in the greater Chicago metro area. While the Illinois house (rightly) is overwhelmingly represented by Chicago, the rural areas that constitute the majority of the landmass of the state are at Chicago's mercy; since the Senate votes along the same lines as the house - being little more than a "rubber stamp". The passions of a House are much more constrained when the "two wolves" know they must gain the "sheep's" agreement on the dinner menu.


I don't see how a secession approach would survive any sort of legislative or judicial process, and any solution would require overturning Reynolds.

A question (mainly for kazoolaw or other attorneys on the forum) is: how would/could these counties challenge Reynolds?

The US Congress is a compromise between small states and large states. Without the compromise, the Constitution would not have passed.

States formed the US, but counties did not unite to form colonies and states. Each of the original colonies, and then later states, was divided into counties. Divided by the Crown, or by the legislatures. There is no parallel between the US Senate and state senates.

(I watched the representation fight in Maryland when I was in 7th grade, and when we spent the year studying civics. Back then, the Eastern Shore tobacco counties, plus the tobacco counties in southern Maryland, dominated the state, using the state senate to squash Prince George's, Montgomery, and Baltimnore countyies, plus Baltimore City. We had the population and paid all the taxes; they selected the governor. We called it "Taxation without [proper] Representation)

I will look at a few of the first state constitutions, written at the suggestion of John Adams in 1776. Adams, incidentally, thought that the Declaration was to be an important statement, but the colonies would truly be independent when they wrote began to govern themselves by state constitutions they had written and ratified. There were several variations: Pennsylvania had a unicameral legislature. Others edited their colonial constituions to remove mentions of the King.

Here is how New York designed it's legislature in the first state constitution, written mostly by John Jay and Gouveneur Morris. It had proportional representation, as best I can figure it.

XII. That the election of senators shall be after this manner: That so much of this State as is now parcelled into counties be divided into four great districts; the southern district to comprehend the city and county of New York, Suffolk, Westchester, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties; the middle district to comprehend the counties of Dutchess, Ulster, and Orange; the western district, the city and county of Albany, and Tryon County; and the eastern district, the counties of Charlotte, Cumberland, and Gloucester. That the senators shall be elected by the freeholders of the said districts, qualified as aforesaid, in the proportions following, to wit: in the southern district, nine; in the middle district, six; in the western district, six; and in the eastern district, three. And be it ordained, that a census shall be taken, as soon as may be after the expiration of seven years from the termination of the present war, under the direction of the legislature; and if, on such census, it shall appear that the number of senators is not justly proportioned to the several districts, that the legislature adjust the proportion, as near as may be, to the number of freeholders, qualified as aforesaid, in each district.(9) That when the number of electors, within any of the said districts, shall have increased one twenty-fourth part of the whole number of electors, which. by the said census, shall be found to be in this State, an additional senator shall be chosen by the electors of such district. That a majority of the number of senators to be chosen aforesaid shall be necessary to constitute a senate sufficient to proceed upon business; and that the senate shall, in like manner with the assembly, be the judges of its own members. And be it ordained, that it shall be in the power of the future legislatures of this State, for the convenience and advantage of the good people thereof, to divide the same into such further and other counties and districts as shall to them appear necessary.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp

[Zeevea3]

The secession efforts you're referencing highlight a growing tension between rural and metropolitan areas over political and cultural influence. Reynolds v. Sims (1964) mandated equal representation by population in state legislatures, which often gave urban areas more political power due to their higher populations. This dynamic can create friction in states where rural areas feel overshadowed by the policy priorities of large cities.

[dneal]

*yawn* at the chatGPT spam from Zeevea…

So lazy, David. tsk, tsk.

[calamus]

What kind of a situation could create a court case that might lead to SCOTUS revisiting Reynolds v. Sims?

[dneal]

What kind of a situation could create a court case that might lead to SCOTUS revisiting Reynolds v. Sims?

That's kind of my question. Best I can come up with:

- Citizens of a state bring suit against their state in federal court. I don't know what their argument is or how they prove standing. It would have to be some sort of disenfranchisement argument, it seems.
- A friendly (red) state AG brings suit. Texas would be a good choice, with a ballsy AG and a state turning more purple as people flee California for Texas. Their metro areas are blue (San Antonio, Houston, DFW, etc...).
- A friendly state changes their constitutional apportionment, directly challenging Reynolds

Those are of course hypotheticals. In practice it's near impossible, but not as difficult as some secession or creation of a new state scheme would be. Overturning Reynolds is the only viable path I can see.

[calamus]

I like that third option. It's simple, and would get immediately challenged in federal court.

[dneal]

It would probably take a state constitutional amendment. Might be hard to get state senators to agree to it. Many states allow ballot measures to amend their constitution, but that’s an expensive process.