Close to Home: Revisiting the other First Amendment

Here's a seemingly simple question: How many amendments were in the original Bill of Rights? “Original” is the key here, because the correct answer is 12, not 10.

Among the proposed amendments, the first and second had nothing to with free speech or gun ownership. Each fell one state short of ratification by the necessary three-fourths of state legislatures.

The second eventually became the 27th and most recently passed amendment, ratified in 1992. It requires an election to occur before any congressionally approved pay raise for senators and House members goes into effect. Over 200 years to resolve that; go figure.

The original first amendment addressed concerns about adequate representation. It required that the House add one seat for every 50,000 increase in the country's population once it reached a certain size.

Depending upon interpretation, this proposed amendment would increase the size of the House from 435 to at least 6,000 members - a number high enough to scare off most Americans.

Yet there are compelling reasons for, at least, considering a more limited test of the founders' unfinished vision:

- House districts now average about 750,000 residents. Such super-sized districts greatly increase the cost of running for office and the need for mass-market campaigning tools. A district with 50,000 can usually be walked. Imagine voters and candidates actually getting to know one another.

- Smaller districts would encourage more candidates to run for office by reducing the time, effort and burden of constant fundraising needed to reach so many voters.

- Voters could more easily elect lawmakers who look more like those they represent. Though more diverse after the 2018 elections, Congress remains much wealthier, whiter, older and more male than its constituents. City councils with district elections often produce more diverse representation. Smaller House districts should yield similar results.

- It could level the field for independent candidates. Though many voters identify as political independents, few get elected that way. Smaller districts and lower campaign costs should lessen the organizational and financial dependence on political parties, making it easier for independent candidates to get on the ballot and run more competitively.

A significantly larger, more diverse House also should provide a stronger check and balance to a Senate dominated by even wealthier members.

Few today would consider buying a Revolutionary-era home that hasn't been remodeled. A larger House would be a great opportunity to incorporate modern technology into our 1700s era political system. Think big here.

First, a lot of congressional business can be moved online and conducted more inclusively there. Online meetings and webcasts are routine today. Let's use connectivity to get the public more engaged and involved in public decision-making.

Our relatively small national legislature, meeting mostly in one place, makes members prime targets for special interest influence. A much larger, diverse body whose members spent more time in their districts would be considerably harder to influence.

So how can we determine if this so-far unfulfilled vision of the founders might be practical today?

Though avoiding Congress and seeking approval from 30 more state legislatures is tempting, the thought of 6,000 or more House members is too scary for most Americans.

Experimenting first with a state or two probably makes more sense. The trailblazers would need to have an initiative process since current legislators would likely be reluctant to dilute their own power.

California might be a good early testing ground. Our 40 state senators represent nearly a million residents each, and our 80 state Assembly members almost half a million. How can 120 lawmakers adequately represent the interests of nearly 40 million people?

Could this old amendment still be ratified? Yes, that became settled law with the passage of the 27th Amendment after its long dormant period. Early constitutional amendments had no deadline for state ratification.

Convincing voters that creating more legislators, when many dislike the ones we have, would be a difficult task. There's definitely an “eat your broccoli” element here.

The dysfunction of our political system has reached such levels that it is time to consider and debate revolutionary ideas.

Though no fans of direct democracy for the federal government, the founders nonetheless gave states the power to use initiatives, referendum, recalls and similar tools as they saw fit.

It would be ironic if the founders' federalist impulses were combined with those tools to facilitate states' rights to pass the founder's last remaining proposed constitutional revision.

So come all ye Federalists and Anti-Federalists, lay down your opinions and raise high your beer steins - you were both right!

Richard Hertz is a professional public opinion pollster who teaches American politics at Sonoma State University.

You can send a letter to the editor at letters@pressdemocrat.com.