For those who don't know why I ask, A4S4 of the Constitution declares, in relevant part, that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government[.]" Now obviously the meaning of the final phrase is key; and while the document does not define it, common sense dictates the elimination of some possibilities. Even by a unanimous vote, CA may not, e.g., declare Moonbeam King, Dictator for Life or whatever. But surely we can get closer to the prevailing understanding of the term circa 1787. I submit this, from Madison's Notes: Docr. FRANKLIN. It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. Now I don't know a lot about the goings on in CA, but I'm definitely getting the impression that increasingly, the people are not in charge - assuming "the people" is limited to those legally residing within the state's borders, from whom I'm now soliciting commentary as to whether federal intervention under A4S4 is warranted.