An overwhelming majority on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supports keeping the large appellate circuit intact, and there seems no good reason to argue with them.

Of course, assorted conservative lawmakers, with Nevada's Republican Sen. John Ensign in the lead, are arguing the opposite, and forcefully. They want to carve off Hawai'i, California and the Pacific territories into a new circuit separate from seven other Western states.

The argument they make is that the large caseload and geographic spread make the appeals court too unwieldy to operate efficiently. But the solution they propose would solve neither of those problems, and would add additional administrative disruption and expense.

Critics of the plan acknowledge that the court is overwhelmed, but correctly point out that the more direct solution would be to hire more judges. But Republicans in Congress have stipulated they won't authorize adding judges unless they get their way in slicing the court in two.

Those pushing for the split deny accusations that the primary agenda is political: Conservatives have long and loudly protested the liberal bent of several 9th Circuit decisions. But those closest to the issue have their doubts. "You'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to say this has nothing to do with politics," said Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee to the 9th Circuit and a vocal opponent of the split.

If the GOP leadership hopes to convince anyone that politics is not the issue, the lame-duck Senate should not push through this ill-advised reform this session. For starters, we can't afford it. The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the cost of new facilities and staff at $95 million, with an annual outlay of up to $15 million to operate the new circuit.

And the 9th Circuit has already pioneered alternative solutions to the caseload problem — including mediators, a bankruptcy appellate panel and other reforms — that make much more sense.