OHC
deep green blue collar rainbow
- Location
- Little Beirut
- Pronouns
- they/she
I posted this WI a while back on the other website but didn't generate much discussion, which is a shame as I think it's a unique idea.
During the Sixties, several Supreme Court decisions (Reynolds v. Sims, Wesberry v. Sanders) mandated one-man, one-vote (ie, equal in population) districts for state legislatures, many of which had previously been apportioned by county with little regard to population density. (Mo Udall's diary gives a decent summary of the issue here.) The change outraged many rural Americans who resented the loss of their disproportionate influence in politics.
Everett Dirksen, the former Senate Majority Leader, was particularly incensed at the thought of Chicago voters dominating the legislature in his home state of Illinois, and he began a crusade for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the decisions. Using language familiar to anyone who's ever debated the Electoral College, he suggested that proportional districts would lead to rural voters being shut out of political decision-making. When his amendment was defeated in Congress, he presented it to the states instead, calling for an Article V convention to establish that districting was a question for the states alone to solve. Stumping energetically around the country, he managed to get 33 out of the 34 required states to pass resolutions calling for a convention. However, Dirksen died in 1969 still one state short of his goal, and in the following years, several legislatures - now reformed in compliance with the SC rulings - repealed their resolutions. The issue was off the agenda outside of niche conservative circles.
What if Dirksen had lived a little longer, or been able to persuade one more state to pass the resolution before he died?
The Article V convention is a murky piece of law; I've said before that it feels like a spooky Chekhov's Gun waiting there in the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer but I believe there's currently no consensus as to whether such a convention would be limited to considering the amendment for which it was called. Under some interpretations, the convention would just "open the Constitution" and could pass any amendments it liked. IIRC people at the time were worried about that possibility, and Sam Ervin, believing that Dirksen's campaign would succeed, prepared a bill that would restrict the convention to discussing the only the district issue. In any case, there would almost certainly be lawsuits and constitutional wrangling.
So what would a Constitutional Convention in 1969 or 1970 look like?
The convention's delegates would be chosen by state legislatures. By this point, however, most of those had already been reformed under the rulings in Reynolds and Wesberry, so, ironically, they would probably have rejected Dirksen's amendment. So I see a few possibilities here:
1. Ervin and co. are successful in confining debate to the Dirksen amendment only. The convention rejects the amendment, and things proceed as OTL. This could still be interesting as a short story or vignette in an "in spite of a nail" vein, either showing how the author believes a contemporary convention would proceed, or following its subtle impacts on politics later on.
2. Debate is limited to the Dirksen amendment. It passes but is not ratified by the states.
3. Debate is limited to the Dirksen amendment, which is passed and then ratified. Unlikely, seeing as the state legislatures had been reformed by this point, but if it did happen somehow this could also be an interesting scenario - it would certainly result in a more conservative America in the medium term but could embolden future campaigns for amendments.
4. Debate is unlimited and the Constitution is opened. This is the most exciting scenario. What kind of amendments would a runaway convention propose in 1969? Lowering the voting age to 18 would certainly be on the table, as would the ERA and the abolition of the Electoral College (which was much discussed after the close 1968 election IOTL). The peace movement would probably be pushing for sharp limits on war powers - perhaps even a revival of the Ludlow Amendment.
During the Sixties, several Supreme Court decisions (Reynolds v. Sims, Wesberry v. Sanders) mandated one-man, one-vote (ie, equal in population) districts for state legislatures, many of which had previously been apportioned by county with little regard to population density. (Mo Udall's diary gives a decent summary of the issue here.) The change outraged many rural Americans who resented the loss of their disproportionate influence in politics.
Everett Dirksen, the former Senate Majority Leader, was particularly incensed at the thought of Chicago voters dominating the legislature in his home state of Illinois, and he began a crusade for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the decisions. Using language familiar to anyone who's ever debated the Electoral College, he suggested that proportional districts would lead to rural voters being shut out of political decision-making. When his amendment was defeated in Congress, he presented it to the states instead, calling for an Article V convention to establish that districting was a question for the states alone to solve. Stumping energetically around the country, he managed to get 33 out of the 34 required states to pass resolutions calling for a convention. However, Dirksen died in 1969 still one state short of his goal, and in the following years, several legislatures - now reformed in compliance with the SC rulings - repealed their resolutions. The issue was off the agenda outside of niche conservative circles.
What if Dirksen had lived a little longer, or been able to persuade one more state to pass the resolution before he died?
The Article V convention is a murky piece of law; I've said before that it feels like a spooky Chekhov's Gun waiting there in the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer but I believe there's currently no consensus as to whether such a convention would be limited to considering the amendment for which it was called. Under some interpretations, the convention would just "open the Constitution" and could pass any amendments it liked. IIRC people at the time were worried about that possibility, and Sam Ervin, believing that Dirksen's campaign would succeed, prepared a bill that would restrict the convention to discussing the only the district issue. In any case, there would almost certainly be lawsuits and constitutional wrangling.
So what would a Constitutional Convention in 1969 or 1970 look like?
The convention's delegates would be chosen by state legislatures. By this point, however, most of those had already been reformed under the rulings in Reynolds and Wesberry, so, ironically, they would probably have rejected Dirksen's amendment. So I see a few possibilities here:
1. Ervin and co. are successful in confining debate to the Dirksen amendment only. The convention rejects the amendment, and things proceed as OTL. This could still be interesting as a short story or vignette in an "in spite of a nail" vein, either showing how the author believes a contemporary convention would proceed, or following its subtle impacts on politics later on.
2. Debate is limited to the Dirksen amendment. It passes but is not ratified by the states.
3. Debate is limited to the Dirksen amendment, which is passed and then ratified. Unlikely, seeing as the state legislatures had been reformed by this point, but if it did happen somehow this could also be an interesting scenario - it would certainly result in a more conservative America in the medium term but could embolden future campaigns for amendments.
4. Debate is unlimited and the Constitution is opened. This is the most exciting scenario. What kind of amendments would a runaway convention propose in 1969? Lowering the voting age to 18 would certainly be on the table, as would the ERA and the abolition of the Electoral College (which was much discussed after the close 1968 election IOTL). The peace movement would probably be pushing for sharp limits on war powers - perhaps even a revival of the Ludlow Amendment.
