7/08/2004 07:58:11 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

The latest analysis on the status of "one-man, one-vote" in constitutional jurisprudence.

I still don't see the constitutional necessity for the principal at least in both houses for a state that has a bicameral legislature. States should be able to treat their regions and counties just as the United States Congress treats states for purposes of senatorial representation.

If anything, a freer hand in one house could very well represent diverse economic interests in the state more effectively. I know that would be the case in Tennessee, and would likely be so in any state of any geographical size. As long as one house is based on population distribution, the other house's districting should be reserved for the people to decide upon.

If one-man, one-vote is such an important principal, the Founders would never have authorized the US Senate (I know the purposes for the Senate were entirely different in its conception, but it still shows that there was some fudging to be done with a bicameral system regarding proportional representation).

|||108929185123178109|||Two New Law Review Articles on Ashcroft v. Georgia