University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Propositions California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives 1928 REAPPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props Recommended Citation REAPPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS California Proposition 1 (1928). http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/230 This Proposition is brought to you for free and open access by the California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Propositions by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. , i, , , REAPPOfiTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. Act of Legisla- I , latu.t~ submitted to electors by referendum. Amends'Section 78 and t~'\I YES ' ... repeals ~ection 90 of Political Code. Reapportions the legislative dis- , I I-­ tricts of the state, defining and establishing. such districts, under I authority of Section 6 of Article IV of Constitution adopted November I NO 2, 19Z6r I (For ~II text of Measure see page 1, Part II) Argument In Favor of Reapportionment of interests of this great commonwealth: The act Legislative Districts Referendum Measure is a just, conscientious and carefully framed law. A vote ,"'yes" will sustain the law-the so- It deserves to be sustained. Vote yes on Pl'OPO- called vl\OggS Reapportionment A,ct"--enacted sition Number One on the ballot. " , by the state legislature in 19"27 by DNANI- J. M. INMAN, MOUS VOTE. The law' was enacted in obedi- State Senator, Seventp. District. ence to the mandate of the voters, who, at the gelleral election of 1926, adopted the Federal FRANK S. BQGGS, nan of Representation in the state legislature, State Senator, Tenth District. , by an amendment to the Californirl constitution. DAVID P. BARROWS. which received a majority of oyer 74,000 votes and a majority vote in 57 of the 58 counties of the state. Argument Against Reapportionment of Opponents of the Federal Plan of .Representa­ Legislative Districts Referendum Measure tion, unwilling 1;Q. accept the decision of the The constitution o{this state of 1879 provided, people made in 1926, are attempting to void or­ for the purpose of choosing members of the to delay the enforcement of this provision by legislatute. that the st.otte should be divided into calling for a popular referendum. eighty assembly and forty senatorial districts as The growth of population in California in the equal in popuhl.tion as possible. last twenty years has made unjust and intoler­ The apportionment of legislative districts to able the present apportionment of representation be made every ten years on the basis of federal in the state legislature which is based on the census. 'ral census pf 1910 and on former provisions Dnder this provision of the constitution the _he California constitution now repealed. legislature should_have made the apportionment Due to the unprecedented development of the after the census of 1!l20, but failed to do so. two great urban regions of the state, were At the election of 1926 an initiative constitu­ apportionment to be based on the repealed pro­ tional amendment \'Was adopted by the p"oplE', visions of the constitution and the federal changing .the method of dividing the state into census of 1920, political power would be con­ senatorial districts. It left the number of solidated in the inhabitants of 3 riel' cent of the senatorial districts at forty as previously pro­ area of the state. vided, but provided that no com, ty or city and The constitution of California, as now county shall contain more than one senatorial amended, has enabled the legislature to pass a district, and counties of small population shall law that recognizes the right of 97 per ceut of be grouped in diRtricts not to exceed three the territory of the state to a fair representation. counties. This plan 'is called the "Federal Plan" because The amendment also provided that the legis­ its principle is that of the federnl constitution lature at the following session (1927) should for reprellentation in eongress. It is the prin-, re-apportion the state in accordimce with the ciple, generally respected in all representative constitutional amendment then adopted. government, that'there are~ two factors in appor­ Tbe legislature in 1927, in obedience to this tionment-population and territory. constitutional mandate passed a law by which Besides our federal government, thirty states the state was reapportioned according to the of the Union base representation in their legis­ said eonstitutionZlI amendment. latures upon, this principle. 'I'hese states include The old con ,titution gave I"os Angeles County, New York, Pennsylvania, l\Iassachusetts, Iowa eight, San Francisco, seven and Alameda County, and Ohio. four senators. ;By the amendment Los Angeles 'The B~ggs .Reapportionment A('t is sponsored County loses seven, San J;'rancisco six and by all the agricultural interests pf California. .\.lameda County three senators. It is also sup~rted by chambers of commerce, Los Angeles receivpd a small increase in the women's clubs, and civic organizations generally assembly; San Francisco not only lost six sena­ throughout the siate. It creates a well-balanced tors but also lost membership in the assembly. legislature in w~ich neither the cities nor the Under the 1920 federal census. Los Angeles «luhtryside may predominate. It is a just, County with a population of 936,455, and now ~lesome, ant} 'necessary provision. It will give paying an estiinated amount of 40 per cent cost better leglslature than is possible under the of state government, would have one vote ill csent law, '.and will bring to a conclusion a forty in the senate. San Francisco with a ,controversy Which has long affected the best population of 506,676, now paying an estimated , ·fFive] , I . , \ REAPP9ATIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. Act of Legisla- lature submitted to electors by referendum. Amends . Section 78 and YES . ... rep~als ::lection 90 of Political Code. Reapportions the legislative dis­ I-­ tri~ts of the state, defining and establishing such districts, under I authority of Section 6 of Article IV of Constitution adopted November I~ NO 2, 19i6r I , (For ~II text of Measure see page 1, Part II) Argument In Favor of Reapportionment of interests of this great commonwealth; The act Legislative Districts Referendum Measure is a just, conscientious and carefully framed law. A vote "yes" will sustain the law-the 80- It deserves to be sustained. Vote yes on Pl'OPO- called V~oggS Reapportionment Act"-enaded sition Number One on the ballot. " . by the state legislature in 19'27 by UNANI- J. M. INMAN, MOUS VOTE. The law' was enacted in obedi- ,state Senator, Sevent,)! District. ence to the mandate of the voters, who, at the general election of 1926, adopted the Federal FRANK S. BQGGS, Plan of Representation in the state legislature, State Senator, Tenth District. by an amendment to the Californirl constitution. DAVID P. BARROWS. which received a majority of over 74,000 votes and a majority vote in 57 of the 58 counties of the state. Argument Against Reapportionment of Opponents of the Federal Plan of .Representa- Legislative Districts Referendum Measure tion, unwilling 1;Q. accept the decision of the The constitution of this state of 1879 provided, people made in 1926, are attempting to void or' for the purpose of choosing members of the to delay the enforcement of this provision by legislature. that the R~te should be divided into calling for a popular referendum. eighty assembly and forty senatorial di~tricts as The growth of population in California in the equal in popuhi,tion as possible. last twenty years has made unjust and intoler- The apportionment of legislative districts to able the present apportionment of representation be made every ten years on the ba8is of federal in the state legislature which is based on the census. , 'ral census of 1910 and on former provisions Under this provision of the constitution the .he California constitution now repealed. legislature should have made the apportionment Due to the unprecedented development of the after the census 'Of 1920, but failed to do so. two great urban regions of the state, were At the election of 1926 an initiative eonstitu­ apportionment to be based on the repealed pro- tional amendment ~as adopted by the p.'ople, visions of the constitution and the federal changing .the method of dividing the state into census of 1920, political power would be con- senatorial districts. It left the number of solidated in the inhabitants of 3 riel' cent of the senatorial districts at forty as previously pro­ area of the state. vided, but provided that no com. ty or city and Tbe constitution of, California, as now county shall contain more' than one senatorial amended, has enabled the legislature to pass a district, and counties of small population shall law that recognizes the right of 97 per cent of be grouped in districts not to exceed three the' territory of the state to a fair representation. counties. This plan 'is called the "Federal Plan" because The amendment also provided that the lcgis- its principle is that of the federal constitution lature at the following se~sioil (1927) should for reprellentation in "ongress. It is the prin- reapportion the state in accordance with the cipIe, ,generally respected in all representative constitutional amendment then adopted. government, that'there are, two factors in appor- The legislature i.n 1927, in obedience to this tionment--population and territory. constitutional mandate passed a law by which Besides our federal govel'llment, thirty states the state was reapportioned according to the of the Union base representation in their legis- said constitutiomtl amendment.