HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 2657RESOLUTION NO.It,_L)-_7 A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION NO. 23 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT INITkATIVE WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of State of California, finds that the Senate Reapportionment Initiative Constitutional Amendment will appear on the November 6, 1962, ballot as Proposition No. 23, and WHEREAS, Said City Council finds that Proposition No. 23 would totally destroy California's existing method of equitable legislative apportionment, which is based on our traditional Federal system with its protective mechanism of checks and balances, and would substitute therefor a system whereby representation in both houses of the Legislature would be based on population, and WHEREAS, Said City Council finds further that it is a widely -recognized principle in our great nation that representation in the legislative branch of government is equitably apportioned not according to population alone, but according to two factors, to wit: population and territory, and WHEREAS, It is a proven matter of record that our State Senate as presently constituted has been keenly responsive to urban problems and the needs of cities, and that many of California's ablest members of the State Senate are from less heavily -populated cities and rural areas, a. -id WHEREAS, There is imminent danger that under Proposition No. 23 control of our State Government would be placed in the hands of political organizations in a few heavily - populated counties, and WHEREAS, There is no apparent justification for a change in the method of apportionment of State Senate dis- tricts, particularly in view of the fact that under our exist- ing system of legislative apportionment this State has reached a measure of greatness unmatched by any of our sister states; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of C; is , State of California, does hereby officially go on record as being unconditionally opposed to said Proposition No. 23, the State Senate Reapportionment Initiative Constitutional Amendment that will be submitted to the voters of the State on November 6, 1962. 1, ��•: Tom. .. , -� .i, �i C• „1 n I .,1 `i .t7, 7 fol-coG1 i!';C 1.,!?y �ij� fl 1�. ('?c!_., �7:. P"J CCt ilf��r .Ct 1::1B ). 'Oing Y?.SO:o. ov1? a .5 Cl4. GlL1 n Cll-. .... ".•.l cc.l .L ii .;� c...-.. �IrG.E��,, ".....«... Ynee': „ of 'i For the second time in two years, California voters are being pressured to make a radical change in their state representa- tive government. The pressure comes from a small and obstinate minority centered in one city of one county of the State. Vote "no" on Proposition 23 because: 1 -- As it now exists, the California Legislature effec- tively represents all interests in the State. Under the time -tested Federal plan, the Assembly is based wholly on population. To give balance, the Senate districting gives some consideration for area, and senators are given longer, overlapping terms. It has been said that we have a government by pressure groups. This proposition would subject both houses to the same narrow range of pressures. 2 -- California has enjoyed unprecedented and unparalleled growth under the present system. People have moved to California by the millions in recent decades. They have been attracted by our state's natural resources. But the recognized excellence of our State government also has been a factor. 3 -- Metropolitan areas of California already are well represented in the Senate. Of the 40 Senate districts, 17 or 42 per cent, constitute metropolitan areas as used by the Census Bureau, by planning agencies, and business groups. -2- 4 -- The problems of cities have received close and sympathetic attention from the Senate. The California programs for social welfare, for urban redevelopment, for protection of working men, and for protection of minorities are recognized as among the best in the nation. These programs were approved by the Senate. Many of them originated in the Senate. The same is true for the state water plan, for smog control legislation and for laws controlling the sale and use of narcotics. 5 -- California's system meets tests set by the U. S. Supreme Court for legislative apportionment. The Supreme Court has assumed authority in two recent decisions over state legislative apportionment, but only where certain safeguards do not exist. California has the two methods of correcting apportionment deficiencies specifically mentioned by the court. These are an automatic system which goes into effect if the Legislature fails to act, and the right of the people to propose initiative measures. 6 -- The changes this measure would make in the Senate are neither rational nor logical. The figure of 600,000 population, which qualifies a county for an additional senator, was picked out of the air. So was the figure of 1,000,000 population for addition of a third senator. -3- 7 -- Our balanced system of legislative representation would be further destroyed after 1970. This scheme provides that after 1970 the Senate shall be reapportioned on a straight population basis, with only minor limitations. The effect will be to give complete dominance to large cities. 8 -- The Legislature again could be ruled by city bosses. Until the Federal plan was adopted, city political machines could and did dominate the Legislature. This threat has been accentuated as cities grow at the expense of rural areas. Three counties, of California's 58, now contain a majority of the state's population. Six counties contain two-thirds. value. 9 -- This proposal was put on the ballot for its nuisance A similar proposal was defeated only two years ago, by a vote of 3,403,090 to 1,876,185, with only one county voting for it. Yet here it is again as a harassing and threatening tactic. 10 -- Urban areas have protection through the method of electing the Governor, and through the initiative process. A unanimous vote from just three counties could elect a governor over any opposition. The same majority can make any change in our laws or constitution by means of an initiative measure. -4- 11 -- The proposition is badly drafted, and may be un- constitutional. It is not clear whether there is provision for a non- partisan commission to take action on reapportionment if the Legislature itself fails to act after the 1970 and succeeding censuses. 12 -- The scheme is of doubtful value to those counties supposedly benefitting from it. The two senators, or four or six, from a single county, would almost cancel out each others' votes. Los Angeles County, for instance, now has a united front in the Senate. �1� ask et n 60 c#J 17Pda "5 w