I raised this question months ago in a senate meeting and were dismissed. That reaction reveals how deeply the centralized model is still assumed to be normal — even by people who claim to understand constitutions and legislation.
This is not a small detail. It determines whether NCS will actually restore meaningful local self-governance or simply create a slightly more localized version of the same centralized system.
What is Dillon’s Rule?
One of the main reasons counties in most American states have limited power is a legal doctrine called Dillon’s Rule.
Dillon’s Rule (established in 1868) says that counties and cities are “creatures of the state.”
This means:
- Counties and cities only have the powers that the state government explicitly gives them.
- If the state has not clearly granted a power, then the county or city does not have it.
- The state can take away or override local authority whenever it chooses through legislation.
In practice, this means most counties operate with very limited independence. Even when they want to solve local problems in ways that make sense for their own land and residents, they often cannot act without state permission. This is one of the main legal tools that allows state governments (often dominated by large urban areas) to control or override county decisions.
This is very different from true sovereignty. Under Dillon’s Rule, counties are treated more like administrative arms of the state rather than self-governing bodies with protected rights.
Did Counties Historically Write Their Own Rules?
Yes — especially in colonial America.
In colonial Virginia, for example, county courts had significant authority to create and enforce local rules and regulations. They handled local taxation, road maintenance, business licensing, poor relief, and militia organization with a high degree of independence. While they operated under broader colonial law, they had real power to govern local affairs according to local conditions.
Over time, after the American Revolution and the creation of the states, this local authority was gradually reduced as power centralized in state governments.
Today, because of Dillon’s Rule and similar thinking, most counties have far less independent authority than they once did.
The Problem with Counties Primarily Writing State Bills
When county senators and assemblies spend most of their time writing and passing statewide bills, counties remain structurally subordinate to the state. They function more as representatives inside a centralized system than as sovereign governing bodies with authority over their own territory.
Reversing Reynolds v. Sims would improve representation for rural counties. That is a positive step. However, if the main activity of these county senators is still creating state-level laws, then the fundamental power relationship does not change. Counties gain a louder voice at the central table, but they are still operating within someone else’s centralized structure.
True sovereignty is not mainly about having better representation in a state legislature.
It is about having real, protected authority over your own land, resources, and local governance.
Historical Warning: Virginia’s Path from Strong Counties to Division
Virginia provides a clear historical example of what can happen when counties gradually lose real sovereignty.
In colonial Virginia, counties were powerful. County courts handled most local governance with significant independence.
Over time, however, power centralized in Richmond. Eastern planters came to dominate state politics, while western counties felt politically marginalized, overtaxed relative to their interests, and ignored when it came to state spending.
These long-standing grievances eventually contributed to western counties breaking away during the Civil War to form the new state of West Virginia in 1863. This split was not caused only by the war — it was the result of decades of western counties losing meaningful voice and control within Virginia.
This is a warning for NCS.
If we create a system where counties have representation but limited real authority, and where the state retains broad power to override local decisions, we risk planting the seeds of similar long-term resentment and division.
A Solid Constitution Reduces the Need for Endless State Bills
One of the clearest signs of a weak foundation is the constant need to pass new laws and amendments to fix recurring problems. California currently has over 900 constitutional amendments and passes hundreds of bills every year. This is not a sign of healthy governance — it is a symptom of a weak and overly centralized structure.
If NCS builds a strong constitution with clear limits on state power and strong protections for county sovereignty, there should be far less need for constant statewide legislation. The constitution itself becomes the main safeguard.
When we build on a half-rotten or unclear foundation, we end up recreating the same pattern we are trying to escape.
Iron Sharpens Iron Challenge
Reversing Reynolds v. Sims and giving counties better representation is worthwhile. But it is not the same as establishing real county sovereignty.
If county senators and assemblies are primarily writing state bills, then counties remain parts of a centralized system. This approach may feel practical in the short term, but it builds on a weak foundation.
Over time, the same patterns of centralized control and long-term regional resentment can reappear.
We have an opportunity to do something more deliberate. We can create a constitution that clearly protects county sovereignty, limits the scope of state legislation, and positions the State primarily as a protector of rights rather than the main source of new laws.
This requires us to think beyond representation and focus on actual sovereignty — and to be honest about whether we are willing to build a strong foundation from the beginning.
Iron sharpens iron. Let us build on a foundation that is strong enough to last.