Wyoming doesn't suffer from (one-man-one-vote) directly, but it is just as harmed as states like Oregon, Illinois, etc. that what to split off from their state. They miss the true reason for this effort, Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 84 S.Ct. 1362 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) which violates Const., Art. IV, § 4.
The reason is given by the late senator, "Illinois Senator Dirksen was a firm opponent of the doctrine of One Man, One Vote on the grounds that large cities (such as Chicago in Dirksen's home state of Illinois) could render rural residents of a state powerless in their state governments; after the Warren Court imposed one-man-one-vote on all state legislative houses in Reynolds v. Sims, he led an effort to convene an Article V convention for an amendment to the Constitution that would allow for legislative districts of unequal population." [https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Everett_Dirksen]
Further as stated by the descent that the 14th Amendment was miss applied and that no state at the time would prove this amendment if the Warren court decision was part of it. NO STATE WOULD GIVE UP CONTROL of how it elected State Senators.
Federalist papers 39, 51, and 62 define congress which is the main feature of the republic form of government. Trench Coxe wrote about it when involved in the conventions to approve the Constitution. But like slavery colony and then state senators didn't strictly follow.
There are two approaches to bringing this to SCOTUS. Suit against a state for violating Art. IV, § 4. Reynolds v Sims. Standing using the same argument of denied right of citizens. Likely a few state with conflicting decisions are needed. Or pass a bill returning to the method of electing you state senators prior to being forced to change, sighting Art. IV, § 4. The outcry from Democrat states like Oregon, California, Illinois, etc. will get SCOTUS' attention.
Wyoming doesn't suffer from (one-man-one-vote) directly, but it is just as harmed as states like Oregon, Illinois, etc. that what to split off from their state. They miss the true reason for this effort, Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 84 S.Ct. 1362 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) which violates Const., Art. IV, § 4.
The reason is given by the late senator, "Illinois Senator Dirksen was a firm opponent of the doctrine of One Man, One Vote on the grounds that large cities (such as Chicago in Dirksen's home state of Illinois) could render rural residents of a state powerless in their state governments; after the Warren Court imposed one-man-one-vote on all state legislative houses in Reynolds v. Sims, he led an effort to convene an Article V convention for an amendment to the Constitution that would allow for legislative districts of unequal population." [https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Everett_Dirksen]
Further as stated by the descent that the 14th Amendment was miss applied and that no state at the time would prove this amendment if the Warren court decision was part of it. NO STATE WOULD GIVE UP CONTROL of how it elected State Senators.
Federalist papers 39, 51, and 62 define congress which is the main feature of the republic form of government. Trench Coxe wrote about it when involved in the conventions to approve the Constitution. But like slavery colony and then state senators didn't strictly follow.
There are two approaches to bringing this to SCOTUS. Suit against a state for violating Art. IV, § 4. Reynolds v Sims. Standing using the same argument of denied right of citizens. Likely a few state with conflicting decisions are needed. Or pass a bill returning to the method of electing you state senators prior to being forced to change, sighting Art. IV, § 4. The outcry from Democrat states like Oregon, California, Illinois, etc. will get SCOTUS' attention.
Sincerely, Thomas Sutrina