Sen. John Ensign's idea to divide the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into thirds is a good one, but for only half the reasons he cited this week.
The right reason to do so: The court is simply overloaded with too many cases covering too large a geographical area.
The wrong reason: The court's rulings are too liberal.
The 9th Circuit Court, based in San Francisco, has jurisdiction over appeals from nine Western states. It has more than twice as many judges as most of the other 11 appeals circuits, and it's still generally overwhelmed by sheer volume.
Ensign's idea - which he introduced in Congress as legislation - is to carve from the 9th two other circuits, leaving only California, Guam, Hawaii and the Northern Marianas Islands for the San Francisco court.
He would base another circuit in Las Vegas to serve Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. The third circuit would cover Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
The groupings make sense, as does the concept that the courts would be able to work more efficiently under such an organization.
Where Ensign will run into trouble is any attempt to predetermine the political bias of the court's makeup. Of course, there's always some political gamesmanship going on in the appointment of federal judges. But saying that's one of the purposes for reconfiguration is a sure way to kill the idea, no matter which party is in power.
No, we don't like some of the high-profile decisions of the 9th Circuit Court, such as the ruling on "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Do we want all our federal judges and circuit courts to think alike? No. That would be worse.
And we have a hard time finding any evidence to support speculation the 9th Circuit Court rules liberally because it is in San Francisco. What tenor of rulings would we predict from a Las Vegas court - glitzy and immoral?
Ensign should push for the realignment. It's the kind of big project we like to see a senator undertake. Push it for the right reasons, though, and accept the consequences however they may fall.
