[Sivad]

My friend tells me more directly
relevant is Reynolds v Sims (1964).

With the GOP owning most state houses,
governorships, plus the House and Senate
it doesn’t have to be a pipe dream. However,
just because there is a constitutional change giving
the states the authority to decide how to
address their own constitutions it doesn’t
mean California will change anything. With
the illegal alien situation all conservatives
everywhere might want to take note.

[Rockingham]

True enough as to the relative importance of Reynolds v. Sims for reapportionment. Baker v. Carr though was essential and opened the door to Reynolds by retreating from the political question doctrine in the context of redistricting.

In law school, the two cases are usually taught together and the point is made that the Supreme Court often tosses their hat into the room in one case before leaping through the door with a more sweeping ruling in an ensuing case.

The problem with trying to amend the constitution to eliminate one man, one vote is that it is now deeply entrenched in the structure and expectations of American politics. There are more urgent priorities for constitutional change and these naturally have a higher claim on conservatism's limited and insecure stock of political capital.