Letter: Reform is needed

At the state level, hanky-panky is rampant. There is gerrymandering and extreme re-districting. A two-party system dominates and rewards itself. Some candidates/areas are ignored and even denied debate/support. Many candidates run opposition free. Arrogance and greed have replaced civility and compromise.

The birth of our current political-stalemate, occurred as a result, and immediately after, the so-called "Equal Protection" federal court decision, Baker v Carr of March 26, 1962. (369 US 186) States commenced apportioning "both" of their legislative bodies, by-population.

Overlooked in the courts decision, by the states, were "compelling" alternatives to that population-only basis.

While prospective legislation must successfully proceed through both legislative bodies to be enacted, having "both" bodies apportioned by only population, is unfair to the part of the state with less than half the population. Today in California for instance, the majority-population of both legislative bodies, resides in only seven of its 58 counties. The other part of California can be rendered moot, by votes of the smaller "by-population" legislators of both parties.

Is the stability-gained, a compelling reason to have one of a state's legislative bodies apportioned by the more permanent, county boundary lines, thereby cancelling half the re-districting occasions?

Are factors creating balance, fairness and compromise, compelling reasons to have one legislative body apportioned by geography and the other continued to be apportioned by population?

A federal court may need to verify there are indeed, compelling reasons to review equal protection and require/allow one legislative body of each state to be apportioned by geography.

John Bauer

Martinez