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
