Timm Herdt questions the size of the districts
by Brian Leubitz
When the dreams of a constitutional convention were high around here, we often said that one of the first structural reforms would be the size and shape of the Legislature. The idea of a unicameral Assembly of 120 legislators came up again and again. But when you really look at the numbers, as Timm Herdt did today, they are simply shocking:
The size of the Legislature – 80 Assembly members, 40 senators – was established in 1879. At the time, there were fewer than 1 million people living here. Today, there are 37.3 million. That means that an Assembly district must contain about 465,000 people and each Senate district about 931,000. …
How big is a Senate district? Five of the 50 states have fewer people. The districts are 10 times larger than the national average, three times bigger than those in the second-place state, Texas.(VC Starvcstar.com )
And, as somebody who grew up in Texas, there is a big caveat on that Texas figure. While the 31 Texas Senate districts are huge, the 150 House districts are far more manageable. So, while you don’t normally know who your Senator is, I always knew, personally, my representative. In fact, I went to school with his children.
Of course, I know my Legislators now, but I work in politics. I expect that very few Californians can even name their legislators, let alone say that they have spoken to them personally. It is physically impossible.
But the question became more clear with the redistricting process, as various pockets and enclaves fought for their own interests. The people of American Canyon fought separation from Napa County and inclusion with Sonoma tooth and nail. And Santa Rosa was not thrilled being shipped west.
But, wouldn’t it just make sense for Santa Rosa to have its own district? It is certainly a large enough population to merit that. I’m not arguing for New Hampshire size districts, which are only about 3400 people/district. However, districts of about 100,000 would make a lot of sense. Now, that would net us nearly 400 members of the legislature. However, if done right (and with a smaller staff for each member) it wouldn’t cost all that much more money while making government a lot more transparent and approachable.
Put that one in your initiative process and vote on it. Well, maybe not until the budget has stabilized for a while…
UPDATE: It turns out that Students for California’s Future has a nice little report on this subject. Check it out here for some of the possible options on creating a bigger Legislature.
You left off another major reason why smaller districts are better: They cost less for elections. For a candidate to reach 931,000 people requires a massive amount of money, one will need media purchases. This effectively takes the ability to run for office out of reach of the average person. Even at 100,000, it might not be easy, but it is more affordable.
Not needing as much money to run ought to reduce the influence of large campaign contributors and the like. OK, a condor can hope.
would be fixing the population-to-seat ratio, so that future growth doesn’t just put us back in the same situation later.
smaller seats would also allow a lot more compact VRA seats.
The size of legislative districts is just another (of many) reasons why Californians feel alienated from the state’s political process. (Historically, specifying large districts has been designed to cool out participation, allowing a small elite to run the show–see L.A. County and its supervisors.)
This should be one aspect of the reform of California’s legislature.
… let’s move it to someplace with a nicer climate.
How ’bout back to Monterey?
is to split up the state. Four states of eight million would be plenty reasonable.
I would be more inclined to go the other way and make the state and the congressional districts identical. MAYBE have each congressional district represented by two in the state on the Top Two basis. That is, there is an election in each district and the top two people are the representatives for the district in the state legislature.
Make it one Legislature
Just the State Senate
Abolish the Assembly
Make the Senate 160 Senators
Where’s Jerry Brown on this ??
Common Cause ?
League of Women Voters ?
Sierra Club ?
One house means less room for lobbyist mischief
Allow 4 terms of 4 years each
(CA-01) I travel a lot and I’ve only been to about half the places in it.
NOt only were the seats decided in 1879 but how legislatures interacted did too.
Is there really a reason we have to physically send a representative to sacramento to vote on legislation? sure it makes it easier for a lobbyist to walk down the hallway. But in the information age isnt better to have the assembly as a minimum stay home in their districts where the see people everyday and conduct business over the phone and vote electronically?
wouldnt keeping tem at home be cheaper for us, keep them closer to the people, and make it harder for lobbyists to pin them down?
A California Senate district doesn’t just have the most population of any American state legislative district, it’s one of the largest in the world. Aside from LA County and (I think) the Indian Parliament, the only legislators representing more people than a California Senator are US Senators from the largest states. It’s way too large to have meaningful representation. Even Assembly districts are rather outsized, to the point that outlandish pairings are feasible, i.e., Fairfield and Lodi (first draft).
Increase the Assembly to at least 100, although more is better. Keep electing them in single member districts, but lengthen the terms so they can the opportunity to learn the state before they retire. Recast the Senate as a proportional representation body, elected either by regions or statewide. I suggest statewide only because it might allow smaller parties like the Greens and Libertarians to claim one or two seats if they only need 3-5% of the vote to reach the threshold.
It’s not a panacea, but smaller districts for one house, and eliminating the pretense of individual representation in the other, might be a small step back to responsive government.