Chemerinsky says "Don't split up the 9th Circuit"

In today's DJ Dean Chemerinsky -- calling it a bad idea that won't go away -- presents Don't Split Up The 9th Circuit, The 9th Circuit is functioning fine. Dividing it will cause a host of additional costs and new problems. Regarding the CIRCUIT Act, he writes:

One bill that is very troubling would divide the 9th Circuit into four divisions: Northern (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Eastern Washington and Western Washington); Middle (Eastern California, Northern California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada and the Northern Mariana Islands), Southern (Arizona, Central California and Northern California), and Circuit (appeals of agency actions, from the Tax Court, appeals from another division if two or more divisions have made a final division, or if another division has denied en banc review). The Circuit division would be comprised of five judges (the chief judge and one chosen randomly from each of the divisions).This is a terrible proposal. Splitting California among different divisions is a recipe for disaster. The law will be different within California if the courts disagree. One division might strike down a state statute, while the other upheld it. A key reason why splitting the 9th Circuit never has happened is that there is not a sensible way to do it. Dividing California among different divisions makes no sense, but California is so large that there is no other way realistically to split the 9th Circuit.Also, this would create a new level of review, with a district court decision being reviewed by the division of the 9th Circuit, then by the judges en banc within that division, and then by the Circuit division. The current en banc review by 11 judges would be replaced by review by five judges. Adding another level of appellate review is unnecessary and wasteful for the parties and the court.