By Danielle Jester djester@siskiyoudaily.com

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, a group partially comprised of Siskiyou County citizens, known as Citizens for Fair Representation, asked the county to join a lawsuit against the state of California.

The suit accuses the state of failing to give adequate representation for all state citizens and diluting citizens’ votes.

Board chair Michael Kobseff emphasized that the presentation – given by CFR’s Mark Baird – was an informational item only and thus the board would not be taking any action on it.

Baird, who is also one of Siskiyou County’s foremost proponents of the State of Jefferson movement, noted at the beginning of his presentation that the Citizens for Fair Representation lawsuit is in no way related to the State of Jefferson. The lawsuit, he said, “is being brought in order to gain more representation for all counties in California.”

Rural counties especially lack representation at the state level, Baird stated, and in order to foster a change in that realm, “we have to sue the state because they’re not going to do this on their own.”

The founders of California outlined their reason to form the state in the preamble of the California Constitution, Baird stated. When the state was founded in 1850, each county – there were only 10 at the time – had a state senator and each had at least one assemblyman.

The ratio of assemblymen to constituents at that time was 1 to 2,500. “That stayed in effect for at least a decade, and perhaps more,” Baird said. Then, in 1862, the state capped the California legislature at 40 state senators and 80 assemblymembers.

In 1926, Baird reported, California voters approved Proposition 28 – the California Legislative Reapportionment Proposition – which required the state legislature to divide the state into 40 senatorial and 80 assembly districts immediately following each federal census.

The measure also created a Reapportionment Commission composed of the lieutenant governor, attorney general, surveyor general, secretary of state and state superintendent of public instruction. The Commission was tasked with making reapportionments if the legislature failed to act.

Now, Baird continued, as laws in the U.S. have since changed, Californians have approximately one state senator per one million people and one assemblymember representing approximately 500,000 people. This presents a major problem, Baird claimed, as “a state senator cannot possibly adequately represent a million people.” He said that he believes that “a state senator who represents 11 counties – counties that often have competing political interests – is an utter failure as a political model.”

His comment was partially made in reference to assemblymembers like Brian Dahle, who is the assemblymember for California’s First District. District 1 encompasses 100 percent of Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra and Siskiyou counties. It also covers 9 percent of Butte County and nearly 17 percent of Placer County.

An assemblymember responsible for so many counties, Baird said, will be forced to represent the interests of certain counties over the interests of others when those interests are in conflict with one another.

The American Independent Party has agreed to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Baird stated. He added that, even if the total of that party’s membership were all in one district, the AIP would still not be able to win an election. Citizens for Fair Representation is also petitioning the Green Party to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Baird said, as that party also “would not have enough membership to win a seat in the legislature if everyone lived in the same town because they physically would not possess enough votes to be a majority.” A county sheriff, multiple county supervisors, the Shasta Nation and Pit River Tribe have also agreed to be plaintiffs, according to Baird.

Pin it
https://www.agenda21radio.news/2017/03/23/state-of-jefferson-and-citizens-for-fair-representation-asks-siskiyou-county-to-join-suit-against-california/#SmVmZmVyc29uLUd

“What we’re asking for is representation adequate to our needs in this county and in every county,” Baird told the board. What form that will take is up to the court, he added. Glenn County, one of the counties CFR is attempting to bring on board in its suit, is hoping for one state senator for every California county and one assemblymember per 30,000 citizens, Baird said.

CFR is also advocating for smaller districts with the belief that it will be easier to hold assemblymembers accountable. With smaller districts, Baird said, if an assemblymember were considered to not be doing a decent job, “it would be glaringly apparent” to their constituents and it would be easier to “get rid of” that person.

“We need county government as a plaintiff,” Baird told the board. He explained, “It’s very difficult for the federal court to ignore a governmental body.” The county’s representation would lend credence to the lawsuit, he said, making it more likely to advance to the Supreme Court.

Baird also made it clear to the board that CFR “does not need any money” and “will not ask for any money” from the county. CFR is also prepared to indemnify the county against any recapture of fees and has the funds to do so, Baird stated confidently.

Baird was adamant that CFR would stand a very good chance of winning its case if the county joins the suit as a plaintiff, stating, “If we couldn’t win this, I wouldn’t be here.”

The supervisors were receptive to Baird’s extensive presentation and thanked him for the time he had spent on the lawsuit thus far. Baird stated that while CFR is hoping for the county’s support, it will file the lawsuit whether it receives the county’s backing or not.

District 1 Supervisor Brandon Criss expressed that while he personally is in support of the suit, whether he can support it as a county representative is a more complex issue. He repeatedly apologized for “being a wet blanket,” but noted that there are many issues to consider before the board of supervisors can agree to expend its time and resources in the effort.

That sentiment was echoed by Kobseff, District 5 Supervisor Ray Haupt and District 4 Supervisor Lisa Nixon. District 2 Supervisor Ed Valenzuela took a different stance, explaining that he represents a largely democratic district whose interests are in line with the majority of the state of California. For that reason, Valenzuela said, it is unlikely that he will ultimately support the board being a plaintiff in the suit.

Finally, Kobseff told Baird that the board would take the issue under advisement until they can further discuss the case and how the county would be affected should the board choose to get involved. He asked that Baird give a final draft of CFR’s complaint to the board before they consider it further. Baird said he would direct CFR’s attorneys to finish revising the document, estimating it will be finished by Friday.