Re "Six Californias measure would create the nation's richest and poorest states" (Editorials, April 12): I believe rural counties of some states, including ours, desire to secede because they believe their interests are not properly considered by their respective legislatures.
Perhaps that would not be the case if the Supreme Court, in 1964, had not overturned the states' practice of following the federal legislative system resulting from the Connecticut Compromise. Until 1964, each California county was represented by two senators, while equally populated districts were represented in the Assembly. This was a balanced system that provided rural and urban counties the opportunity to compromise on issues.
Today, California's legislation is skewed in favor of heavily populated geographical areas. Unless the Supreme Court were to overturn the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims case, what other recourse can rural counties pursue?
-- John Kosman, Fair Oaks