Rural America might be able to free itself from the urban socialism, dominating many states, with a Supreme Court ruling reversing Reynolds v. Sims. However, such a “victory” would likely order one of two remedies:
1. Each county in every state must be represented by a state senator, which would probably just create a political standoff between urban-controlled state houses and rural-controlled state senates, so this would “lock in” all of the political damage of the last 50-plus years and leave little opportunity for positive change in rural America.
2. States would once again be allowed to structure their senates as they see fit. However, why would states where urban interests are already in control make any changes? Neither outcome would be worth the effort.
Clearly, the preferred solution is to create a new “rural state” within an existing state, as allowed under Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution. A new state wouldn’t be controlled by the existing state’s urban centers. But why would such an existing state’s legislature grant a new “rural state” its freedom? What’s their incentive to give up control of the entire existing state?
Even if a state legislature were to agree to the formation of a new state within its boundaries, why would Congress allow it? Any new “rural state” will receive two U.S. senators and “rural senators” will be “conservative.”
The people who run this country certainly don’t want more “conservative” senators, so the only real opportunity for rural America to free itself from urban socialism may be through the “sanctuary county” movement. Many counties have already begun liberating themselves from oppressive state and federal laws by simply nullifying those laws in their county.
The “independence” that sanctuary counties gain from their state, and the federal government, is achieved just one issue at a time, but it’s a good place to start; and it has already been successful in several states.
In Illinois, 96 out of its 102 counties are in some stage of the process of nullifying new firearms laws created in its Chicago-controlled state capital, which means that most of the state could easily agree to form a regional coalition to govern “rural Illinois.” Counties in at least eight other states are also part of the sanctuary county movement and have taken similar steps.
Sanctuary counties seem to be the ideal grassroots method to form independent regional coalitions to govern the rural areas of many states. The advantage of this process is that it does “not” require the permission of state legislatures or Congress as does the Article IV, Section III method. There will certainly be resistance to “rural independence” in state capitals, but most state governments are so preoccupied with the problems created by their socialist programs, that they don’t have the resources to “go to war” with their rural counties.
Eventually, as such rural regional coalitions gain strength, they could negotiate with their urban centers for permanent independence.