[QUOTE=Quercus]
That, I think is far less clearly true. For instance, the U.S. Constitution has generally (at least since 1865) been held to forbid states from withdrawing from the U.S.
[/quote]
1868, I think. And we’re really out in the ether here, but I wasn’t talking about secession but dissolution and absorption by neighboring states. 
Let’s get back to the question in the OP and my objection to Polycarp’s statement in post #3.
My statement was: “With respect, while the state itself must have a republican form of government, the city is not the state. So the analysis is faulty.”
Let’s examine this to see what it is NOT, which may help us out.
It is NOT a statement that a city is not a political subdivision of a state. It is, as are school districts, counties, water districts, mosquito abatement districts, etc. Such subdivisions are subject to the provisions of the U. S. Constitution which regulate “state” action, just as the states themselves are. But a subdivision of a state is not a state.
It is NOT a statement that there are not aspects of city and or county government that are dealt with under similar concepts as state government itself. For example, the equal protection clause can be applied to a scheme for electing representatives to a city government just as it can to a scheme for electing representatives to a state legislature. But just because there are similar aspects, this itself does not make the assertion that the guarantee of Article IV regarding republican forms of government is applicable to subdivisions of a state.
In short, what I was doing was challenging Polycarp’s rather over-general assertion. To make the assertion contained in his post, it is imperative to establish that the rules applicable under Article IV to a state itself are applicable to its subdivisions, which he had not done. Simply asserting that they are “legal creations of the state” is not enough. After all, there are many “legal creations of the state” whose members are not elected at all; the assertion in Polycarp’s post would appear to mandate that, for example, a Department of Education could not have a governing board that wasn’t directly elected by the people. The same would be true, for example, of the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the members of which are not elected at all, and which exercise a considerable power over the lives of workers in the state.
In a subsequent post, I will address the question of the OP more fully. I will, however, suggest that the rather heated debate over what cities are and aren’t misses the point of my post, for which we can, perhaps, thank ascenray, who needlessly, perhaps, blurred the lines with a somewhat less than detailed assertion that “[a]s arms of the state government, they are subject to the same constitutional provisions as state governments.” Without debating the actual point contained in that statement, I will simply point out that it doesn’t address the language of the Constitution, which I will reiterate, since everyone seems willing to ignore it:
[QUOTE=stuyguy]
IACNAL (I am certainly not a lawyer), but the Supreme Court-upheld concept of “one person, one vote” may come into play in this discussion.
For decades, NYC’s legislative authority was vested in a body called the Board of Estimate. Each of the city’s five boroughs had equal (or near-equal) representation on the BOE. There were vast differences in population from borough to borough, so residents in the lesser-populated boroughs had, in effect, a disproportionate amount of influence over citywide matters.
In the 1970s or 80s omeone challenged the legality of the arrangement, and, IIRC, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that NYC had to restructure its government because the old arrangement violated the “one person, one vote” rule. In 1989, NYC got a new charter that gave legislative authority to a population-representative City Council.
[/QUOTE]
I will take a moment to address this post, because it is one of the few really cogent posts addressing the issue.
The case in question is Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989). But it is important to understand what the basis for the holding of the case was. The reason the composition of the Board of Estimate was struck down was because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, it violated the determination of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) that, IF you are allowing a vote for a representative or official in state government, then you cannot dilute the votes of some at the increase in the votes of others impermissibly. The so called “one person, one vote” concept was applied to cities, counties, etc. in Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 481 (1968).
So, in summary, it is not required that a subdivision of the state have a representative governing body, but it is required that, IF it does have a representative body, you cannot apportion the representatives on the body in such a way that the voting powers of an individual or group of individuals are impermissibly diluted.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I will take a moment to address this post, because it is one of the few really cogent posts addressing the issue.
Specifically, it violated the determination of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) that, IF you are allowing a vote for a representative or official in state government, then you cannot dilute the votes of some at the increase in the votes of others impermissibly.
[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of when I had to study Brown v Board of Education for my master’s. A state is not required to provide a free public education, but if it chooses to (and every state does) . . .
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I will take a moment to address this post, because it is one of the few really cogent posts addressing the issue.
[/quote]
Thank God for the smiley. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Chronos]
This actually happened for some state-level position (I think it was a legislator) in Montana, some years back. But I still prefer Nevada’s method: Allegedly, in the event of a tie, the candidates play a single round of five-card stud. Same effect as a coin flip, but more style, I think.
[/QUOTE]
I believe this here is a seperate instance of going to cards after a tied vote:
I also saw footage on the news, that two canidates simply drew a high card for office, in yet another third unrealted race.
So in short, I think that after the votes come out, and there is a legitimate tie, then democratic methods are no longer used.
Los Angeles County, California has the curious case of the City of Vernon, which is an incorporated city and has been one for quite a while. Its population is always around 90 and it consists of a few families that live in housing subsidized by the cities.
It has been run for much of the past 50 years or so as a hereditary monarchy. One family controls the City Council and when it comes time for an election, the City Council states that there are no opposition candidates and the incumbents are all “re-elected.” Last year, a group of people tried to move into the City and try to get enough new voters in the city to force an election and change the balance of power on the City Council.
The entrenched powers of Vernon tried to run the newcomers out of town (most of whom were followers of a disgraced government official in nearby South Gate), but an election was held. But the ballots have never been counted because the Vernon City Clerk (part of the old guard) says they don’t need to be.
I don’t know if there’s a good side in this whole matter, but it’s just plain weird.
[QUOTE=BobT]
Los Angeles County, California has the curious case of the City of Vernon, which is an incorporated city and has been one for quite a while. Its population is always around 90 and it consists of a few families that live in housing subsidized by the cities.
It has been run for much of the past 50 years or so as a hereditary monarchy. One family controls the City Council and when it comes time for an election, the City Council states that there are no opposition candidates and the incumbents are all “re-elected.” Last year, a group of people tried to move into the City and try to get enough new voters in the city to force an election and change the balance of power on the City Council.
The entrenched powers of Vernon tried to run the newcomers out of town (most of whom were followers of a disgraced government official in nearby South Gate), but an election was held. But the ballots have never been counted because the Vernon City Clerk (part of the old guard) says they don’t need to be.
I don’t know if there’s a good side in this whole matter, but it’s just plain weird.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the ballots were counted, and the incumbents were retained in the official results. See the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, the incumbents are now under investigation for a variety of corruption charges.
Still, the city’s charter does require elections; it’s the law in California that uncontested elections do not need to be held, which is how the whole scheme is legal (when no one is attempting a hostile takeover 
).
As to the OP, here in VA governing bodies must be elected by the qualified voters of such county, city, or town in the manner provided by law (Article VII, Sect. 5 of the VA Constitution).
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
The case in question is Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989). . . . So, in summary, it is not required that a subdivision of the state have a representative governing body, but it is required that, IF it does have a representative body, you cannot apportion the representatives on the body in such a way that the voting powers of an individual or group of individuals are impermissibly diluted.
[/QUOTE]
One reason that the Board of Estimate hung around so long was that it shared power with the City’s legislature, the City Council. The decision linked above goes generally into the what the distinctions are, but basically the Board of Estimate had a large measure of financial control, and the City Council handled general legislative matters. Before the decision, it wasn’t clear that a financial control board of elected officials (though the Board of Estimate was such a board on steroids) was subject to the one person, one vote rules in the same way that an ordinary legislature would be.
In a similar action to the elimination of the Board of Estimate, several of the suburban counties in New York had to change their form of governance in the 1990s. Thier legislative functions previously were in a Board of Supervisors, which consisted of the town supervisors of the towns making up the county (which varied in population). This form of government was held unconstitutional, and replaced with an elected legislature with equal-population districts.