Replies

I believe a logical case could be made for it:

Since California is the 6th largest economy in the world and Nevada is one of the fastest growing states, having a smaller 9th District is reasonable since the current one is unwieldy and overworked. Also, California and Nevada face a lot of the same issues that will come up in the future.

Putting Arizona into the 10th District and Wyoming, Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Alaska into the new 12th District makes sense too. Arizona has more issues in common with states like New Mexico, issues such as illegal immigration and border control, so it makes sense from an efficiency point of view to have Arizona in the 10th District. Modern society today tends toward specialization in all fields, so why shouldn't government also modernize and tend toward some slight and reasonable specialization?

Same idea for the new 12th District; those states have lots of Natural Resources and other common issues, so it would make sense to have one court district for the new 12th District.

The main problem, IMHO, is one of marketing and creating a populist type of message. Unfortunately, this issue got framed as a way to "get back" at the 9th Circuit Court for its history left leaning rulings. Framing the issue in such a way so as to reduce the emotional content of the issue and present it as a "common sense" solution would have a better chance of success.

Whoa, there, Kalifornian.

I live in Nevada, and we don't want to be part of a 9th Circuit that includes that madhouse insane asylum on the Left Coast.

Count us in as part of the new 12th Circuit.

Sauron

Elected Republicans are inept at framing messages when it comes to undertaking reforms. We learned a lot about that this year in CA. Nationally just look at how Bush's Social Security reform flopped.