48088-5417

Guernsey-Montgomery for the Economic Outlook, CIO.

in their own actions, but the very existence of municipal governments must be authorized by the States from which they derive their power.

According to the United States Conference of Mayors, "So detailed is State control of municipal affairs that in a 20-year period, the New York State Legislature made 550 amendments in the charter and passed 1,002 special acts relating to New York City alone."

IN THE BEGINNING, JUST A LITTLE UNDERREPRESENTATION

How, in a great democratic nation, could such a distortion of government "by the people" come about? And why does this injustice continue to this day? The answer can be found in the resistance of people and institutions to the changes which the growth of America into an urbanized industrial giant has long made overdue.

When the Original Thirteen States adopted their State constitutions, the 95 percent of the population who lived on isolated farms and in scattered tiny villages were closely tied to their own townships and counties. In that day, it was not surprising that they wanted each township or county to have one representative in the State legislature. In the majority of States today, this form of area representation, generally by counties, has become established, at least in the makeup of 1 of the 2 houses of the State legislature.

Back in 1790 when only 5 percent of the population lived in cities of over 2,500, urban areas were so few and their populations were so small, this area form of representation involved only a slight inequity to the city dwellers.

Cities did have representation, however, and in the second House they usually had the full number to which their population entitled them. This second house, like the House of Representatives of the Federal Government, was often set up to reflect "people" rather than territories, like townships or counties. Under most State constitutions seats in this second house were to be reapportioned at regular intervals-usually every 10 years so that shifts in population within the State would be taken into account.

As the constitutions of the 48 States were written, a pattern of legislative representation, somewhat like our Federal system, emerged with one house based on area, the other on population. While in some States the system varies substantially from this pattern-and in detail no two State systems are alike—both area and population representation became characteristic of most State legislatures.

TODAY: A MOCKERY OF DEMOCRACY

But America would not stand still. The age of the frontier and the flintlock, and a nation predominantly made up of farmers, passed away. America's millions began to move to the cities and today a majority of us live there. But the system by which State legislatures are elected has virtually remained the same.

Look at what this means:

In State after State "area" representation based on townships or counties has made a mockery of representative government.

Although some States have modified their constitutions and now allow large counties 2, 3, or a few more additional senators (or combine 2 or 3 of the smallest counties into 1 senatorial district), the frustration of equality of representation continues.

Baltimore, with 47 percent of the population of Maryland, has 6 out of 29 representatives in its upper house. In new York and Pennsylvania, city representation in the Senate is limited to a fixed percentage of the total membership, regardless of population growth.

In Montana, Silver Bow County (Butte) with a population of 48,422 has 1 senator; Petroleum County with 1,026 has 1.

In California the 4,125,146 people who live in Los Angeles County elect 1 State senator. The 13,568 people who live in the 3 counties constituting the smallest senatorial district also elect 1.

Some State constitutions even freeze unequal representation into the structures of both Houses of the legislature. Neither is set up to reflect the respective numbers in the population as our Frederal Constitution sets forth for the United States House of Representatives.

For example, Rhode Island allows a maximum of 6 senators from any city and a minimum of 1 representative from any city or town but none to have more than one-fourth of the total.

No Texas County can have more than 1 senator and not more than 7 representatives, except that 1 additional is allowed for each 100,000 over 700,000. Wyoming allows at least one seat to each county in both Houses, regardless of

size.

Delaware froze its division of representatives and senators among the various sections of the State in its constitution of 1897 and hasn't changed it since.

Vermont and Connecticut base their representatives in the lower house on townships. Representation in the senate is based on the counties.

We could go on recording State after State; in the overwhelming majority one house or both are set up so that political units rather than people are accorded major recognition in the legislatures.

By contrast, the lack of balance in the United States Senate-where New York has 92 times the population of Nevada but each State gets two Senate seatsis almost trivial. In California and Connecticut, for example, the vote of a resident of the smallest legislative district is worth 300 times the vote of a citizen who lives in the largest.

There is no logical justification for this outrageous distortion of the concept of representative government. Why should a sparsely populated county made up mostly of sagebrush or pastureland share equal voting rights with another, containing hundreds of thousands of people?

If representation based on townships and counties had some justification 100 years ago when most of the population was rural and widely dispersed-there can be none today.

Any significance the county may have had in the day of the birchbark canoe or the covered wagon has dwindled in the age of the jet plane and the atom bomb. Besides, our American political system never conferred sovereign powers on the counties, such as were enjoyed by the 13 Original Sovereign States. There is no parallel in history or in function that can justify a status for the county in the structure of State government comparable to the role of the State in the Government of the United States.

THEY STOP COUNTING PEOPLE

But the worst shame of the States is the refusal of the legislatures to reapportion seats according to population changes even when the Constitution requires that they do so.

In most of the States representation in at least one House is supposed to reflect population in some degree as we have seen.

In 42 States the constitutions hold the legislators themselves responsible to reapportion legislative seats generally every 10 years, after the Federal census is conducted. Yet in State after State, as the movement toward the cities has gained momentum, the dominantly rural legislators have refused to act. (See p. 63.)

Perhaps it was too much to entrust this responsibility to them, since the action inevitably would remove many from their jobs. But even the courts have refused to compel compliance with the clear language of the State constitutions. Both State and Federal judges have regularly ruled that they are without power since reapportionment is a political and not a judicial question.

As a consequence, only 19 State legislatures have gotten around to reapportioning one or both Houses since the census of 1940. Connecticut last established its number of State representatives in 1818 and State senators in 1903.

Missis

sippi's last reapportionment was in 1890, Illinois' and Alabama's in 1901. Most have not reapportioned for over 10, 20, or 30 years.

Refusal of legislatures to reapportion ensures rotten borough control over the entire legislature. While the ideal of equal representation may already be stultified in one House, because it is based on area representation, the same effect is achieved in the other House as well by a refusal to reassign representation based on new population shifts.

In the Michigan upper house, the sentators from the 5 largest districts represent areas with a population of 2,432,743; the 5 smallest, 400,823. But even in the lower house, the disparity is now almost as great-577,617 against 141,480.

Here's how Iowa (last reapportionment: Senate 1928, house 1904) practices equal representation: 5 urban counties with a combined population of 635,000 elect 5 senators; 20 rural counties with 627,000 people elect 20. In the lower house the 10 representatives from the 5 urban counties are out voted almost 5 to 1 by the 46 representatives from the rural counties.

Even Nebraska, which so hopefully adopted a one-house model State legislature a few years ago allows 1 representative for 17,936 rural citizens as against an average of 1 for 40,145 city people in Omaha's populous Douglas County. (Nebraska last reapportioned in 1934.)

In State after State enlightened Governors have been elected by overwhelming majorities after promising to initiate critically needed programs in the fields of housing, education, social insurance, or tax reform. And time after time the peoples' will has been frustrated by the minority stranglehold over one or both houses of the State legislature.

WHY PROGRESS STOPS AT THE STATE LINE

Is there any wonder why, for the solution of so many vital issues, millions of Americans must look to their Federal Government instead of the capitols of their States?

While the United States Congress by no means reflects equal representation, its composition is still far more responsive to the needs of America's urban millions than the minority-dominated legislative bodies of most of the 48 States.

Even though modern-day problems increasingly require national leadership in this age of industrial interdependence, there is ample scope for constructive action within the States on many issues, if State governments do not default their responsibilities.+

Problems like slum clearance, urban traffic congestion, race relations, juvenile delinquency, day nurseries to aid working mothers, health and education, factory safety, workmen's compensation and a score of others plague city people but are often unknown in rural areas. Without adequate funds and State cooperation, cities are powerless to solve these problems unaided. Yet, the rural dominated legislatures-unfamiliar or unsympathetic to them-too often do little or nothing Or can

to help.

Is further intervention by the Federal Government the only answer? representation in the legislatures of the States be so reconstituted that the needs and views of the urban majority receive attention and get action?

Too often special interest groups-not always originating in the countrysidetry to pit farmer against city dweller in an effort to maintain a profitable status quo.

The State senator from Portland, from whom we have already heard, speaks pointedly about the experience of Oregon on this issue:

"The chasm between farm and city interests is of course exaggerated. True, there are contrasts in emphasis. Yet, in 9 instances out of 10, the law which is good for the truckdriver is good for the orchardist as well. May I be pardoned a personal example in proof?

"As I write these words, the Oregon State grange, largest agricultural organization in our rural State, publishes its 'box score' on the recent legislative session. Although I represent the State's only large city, I led the Grange's list with 11 favorable votes and 1 regarded as unfavorable.

"Ironically, at the bottom of the grange compilation, with only three favorable votes each, was a trio of senators from agricultural areas. Such episodes as this at least ought to help convince the dwellers in the hinterland that legislative reapportionment will not adversely affect their welfare.”

See States Rights: How Far Do They Go? CIO Economic Outlook July-August 1952.