Drat! I thought I was on to something

That post about the state of California having a right to counsel related to the this amendment in the Bill of Rights

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Ooops!  This is a right to counsel for criminal cases.  This wasn't a criminal case, so that's out the window.  Yet, if an individual who is accused of a crime has a right to representation, why can't the people of California be represented?  Although that is not in the Bill of Rights per se, it would surely seem to be a gigantic hole in the law, which the governor of California just waltzed right on through.

If the people's representatives won't represent them, who can speak for them?  Should the Court have said that the people have no right to representation in the Court just because their own representatives won't do that which they swore to do?