QUOTE: vis-a-vis the apportionment question, Prof. Achen recommended the Harlan dissent in Baker v. Carr as an example of the sort of reasoning I'm embracing. To wit:
"A State's choice to distribute electoral strength among geographical units, rather than according to a census of population, is certainly no less a rational decision of policy than would be its choice to levy a tax on property rather than a tax on income. Both are legislative judgments entitled to equal respect from this Court."
So let's consider what this might actually look like. Let's say Michigan in the next reapportionment only has 4 House seats. Which of the following is going to be more representitive?
A. To have the House seats apportioned by equally distributing the population
B. To have the House seats representing regions of the state (for example, SE Michigan, Western Michigan (Grand Rapids area), Northern Michigan (above Midland and over to Traverse City), the U.P.).
The second option is definitely not 'equal' in the strict sense that the numbers would be wildly different for each district, but the end result is better because it groups people together by what issues (and the lifestyle) they have in common. e.g. urban sprawl is a bigger issue in Ann Arbor and Plymouth than it is in, oh, West Jordan or Ishpeming.
This is, of course, in some ways an oversimplification because Oakland County is not Washtenaw County, and a million other things like that, but I think the general principle is a good one.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment