*1 аl. v. Alice K. Leopold, Jr., J. et Cahill, William Secretary of Connecticut State Wynne, Js. O’Sullivan, J., C. Baldwin, Inglis, Quinlan *2 Argued February 15, December 1953 decided Gordon, William Jr., S. whom were William with Braden, P. D. Alex- Aspell and, George on the brief, Kinsella, ander H. Frederick A. James Goldfarb, Parskey, plaintiffs. D. Neusner and Leo for the attorney general, L. Beers, William with whom Sprague, deputy attorney general, D. Mansfield for the defendant. regular At its session in 1953 J. O’Sullivan, pur-
General enacted Public Act No. 32, porting to redistrict the senatorial districts of the Sup. §§ state. Statutes, Cum. 399c, *3 question litigation The 400c. ultimate in this is thirty-first whether that enactment violative of the amendment to the state constitution. The amend- adopted in ment, the form in which was it in 1901and printed in which it still in in remains, full the footnote.2 ITrom Wednesday Section 1. and after the after “[Amend. XXXI] Monday first January, 1905, of composed the senate shall be of twenty-four thirty-six not less than members, and not than more who shall bo at meetings biennially elected the electors’ held on the Tues day Monday after the first in November. general assembly “Sec. The which shall be held on the Wednes- day Monday after the first January, of shall divide the state districts, into senatorial as provided; hereinafter number of such districts twenty-four shall not less thirty-six, be than nor more than only and each district shall elect one al- senator. districts shall ways be composed contiguous territory, forming of and in re- them gard shall population districts, had to in be the several that the same may nearly equal be as possible as under the limitations of this part county amendment. Neither the whole or a of joined one shall be part county to the whole or a district, another to form a and no town shall divided, purpose be forming unless more than wholly one district town, eounty within such and each shall have one least districts, senator. The when established as pro- hereinafter
vided, shall general continue same until assembly the session of the States, next after of the next census of the United general assembly power same, shall to have alter the if found necessary preserve proper equality to a population in each dis- trict, but in principles recited; accordance with the above after upon facts reservation, is here
The case may stipulated by parties summarized 1951 convened The General follows: During January year. took session, altering dis- the state senatorial aimed at no action in either was introduced No bill tricts. according to time, house. At that thirty-six population sena- census, thirty-first from 24,309 districts varied torial up act, the 1953 fifth. As set 122,931 ranges from 40,835 of the districts in the sixth. to 73,726 census of the decennial United The seventeenth April The enumera- as of 1,1950. taken was States April 2 so far as Connecticut and, tion started on year. by May 1 of that was finished concerned, whom had each of enumerators, It was made making assigned addition small district. every personal the enumera- household, canvass accommoda- оther transient hotels and tors visited respective April 11 districts on within their tions reports prepared for each individual *4 day person usual in the districts on that whose found Upon completing their was elsewhere. residence enumerators delivered their returns to work, where tabulations were carried out. This offices, field by completed the middle June, field count figures shortly thereafter for all Connecti- and published by released to and were cut towns by figures press. for Later all cities wards on, similarly pub- voting were released and districts and lished. which, altered, not be nor the districts shall number of senators said general assembly next altered, except at session after States,
completion of census of the United and then in accord- provided.” principles hereinbefore ance with About June the returns for the entire state were the census in shipped to office Phila- delphia. These were the individual accompanied reports transients in found the state on April 11, By a method explained footnote,3 tabula- tion of the data on appearing returns and reports was commenced in in The Philadelphia July. re- sults were recorded on so-called M.C.D. (minor civil division) sheets.4 As a of this tabula- consequence stipulation part: July The in of facts reads “In 1950 a ‘hand count’ was commenced in Philadelphia. Tabular known as sheets ‘minor eivil division or as sheets’ sheets’ were used work ‘M.C.D. sheets for this count. The hand count follows: wаs conducted as district, “A. The totals each for enumeration obtained the field eount, were inserted in Column 8 of the M.C.D.sheets. “B. The reports individual census were sorted and allocated to
states and then to It was ascertained enumeration districts. then persons reports already listed had on individual census been included on proper the schedules in their enumeration districts households; a result of information obtained from others in their reports the individual persons for these then discarded. were persons reports The names of had not individual census who proper enumerated in their enumeration districts were then written in on the schedules of such enumeration districts. total number The so names added in each in enumeration district was then inserted Column 9 of the M.C.D. sheets. The schedules, “C. names including on the those from added reports,
individual census then and for were counted the total each enumeration district was inserted Column of the M.C.D. sheets. figures The so figures inserted Column were the final for the respective enumeration districts. figures “D. Enumeration district were then subtotalled enumera- tion groupings incorporated district for unincorporated places, and voting wards, subdivisions, figures districts and other and final for these subdivisions were inserted in Column 3 of the M.C.D. sheets. figures figures by “E. then subtotalled, Subdivision were minor civil were divisions obtained and inserted Column 3. These figures were the final for Connecticut towns. figures figures “F. The for the wore final towns totalled for eight thе counties were obtained. counties *5 figure state, 2,007,280, were totalled and final for was ob- tained.” 4 stipulation part: Connecticut, The “In of facts reads the 169 recording final of the and the the determination
tion, and figures and for wards towns for all Connecticut prior completed voting in the cities were districts to October 30,1950. just the director mentioned, the date
On secretary state- of commerce census sent to showing population of the District the total ment On Novem- in the union. each state and of Columbia presi- to the information transmitted ber this secretary press by to the and released dent particularly “I am comment: with the commerce accuracy speed pleased with which and with the completed. count have been and final enumeration job earlier a month about Bureau finished the The than in 1940.” act authorizes the current census 18 of
Section copies much of so of the census to furnish director may requested population returns as by private indi- as well as local officials state or By § virtue 46 Stat. U.S.C. viduals. copies figures of provision, final certified this towns, Connecticut broken down to census, voting aat obtainable, were districts, and wards any 30, 1950, after time October cost of $20, G-eneral state officials Connecticut when convened. figures towns, Connecticut The final computed onthe and recorded M.C.D. had been which prior first released to October were sheets August press This 12,1951. releаse, voting city wards and did not cover terminology as 'minor civil divisions.’ in census are known towns single enumeration district. consist very towns smallest incorporated into enumeration districts are combined other towns cities, In the unincorporated places and other subdivisions. voting into wards and districts.” are combined enumeration districts *6 7 analysis Connecticut of the included an districts, heading population and rural of urban under the bureau classifications. On November preprint published pamphlet a of the census eventually to-be-compiled chapter of an volume of Among incorporated of other data census statistics. population figures preprint final were the city was wards, where a divided
counties, towns into wards. provision original constitutional for senatorial
districting was embodied in the second amendment,5 adopted in 1828. This amendment inwas substan- tially thirty-first, form as the same save During authorized fewer districts. Assembly the state was divided the General into senatorial districts. From 183.1until with exception required in 1903 express terms of the amendment, every changing act the territorial limits of a sena- year torial has been district enacted in the immedi- Assembly, The General which be holden on shall “[Amend. II] Wednesday May, of in year first one eight thousand hundred and twenty-nine, shall divide the into state of districts for choice Senators, and each, shall determine what number in shall be elected which eight, twenty-four districts shall not be less than nor more than always composed in number, and contiguous territory, shall be forming them, no town divided, shall nor part be shall the whole or joined county one part be to the whole or county, of another district; regard being form apportion had to in said forming districts, ment and in said county such manner that no shall have less than two The districts, established, Senators. when shall continue the same until the Assembly session the General next after States; next census United said power shall have the the same, necessary, alter if found preserve proper equality districts, respect between said to the number of therein, according inhabitants principles to above re cited; which, after said districts shall not altered, nor the number altered, except any Senators session of the General next after the of a States, the United and then only according- principles prescribed.” to the above
ately following year census, decennial During the *7 1941. 1921 and 1841, in is, 1881, Assembly period, first held in the each same General year has considered after a census except legislation 1891 and Assemblies of the legislation years in which such each the As- to the there were available General considered, preliminary figures sembly only issued charged taking In 1911 census. with official procured final cen- E. Baldwin Governor Simeon figures prior publication them submitted to and sus governors Assembly. of the to the General Several year holding have after census in the first office Assembly to of the General called the attention proper the statе it was to redistrict fact that it could that if it were not done then, have observed years. ten for another not be done have to the senatorial districts From 1903 changes made twice. In 1921 were been altered city in 1941 of New Haven, districts an the town was constituted additional of Greenwich stipulated be other facts need not district. Certain point subsequently will men- this but be recited at discussing law. tioned specific questions6 propounded this The nine parties agree, in- resolved, reservation can as the Assembly the 1951 Session of the General session of the “1. Was Assembly next after the of a the United census of General States, meaning within the of Section 2 of Article XXXI of the Constitution Connecticut? Amendments Assembly “2. the 1953 session of the General a session Was Assembly next after the of a of the United General meaning States, within the of Section 2 of Article XXXI of the Constitution of Connecticut? to the Amendments Assembly power of 1953 have “3. Did the General alter state senatorial districts? question affirmative, 3 is in dis- “4. If answer are the 1953, composed in Public No. Acts of as defined Act Public tricts following (1) three: the seventeenth to the Was completed, within the census of the States United thirty-first meaning to the amendment state opening regular ses- before constitution, January, sion the General 1951?
(2)
pre-
If it
did the
was,
enacting
from
clude the
General
redistricting legislation?
(3) If the
As-
sembly
power
of 1953 did in
have
fact
to redis-
redistrieting
did the
act of 1953
trict,
violate the
requirement
constitutional
that each senatorial dis-
composed
contiguous territory?
trict shall be
*8
begin a
We
discussion of the
of
first
these three
questions
observing
when the
that,
constitution
ality
legislative
of a
enactment
we
must
attacked,
every
make
reasonable
intendment
favor of its
validity. Northeastern Gas Transmission
v.Co. Col
Legat
lins, 138 Conn.
586, A.2d
v.
582,
87
Ador
139;
no,
ary 1955, will the state senatorial districts be as defined under Section 990 of Statutes, the General 1949, of or Bevision as defined under 32, Act Public No. Public Acts of 1953? “7. Prom Wednesday and after the Monday after the first of Janu- ary 1955, legal what will be the territorial limits of the senatorial of district which the town part? of is a Meriden “8. Prom after Wednesday Monday after first of Janu- ary 1955, legal will what be the territorial of limits the senatorial of part? district which town of Windsor is a Prom Wednesday “9. and after Monday after the first of Janu- ary 1955, legal will what be the territorial limits of the senatorial district which town of Beacon part?” Palls is a
10 permit obvious or blind to the must not be hand, we soothing in- into error lulled ourselves to be invаlidity presumption. If the mere fluence of a beyond doubt, a reasonable is evident the enactment nullify may duty, be, the task delicate as our 701, Windsor, 137 Conn. v. the statute. Gionfriddo 344, 85 Conn. Bradstreet, v. 266; 81 A.2d Beach 349, A. 1030. (§2) provides thirty-first they after have once been districts,
the senatorial except at a ses- be altered . . . “shall not established, assembly comple- general next after sion of the The initial tion of a census the United States.” naturally suggests language inquiry is: this phrase “the What is meant A the official enumeration of census”? census is population. Diction- Webster’s New International ary (2d Ed.); City Compton 2d Adams, Cal. v. City Huntington Cast, P.2d 745; v. ordinary par- Ind. N.E. 1025. 255, 258, 48 completion of a census refers to the time lance, the counting people when an official has finished. as used But, amendment, *9 phrase something the means more than that. The “census” ne- mentioned in amendment must of cessity showing figures be one which essen- are intelligent part tial for action on the of the Assembly. The mere enumeration of entire state, help without is of in no of re- more, enactment districting legislation. Assembly The other needs provided, data as it is to make the senatorial if, nearly equal possible, in districts as prescribed under the limitation in the amendment. A within the then, amendment, census, showing population figures one broken down into towns and and the counties, wards; census figures completed only been those have re- when public by official law leased to an authorized figures publication when to make or those are such Assembly. available for the use of the General determining for a census has This standard when completed accords common sense ful- with purpose phrase fils under discus- incorporated sion was into the amendment. That purpose not was establish time when redistricting senatorial is authorized but also to provide the General with sufficient data to pass legislation upon subject, if it desires to do appears so. The defendant this. concede his “[w]hether brief he states that or not completed was in 1950 in the sense word is used depends the 31st Amendment our Constitution upon whether there was available the information carry needed to out a of the Senate in this He state.” maintains, that such however, infor- mation not until available November 28, 1951, when the final results of the tabulation of Connecti- appeared cut printed counties, towns and wards in a booklet issued the director of the census. position spite
defendant takes this of the fact, readily which he concedes, that the identical infor- upon mation payment found the booklet was, any $20, available to Connecticut officials time after October and to 30,1950, the General January, when it convened in necessary
But this aside, it is not that the infor- published mation be in book form before becomes officially available. Indeed, there is even a not con- provision requiring stitutional to be fi- nal. greater While final tabulations tend to exact- *10 previously itude than computed, those there is no precision perfection. need for the The results of customarily by preliminary released counts happened are bar, in the case
census as bureau, sufficiently ample an As- data for accurate to afford intelligent man- sembly proceed in an to redistrict to provided down been broken have the counts ner, would wards. The situation into towns and counties, vastly to be districts different were senatorial requirement absolutely equal population. That in The to be found the amendment. is not equate as Assembly the districts is commanded provisions nearly possible. that view no county senator, at least one each shall have county town that no lines and district shall cross forming purpose of unless for the shall be divided wholly town, within such than district more one equality impossible. the dis- by 40,835 from 1953 runs tricts established the act of figures were If of the final the use 73,726. bring Assembly no about could before the range greater equality than shown requiring population just needlessness of noted, per- preliminary figures becomes final than rather fectly apparent. again, acceptance of the defendant’s
Then our completed, intend- that no within claim census the enu- until amendment, ment of the wards meration been tabulated towns has unhappy figures would us into the into “final” force holding which enacted that each General redistricting legislation prior in viola- to 1950 did so inеvitable, law. This conclusion would be tion of prelimi- every since such acted redistricting legisla- nary figures. if the Indeed, re- await the tion after the 1880 census had had to pamphlet of “final” form lease Assembly qualified act director, the first *11 13 final 1889, would have been that of because the figures officially of the 1880 were not census released until 1888. The framers of the constitutional amend- question undoubtedly ments would be the first to language disclaim a construction of their would lead to such an anomalous result.
Furthermore, this claim that the information upon must be in book form and must be based final contrary given tabulations is to the construction years phrase almost 125 to the “the of a legislative census” and executive branches of government. the state Those branches have uni- formly upon completed looked the census as when preliminary every count was on available, and, accomplished occasion when was or such action was taken far in considered, advanee of publication. many legis- final Of the instances of only lative construction referred to in footnote,7 one will be mentioned. The first after 7The enumerations of 1830 to 1870 inclusive were conducted United States marshals. The General 1831 Assemblies of and of redistrieting legislation; enacted 1851, those of and 1871 legislation rejected considered such but it. in each the five stances, only preliminary figures of the marshal were available to Assembly. figures 1830, 1850, The final for the 1840, censuses of published 1860 and 1870 were not until 1832, September 1, 1841, 1853, September, 1871, respectively. 1864 and 1880, Beginning taking out, the census carried is, by it still supervisors acting enumerators and field under the guidance of the director of the census bureau. The General As- 1921, semblies of 1931 and 1941 considered redis- tricting legislation, passed but were enactments the Assem- Only preliminary figures blies and 1941. were avail- figures able for the Assemblies of 1881 and 1901. The final published 1880 and 1900 census were in 1888 in 1901, and late re- spectively. figures Final were available to the upon obtaining them, upon request, Governor Baldwin’s from the published census bureau. These not were until late in 1911 and 1912. (the
adoption forerunner of the second amendment thirty-first) was The 1831 ses- taken first convened sion the General *12 Assembly year. Wednesday May in That that change passed a for first made an act which time into districts. of the state senatorial the division Assembly time as well as convened, When only passage re- of the the uncorrected act, until were available. It not of the census turns figures census were the final 1832 that Assembly published. were In the 1831 General first legislators undoubtedly many had who served resolu- 1828, of 1827 and when the in the sessions leading adoption of the second amend- to tions passed. phrase and If the “the debated ment were of a census” embodied second require to the final tabu- was intended amendment it con- returns, of the census is difficult to lations men or, either overlooked worse ceive those they ignored the constitutional mandate had still, helped Curtis, v. to frame. Water Commissioners practical A. A construc- 87 Conn. provision upon placed tion constitutional immedi- adoption consistently ately and re- after its legislative peatedly followed the executive century per- thereafter is branches over most In the case at it Ibid. furnishes- bar, suasive. meaning strong to evidence of be accorded the phrase. practice A of such while not ab- duration, great solutely binding, regard is entitled deter- mining the true construction of the constitutional provision. rel. Norwalk, State ex v. Corbett South point 257, 58 A. need not 264, 77 Conn. 759. The other be further labored than invite attention instances of branch some of construction, executive lawyers governors and for- who were eminent in the footnote.8 cited of tbis court, mer members meaning completed within the Tliat census was tlie supported is likewise jurisdictions. None of the cases other law of involves been called to wifieh our attention has phrase, “the of the identical construction available, figures May only preliminary were On when “A census of inaugural new in his address: Governor Ellsworth said figures were final completed.” The people of Connecticut has been published September 1,1841. not until available, preliminary were May 16, when On inaugural address, the census Jewell, in his stated Governor con- should 1870 “has taken” and that published figures were not redistrieting legislation. The final sider аdjourned. until after the had *13 figures January only preliminary were avail- 5, 1881, when On comple- able, Bigelow inaugural address: Governor said his “[T]he your bringfs] to . . of the enumeration the 1880 . tion census] [of subject of the dis- re-apportionment senatorial consideration published until 1888. The final returns were not tricts. . . .” attorneys general. rulings of To similar effect have been several 1911, Attorney Light January 23, advised Governor On General “[a]ny States . . . E. Baldwin that census the United Simeon may completed the last name has been enumerated said to be when be 1st, January I done before registered. am informed that this was present needed information is obtainable Gen- 1911. So the necessary has Assembly, is not to wait till the material eral and it effect, opinion published.” For an to like put been into book form and Attorney 6, 1940, by Pallotti, see given on November General Atty. Rep. 706. Conn. Gen. secretary 1950, Attorney Hadden advised the of state In General representa- “changes population, purpose of additional that Representatives under XV of the Amend- tion in the House of Article may ascertained executed ments to the State Constitution be report supervisor or of census.” On basis certificate [field] figures census, per- preliminary of the 1950 various towns wore representatives.
mitted to additional elect 1951, Attorney Conway April 27, General ruled that evi- On “[i]t completed in 1950 was on Octo- dent that the decennial census taken figures time, preliminary were аvailable. ber 1950.” At that January 5, 1953, Attorney Conway On advised Governor Lodge completed November the 1950 census was before although only preliminary figures were then available. amend
of a found in our constitutional census,” usually have been asked to ment. The state courts “according language the last such to construe doing they referred to the time when census.” so, completed a had and in this manner census though they in fact the matter as were discussed construing phrase “the of a census.” example, frequently on this sub For case cited (Tex. ject Spikes, 232 Holcomb v. S.W. 891 Civ. provided App.). that “coun The Texas constitution having determined inhabitants, 10,000 ties preceding States,” census of the last United might 1910 census, a tax collector. Under the elect County than of less Lubbock had September 30, 1920, the director 10,000. On “according preliminary certified that census subject population of the correction,” count, Spikes county November 11,096. On challenged tax was elected collector. Holcomb ground legality the census of the election on the govern, the 1920 since of 1910 should complete. held final or The court census were not Spikes 894) (p. that the on the basis election preliminary the 1920 was valid. count of analogous Anderson, are v. To like or effect Garrett *14 (Tex. App.); Herndon v. Civ. 971, 144 973 S.W.2d County, 126, 128, Board Okla. Excise 147 of Garfield County v. Low Board, Excise Washita 223; 295 P. Bras P.2d v. 286, 287, 116 700; 189 Okla. den, State kamp, 54 also Twin 532; Iowa N.W. see 588, 592, 87 Koehler, 123 P.2d 562, Falls 63 Idahо 715. 567, v. op superficially appears which The case Spikes, supra, posed holding v. of Holcomb to the Ark. 63 802. Duvall, Childers v. 69 S.W. Hunting clearly distinguishable: following are The N.E. v. 1025; 149 Ind. 48 Cast, 255, ton v. Wolfe
17
Lewis v.
728;
N.W.
Minn.
107
Moorhead,
113,
County,
162;
50 A.
Green
200 Pa.
Lackawanna
Narragansett,
ough
Thus, phrase purpose “the incorporated into the second and was census” legis- thirty-first on the basis amendments, given construction to the lative and executive phrase years, of the conceded for 125 on the basis precedents of other basis facts, jurisdictions, census was it is clear that the 1950 completed, meaning within of those amendments, October questions three
We now turn to the second of the completed previously If the mentioned: preclude did the Assembly enacting of 1953 from redistrict- ing legislation in the form Public Act No. 32? maintaining question that the should be answered negative, position defendant states his Assembly
this manner: “The General is vested with power to alter senatorial districts when it is necessary proper equality popu- found to secure subject lation to constitutional restrictions. There upon Assembly duty rests the General exer- power people cise this for the of the state. This power following is to be exercised the first session the federal census if and, not so continues exercised, ful] succeeding is] [it force to until sessions exer- saying cised.” This amounts to even if that, Assembly was “next after of a census,” the 1953 сould still act because of continuing duty imposed upon it after redistricting legislation. failed to consider theory applicable, is not to the however, case *15 require adopt at it would us to find bar. To ambi- guity warp language the exists, where none ignore thirty-first its amendment, obvious meaning purpose of its framers, and the to dis- given regard practical construction to it for over century by legislative a both the and executive government. branches of thirty-first analysis and the An of both the second duty, a that each forth a amendments discloses sets prohibition. power second amend- Thus, and a language provides, command, of clear ment Assembly of 1829 “shall divide the General (italics supplied). This created state into districts” duty. provides positive The amendment then a “[t]he when shall continue districts, established, until the session” of the 1831 General As- the same power sembly, have the to alter the which “shall necessary, preserve proper equali- if found same, (italics supplied). ty This said districts” between anticipating grant power. as if such Then, was a advanced defendant, a claim as that now pro- concluded of the amendment with framers shall not “after said districts [1831], vision that, any except session of the altered, . . . General Assembly a census of next after (italics supplied). . . .” the United States language, manner and almost identical In similar duty upon imposes amendment 1903 to divide the state General grants Assem- districts, into senatorial powеr prohibits bly to alter them, “except at a session of thereafter their alteration assembly general next after the States.” census of United sheer accident that each It was not following imposed duty upon the first *16 19 adoption granted power a amendment, of Assembly convening next after the up prohibition set of federal census, against part every Assembly. action on the other language The meticulous choice of manner duty, power, prohibition in which the and the segregated physically phraseology are in the logically lead to no other conclusion speaking than the framers with were studied thorough deliberation and after consideration.
Dealing, we are, as constitutional amend- with ments, we must assume infinite care was em- ployed scrupulously language fitting to couch in proposal changing organic aimed law of the Cooley, (8th state. Ed.) p. Constitutional Limitations Undoubtedly particularly this was true contemplated change because of the method electing subject the state since this was a senate, great during concern and of wide discussion 1820’s. Under constitution of senators had large. § elected at Conn. Art. Ill Const. (1818). purpose The of the second amendment, prototype thirty-first, provide repre- was to proportion popula- sentation in the senate to the composed, tion. The senate was to be under the second amendment, of senators not from less thаn eight twenty-four nor than more districts and, under thirty-first, of senators from not less than twenty-four thirty-six nor more than districts. Since changes population might make the districts unequal they were established the Assemblies plan and 1903, the framers devised the affording periodic op- to the General portunity to re-examine and if found redistrict, nec- essary, adjust, order as best could be done, existing inequalities. power given That to the convening next after tbe recite that the Assem-
the census. amendments they bly power” not redistrict; do “shall have provide, that the Assem- insists, as the defendant duty” bly or have *17 “shall redistrict” “shall language doing the estab- so. The of amendments imposed duty on to redistrict was lishes that no convening a next federal after those Assemblies completed. census had been Assembly urged, a if such it is But, any action to as occurred take should fail, grave adjust inequalities districts, various to the injustice might people That the of the state. be done passing point. entirely not the We are is beside wrought upon injustice, the such it was, the if Assembly It neglect, any, of 1951 to act. if may recently pointed a committee out as was be, including distinguished chief a former members, thirty-first justice amendment that the this court, compel in order to should be altered however, concern, after each federal census.9 Our meaning constitutional here limited to the of a provision desirability a not constitu- to tional amendment. report lawyers filed a October, judges In a cоmmittee new state consti proposal for a with State Bar Association a they “The senate, Referring provisions concerning said: tution. compels redistrieting for change suggested principal is one which a supplied]. An amendment after federal census Senate each [italics time adopted required this to done constitution in 1903 our sub merely Assembly power redistrict after gave the General but next after
sequent censuses, such to be taken at session action strongly . Your . . believes of the census. . . Committee . compulsory re provision for a should contain a constitution Report of the distrieting census.” after each federal for the Senate Chapter (Strengthening the Study X Constitu Special Committee to Organiza tion) on State Government Report of the Commission Ells, Day, (Wm. Maltbie, Bree, S. Jonathan F. Wm. A. David tion M. Tilson), 484, 487. James, 24 Conn. B.J. V. John Charles Q. Accordingly, language we that the conclude granted imposed power but duty upon Assembly no to redistrict of 1951. po-
Once this conclusion is defendant’s reached, the collapses. Obviously, sition there could have been continuing duty Assembly no of 1953 unless duty Assembly was an initial there of 1951.
This conclusion is fortified other consid- two briefly erations, to which we refer. the first place, if 1951 was with burdened duty to redistrict which failed and if to honor, continuing duty imposed upon was thereafter obliged of 1953, we would be to hold that part creating pro- the last amendment, surplusage. hibition, mere This, of cannot course, *18 given every part be done. Effect must of be each word in our unless there is constitution, some doing clear not reason, here discernible, not so.
Williams
States,
v. United
573,
289
53
553,
U.S.
S.
Ct.
77 L. Ed.
11
751,
1372;
665;
Am. Jur.
see General
Corporation Mulquin,
Motors
v.
134
118,
Conn.
126,
Saybrook,
In the second and executive departments unvaryingly have, until 1953, con- strued the second and the amendments limiting Assembly as to the first con- Examples vened after the of the census.
of this construction will be found in the footnote.10 discussing As question, was stated above, the first as to the of the census, this time-honored 10When Governor Ellsworth inaugural his in 1841, delivered address Assembly he told the General that “so new often as a census taken, United States is is authorised to make alterations (italics in senatorial supplied). districts” 1871, Tn general Governor Jewell stated that session “[t]he assembly succeeding the designated by decennial consti-
22 to tbe true forcibly meaning points construction each of the amendments intended the framers Curtis, Conn. Commissioners 87 v. Water to have. rel. v. South ex Corbett State 189; A. 506, 511, Norwalk, 759; Cooley, 58 A. Conn. Limitations seq. et Ed.) p. (8th Constitutional January, 1953, theory It ivas until not men- to have ever continuing duty appears Aviththe construc- official in connection by any tioned was advanced theory tion of either amendment. The addressed to the a letter attorney general this on the office. basis governor’s Apparently in enacting 1953, the General letter, to the No. the first section Public Act devoted 32, Cum. Sup. legislative findings, purpose policy.11 may only altered” tution as one in whieh the senatorial districts supplied). (italics Assem- In General Governor Simeon E. Baldwin stated State, to be re- bly necessary if that “it will be to redistrict the pow- session; Assembly will have districted, at this no other General er to until 1921.” redistrict reported In Commission on Election Laws “[t]he dis- senatorial constitution are such that state provisions our state now; Assem- changed yet if this session tricts can be decade bly change they be altered for another fails to them cannot Bep. Election changed in the the constitution is meantime.” unless (1941) p. Laws Comm. reported: XXXI Legislative “Article Council permits reapportionment Amendments to Constitution *19 immediately following federal eaeh legislature the session of reapportionment, passes without if the of 1951 census. Thus session Bep. until 1961.” reapportionment of senate seats there can no (1946) Legis. p. 31. Council message inaugural the Gen- Lodge in his said to Governor session, cannot, we Assembly: during this “If we do not redistrict eral Sess., Jour., constitution, so 1961.” Conn. H. 1951 under our do until p. 42. There 11 "Section PURPOSE POLICY. LEGISLATIVE AND FINDINGS, redistrieting general of the senate as general has no been assembly century. general to sembly The failure of the for half a XXXI, mandate of Article in contravention of the section act is Strangely enough, legislative pro- § 399c. incorporated in the section first of nouncement, upon “continuing duty” a rested the As- act, sembly support of to a construction tends quite contrаry amendments to the one promulgated public continuing in the act. if the For, duty always existed in A 1953, has existed. con- provision today thing stitutional mean cannot one through application newly and, some devised Cooley, theory, thing years fifty different hence.
op. p. theory adopt 123. To cit., the defendant’s require would tous attribute to the framers of the second an amendment intention to create a continu- ing duty. ground, If we we must also take then inability to attribute them an intellectual to ex- press adequate language themselves in to accom- plish long that result —and we this to do. The refuse lapse incorporation unnecessary of time and the legal into the enactment aof conclusion as duty” “continuing to a in the face of a uniform con- contrary by struction to the former Assemblies for century speak eloquently futility over a attempting by legislative establish, fiat, consti- duty tutional when none has ever before been § claimed have existed. The declaration 1 of continuing duty Public Act No. 32 that a has created has, under the upon circumstances, no effect the established and proper construction of the amendment.
The defendant has cited several cases other of the amendments to the Connecticut constitution. The constitu- tional continuing mandate is a general assembly one and the is continuing duty perform under a obligation supplied]. its [italics populations of the several grossly disproportionate districts are as a representation result inequitable. state senate It necessary therefore to alter the preserve districts in order to proper equality in each district.”
24 continuing theory support
jurisdictions of his duty. language any, value. unique if little, have those cases
is so respects: unique first, in two Our amendment language than that other of command contains no year the other is, hand, 1903 but directed to prohibition; and language expressed of absolute neces secondly, “if found words the inclusion duty. sary” None emphasizes absence of by following or dis the defendant eases cited provision a constitutional us construes covered prohibition or command, and no is a which there equiv including language provision a constitutional necessary.” In re “if found alent to the words Legislative Apportionment, 480; 21 12 P. 186, Colo. Mooney People 486, Ill. Hutchinson, 172 ex rel. v. Denney Basler, 144 Ind. v. rel. 599; 50 N.E. State ex Opinion 254 Mass. Justices, 929; 42 N.E. 503, Secretary Reynolds W.R. & v. 680; N.E. Co. 617, 151 213 ex rel. State, 707; 238 Mich. N.W. State 552, Meighen 105; Weatherill, 125 Minn. N.W. 336, 147 v. 1053, 329 Mo. Becker, State ex rel. Gordon v. 353, 118 Botti v. 97 N.J.L. 146; McGovern, S.W.2d Reynolds, N.Y. 96 N.E. 430, Matter 107; A. 564; Freeman, P.2d 554, Jones v. 193 Okla. 87; Opinion Woods, 160, 507; Noecker v. 259 Pa. 102 A. Judges, 295; 246 N.W. ex 61 S.D. State Attorney Cunningham, rel. General v. 81 Wis. provisions The constitutional con N.W. 724. length.12 in these cases below at strued are noted To 12(Italics following provisions supplied.) constitutional are (1876). general assembly pro Art. V 45 “The shall colorado. § vide law for an enumeration of the inhabitants of State in every year thereаfter; year Lord of our tenth and at enumeration, following next such and also at the session next session authority following States, an made enumeration the United adjust apportionment representa for senators and shall revise *21 all to of analyze unnecessary. these cases is attempt A reading provisions of to the show the ample lack of with those of our similarity amendment. We conclude that the amendment does not for provide continuing duty. See State ex rel. Morris v. Bul- tives enumeration, on the basis of according such ratios to fixed to be by law.” (1870). ap- Illinois. Art. IV “The § shall portion every year the 10 years, beginning 1871, by state di- with the viding state, by the cen- as ascertained federal sus, by and quotient repre- number shall the ratio of sentation in the senate.” (1881). indiana. Art. IV “The §5 number Senators and. Bepresentatives shall, following period at the session next each making enumeration, such by law, among be fixed apportioned and counties, according several to the number of male inhabitants above twenty-one years age, each .. ..” IV, Art. 2 (1819). Pt. Legislature, § Maine. “The which shall shall, be first convened this Constitution, under or fif- before the day August year teenth eight our Lord thousand one twenty-one, hundred Legislature every and and subsequent at period years, of ten cause the State to be divided into districts for choice of senators.” Art. of (1857). general Amend. XXII “The Massachusetts. shall, court at session special the first after each precеding next enumeration, divide the forty adjacent commonwealth into districts territory . . . .” Michigan. (1908). Art. V “At the §4 session in and each year tenth thereafter, legislature rearrange shall law the sena- torial apportion districts and representatives among anew the according counties and inhabitants, using districts to the number of as the for apportionment basis such preceding the last United States census of this state.” (1857). Minnesota. Art. IV 23§ “At their first session after made, each enumeration so and also their first session after each authority enumeration made States, legislature the United power prescribe shall have the to congressional, the bounds of sena- representative districts, torial apportion and and anew the senators representatives among (While the several districts. . . .” phrase power” “shall have the is identical with in our amend- ment, present appear and would analogous a situation bar, the case at the result reached the Minnesota court is dis- tinguishable, since Minnesota is, constitution ours, unlike a limita- power, furthermore, tion of ours, incorporate unlike does not
:26 186. In view of our A. 61 Conn.
keley, it is unneces first questions, two discussion tous answer the third. sary phrase necessary” directly “shall have “if found after the words power.”) *22 Representatives (1875). Art. IV 7 “Senators and § Missouri. in according apportionment established be to the rule of shall chosen by Constitution, the United States until the next decennial census this taken, as this State ascer- and the result thereof shall have been adjusted the tained, apportionment the shall be revised and when years ap- every . . sueh census, of and ten thereafter . that basis Assembly to be made at first session of the General portionment the after each sueh census ....” jersey. apportionment present (1844). IV 3 “The § Art. new of shall have next the United States continue until the shall assembly general taken, apportionment an and members the and by legislature, its session after next be made the at first shall every census, when made shall remain subsequent enumeration or and . . shall have been taken . .” unaltered until another enumeration (1895). the shall Art. Ill “. . and said districts . § new York. regular by the legislature at the first session after so altered be every enumeration, as each district shall contain return of that senate nearly may equal an of inhabitants . . . .” as number (1907). apportionment this 10b “The Art. V § Oklahoma. Legislature for shall at the first session members of the be made State each census.” Legislature after decennial Federal Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Consti- See. Schedule of shall, Assembly succeeding (1874). next at the tution “The oftener, designate the each decennial census and not session after judicial districts, required constitution.” several this (1889). legislature Art. Ill shall “The §5 Dakota. south enumeration of the inhabitants of the state provide law ninety-five every year eight and ten one thousand hundred and thereafter; regular session, years and at its first after each еnumera- by authority of the United and also after each enumeration made tion time, States, legislature apportion shall the sena- at no other but representatives and . .. .” tors (1848). legislature provide “The shall § Art. Wisconsin. state, year by law enumeration the inhabitants for an every eight fifty-five, end of ten hundred and and one thousand enumeration, thereafter; years and at their first session after such authority enumeration made of the United also after each States, legislature apportion shall and district anew members assembly ....” the senate and specific questions, answers are as onr To the nine question questions 1 and “No” to follows: “Yes” questions All need not be answered. 2 and 3. other any party. court to No costs will be this taxed opinion con- this Js., Wynne, Quinlan curred. (dissenting). agree C. I am J. unable to Inglis, majority with the court either their con- “completion” clusion that of the seventeenth prior opening census occurred to the of the 1951 session the General or in their conclu- thirty-first precludes sion amendment re- districting by any session of the General except the one next after the of a census. provides they
senatorial after districts, are once established, *23 “shall be not nor altered, number senators except general altered, assembly a session of the next after the aof census United question States.” The first with which we are faced, phrase is what therefore, is meant “the com- pletion of a census” as it is used in the amendment.
In the question consideration of this it must be every in borne mind that reasonable intendment must be legislative made in favor of the enactment.
If reasonably open constitution is a to construc- tion which will amake given statute valid, must be such a construction. Northeastern Gas Transmis- sion Co. v. Collins, 138 Conn. 582, 87 A.2d 139; Legat v. Adorno, 138 Conn. 134, 145, 83 A.2d 185; Lyman v. Adorno, 133 Conn. A.2d
It is obvious that the “census” referred to in the amendment is one which shows fig- the detail of all requisite ures intelligent for an division of the state into senatorial districts. Inasmuch as no one any county may overlap and lines
of those districts city inas- may and or town, one be subdivision their districts, much the formation of as, possible, nearly equal populations as must asbe figures whole bro- state must be A census towns and wards. counties, ken down into complete purposes of for the to be figures. which such must one shows be majority apprehend, of the much, With this I agree. this us on between court The differences difficulty phase of the the case arise reason fixing of the seven- date at which so much figures was com- forth teenth census set such pos- opinion pleted. majority to fix two seems The when, sible dates. One of October these appears of the director as now from the statement complete, after census, the was popula- governor obtained the could have difficulty accepting figures. date this tion with any publi- official there at that time, that not, necessary figures fact that were then cation of the govern- and therefore nо one our state available, chargeable Most with to that effect. ment was notice majority argument seems directed preliminary figures all were to the conclusion necessary the census was therefore that was published. completed were It when those *24 that this conclusion is untenable be- seems to me redistricting preliminary fig- basing upon cause may creep the risk that inaccuracies ures involves unequal produce an division the districts. in and pointed will be in detail fact, As a matter out was no official there announcement of even on, later figures preliminary broken down into long opening after the until the 1951 ses- wards Assembly. pre- is It true sion of the figures liminary were re- field count based press by supervisors June, leased to the local they because 1950, but could not been official have person under law authorized the federal issue bulletins is the director of the census himself. if announcement,
Even there had an official been it not however, seems me clear that could have completion marked the I the census. take it nothing completed it is axiomatic that until it in its final form. The tabulation figures clearly preliminary and the announcement of were not the in its final the census My position form. is that the seventeenth census completed My was not until rea- November, arriving for sons at that conclusion follow. popula-
A census is the official enumeration of the Dictionary (2d tion. Webster’s New Internatiоnal Ed.). provision But as used in a constitutional something such as that before us it connotes more than that. It would be of no avail to the General enacting if the census went no further than the mere enumeration or, even if the data obtained in the enumeration tabulated, had been up Philadelphia the tables were locked somewhere Washington or public. and not available to the word “census” as used in amendment, therefore, connotes an official record of the enumer- may by ation to which public access had be upon may placed. which reliance Accordingly, purposes redistricting, a census is com- pleted only population when the obtained in finally the enumeration have tabulated coun- ties, towns and wards and the results of that tabu- public lation have been released to the an official publication. authorized law to make such In this practically all of the authorities, far so Ias have
30
agreed.
v.
Childers
out,
able
seek them
are
Huntington v.
802;
63
69 Ark.
Duvall,
336, 338,
S.W.
v. Bras
1025;
48 N.E.
State
149 Ind.
Cast,
258,
255,
Moore
kamp,
v.
532;
N.W.
It is true that
upon preliminary
state,
has acted
plaintiffs
that this con-
returns. The
contend
practical
contemporary
construction
stitutes
now
officials which should
control the
made
state
provision
ques-
interpretation
of the constitutional
given weight,
it
it must
tion.
should be
Granted
particular question
now be-
be remembered that
brought in issue and,
fore us has never before been
any
contemporary
con-
construction
event,
“
abrogate
provision
‘can
text,
never
stitutional
limitations,
narrow down its true
...
it can never
”
enlarge its
never
natural boundaries.’ Borino
can
Lounsbury,
86 Conn.
31 thirty-first is so census as used practice giving it a different clear that common question meaning, it, about no one raised a when ought it. not allowed override to be taking governing of the seven
The federal law completion of teenth census fixed no date for the part in with are concerned this of it which we popu require case. It did of total the tabulation by required apportionment lation states for the completed representatives Congress be within eight April after 1950. 46 months Stat. years period §
U.S.C. 202. It also allowed the of three January from all 1,1950, reports required. § 46 Stat. U.S.C. 202. Noth 21, 13 ing, concerning is said the law however, the com pletion population tabulation of statistics provisions or counties, tоwns wards. The of the law which are relevant to the determination when the completed by publication census was final population as to two in are number. (46 218) § Section 18 Stat. 25, U.S.C. authorizes any governor the director of the census to furnish copies population with certified of so much of the re transcripts may requested. turns or thereof as (46 213) § Section 13 Stat. U.S.C. authorizes printed preliminary him to have and other census reports investiga bulletins and final several tions authorized the law. There is no time limited publications. for such stipulated governor
It that the of Connecticut could have obtained from the director of the census copies showing certified of returns any
this state at time after the end of October, If it is assumed that had he received that informa- tion publication it would have been such an official as would have of the census under that he did not fact is amendment, the consequently request there was and that make prior way publication to the made in that official no opening Assem- 1951 session of bly. published only four official bulletins
There were August The first was the bulletin director. *27 merely preliminary a bulletin 1950. That was 18, expressly all claim that final disavowed change computations result. More- not would figures down into it contain broken over, did not population by Even had been final, wards. if it adequate provide a not basis therefore, was redistricting. those it was not the For reasons completion bulletin was of the census. The second Although 5, the one releаsed as of November figures final, in this to be the they contained were stated any
were down subdivisions of not broken into any that this states. It cannot well be claimed bul- completion letin of the census. constituted August dated con- bulletin, The third tained counties towns states, final meet the but not wards. would not It, therefore, publication an of the results requirement of official completion enumeration which would be the thirty-first of the under the amendment. It published was not on until the fourth bulletin was November an official record 28,1951, there was open public large to the at all of re- which met quirements. publication It was, this therefore, completion which marked cen- of the seventeenth contemplated sus as amendment. Consequently, completion post- of the census convening dated the 1951 session Gen- Assembly, eral and the 1953 the one session [the] “next after the census.” determining question thirty- In whether the precludes redistricting any first ses- sion of the other than the one immediately following of a census, it must also be in mind borne that the constitution interpreted way support must such a as to validity legislative of a if enactment such an inter- pretation reasonably possible. uniformly
So far as I am
ascertain,
able to
it is
jurisdictions
held
other
that, where the constitu
imposes duty
legislature,
tion
on the
at its session
reapportion
next after a
or
census,
redistrict
purposes,
continuing
state for election
there is
duty,
if
and,
the first session fails to enact a vаlid
duty
succeeding
act, the
devolves
legislatures
performed. Opinion
until it is
Justices, 254 Ala.
So. 2d
714;
re
Legislative Apportionment, 12
Colo.
P. 480;
*28
Fergus
Kinney,
v.
333 Ill.
164
437, 440,
N.E. 665;
Meighen
State ex rel.
v. Weatherill,
190, reasoning upon foregoing The which authori People ties rest is well stated in ex rel. Carter v. supra,
Rice, leg 491: “It cannot be tolerated that a by perform islature, a mere omission to its consti duty particular thereby tutional at a could session, prevent years apportionment for another ten
provided
In Botti v. McG
the Constitution.”
forcibly
Jersey
puts
supra,
court
the New
overn,
right
opinion,
(p. 356):
of the inhab
“In our
to be
state
ac
of the several counties
itants
pro
representation
house,
in the lower
corded
constitution, cannot be defeated
vided
legislature.”
such
non-action
my
only
coming
which takes
attention
case
The
Opinion
contrary
It is that most of the constitutional true cited from sions involved the cases differ those contained amendment to the Con- *29 they go constitution. In most instances no necticut legis- the further than to direct that the session of taking reap- next after of a shall lature the census portion They expressly state. not limit do power Opinion Judges, to that session. of appears S.D. that however, N.W. Dakota, constitution in addition to di- South reeling reapportionment be made specified expressly session next after a “but census, at no other time.” The said with court reference to (p. Ill): say, that difference “That is to most of comparable provisions constitutional there is specified affirmative mandate for action at a certain express prohibition time but no of action at other regard par- times. We do not, however, that fact as ticularly material. It seems to be held all the pass upon courts which have had occasion to legislative matter that an affirmative mandate for specific implied рrohibition action at a time is an any action at other time.” background interpretation
With this of com- parable provisions constitutional states, in other proper I turn now ato consideration of the con- given struction to be light our own constitution. It is clear, imposes
authorities cited, that, if the amendment Assembly the session of the General next after any duty census with reference to perform
state and that session has failed to duty, continuing duty isit to be fulfilled next prohibited by session unless it is the amendment. inquiry, any, duty
The first if therefore, is is what, imposed upon the session of the General next after the of the census. question
There no that the first session after the a given power to alter the senatorial districts, necessary preserve proper “if equality found Although power in each district.” this expressly granted any is not session after that of 1911, there can be no doubt that the intendment the amendment is that each session next after each succeeding power. census shall have the
36 state senators
Under the constitution of large. §§ Ill Const. Art. were elected at Conn. (1818). purpose dominant The prototype, amend its the second amendment and of representation provide in the senate was to ment, population. principle proportion such The of to the representation proportionate fundamen has become obviously government. con It was tal in our form of that templated of both amendments the framers changes population districts the various require changes dis time to time would from principle rep if the fundamental trict boundaries going population proportion to resentation in grant power is often of a to be maintained. duty equivalent imposition a to exercise power. that the exercise In view of the fact Assembly power granted in this to the General maintenance of so essential to matter government principle embodied fundamental conclusion I can other come to no amendments, im to intent of amendments than it is the duty upon pose to exer Meighen power. Weatherill, v. ex rel. State cise 105; see Jones v. Com 339, 147 125 Minn. N.W. Palm 291; S.E. missioners, 579, 590, N.C. Development Ariz. Phoenix, v.Co. croft duty is not is to noted that the 49 P.2d It any necessarily accomplish at given the session but rather to determine session States each United next after “necessary pre redistricting whether equality proper dis in each serve trict.” duty imposing a on the General
After time need for redis- time to determine from goes provide tricting, that, on to *31 shall not after “said districts be altered, nor except number altered, of senators session general assembly next after of a census of the States.” It is essential United expressed determine the in intent this clause. Ob- injection viously, purpose of its into the preserve amendment was to a certain stabilization they to the that districts end could not be frequently changed partisan pоlitical advantage. legislature
The first session of the after com- pletion advantage being of a census has the in possession population figures, of fresh and for that redistricting reason it is that desirable ac- complished by that session. Aside from that con- sideration, however, there could be no reason to anticipate that the first session would make a more equitable apportionment any subsequent than ses- sion. significance changes
It is some that are not limited to the sessions next after a census but “a” kept session next after a census. If it is in mind purpose main to es- principle proportionate representa- tablish the principle tion in the senate to continue that in operation through changes population, the intend- question apparent. ment of the clause It is that duty performed consider shall be the General not oftener than once after Reading each United States census.
amendment as a whole, It therefore, means this: duty is the of the first session of the General Assem- bly after the aof United States census to necessary determine whether it to alter the sena- preserve torial proper equali- districts in order to ty population among the districts. If the first any perform session after obliga- census fails to upon succeeding duty ses- devolves then the
tion, provided, performed, however, that it is sions until any given performed after it has once been when agаin may be undertaken until another not census it interpretation completed. This ac- has been and is in line with the sense with common cords overwhelming weight juris- of authorities other dictions. *32 stipulated that the General
It respect altering state the no action with took purpose and that no bill for that districts senatorial plaintiffs The seek in either house. introduced was (1) gov- by pointing modify out that the fact that (2) attor- such that the action, recommended ernor compe- governor ney it was general that advised districts, session to revise for tent representatives (3) of that session the house of that proposed to the constitution re- amendments certain redistricting. subject lating Ac- of senatorial to the attorney general governor by or the tion either hardly As- action General considered can be sembly. amendments The first of the constitutional purpose proposed of which was one the was the by incorporating the entire constitution revise the forty-seven provisions into the amendments of the By proposal body this the constitution. thirty-first man- treated in the same amendment was proposal was all The other ner as the others. it- of the an amendment fairly proposals could of these self. Neither interpreted house of a consideration redistricting representatives of the state plain- The time. further contention of at that nonaction of the tiffs that General equivalent a determination was the in 1951 necessary redistriсting was that no time is an unrealistic of the situation. appraisal
I, conclude if therefore, seventeenth United States census had been before the completed convening of the 1951 result Assembly, failure that session to consider the question whether a would have necessary duty that the would considering question continue to the 1953 session. J. I cannot concur with (dissenting).
Baldwin,
brethren in the
my
majority opinion.
rule has
been often stated that a court should approach the
question
of an
constitutionality
act of the
with
legislature
great
make
caution,
every presump
tion and
intendment
its favor and sustain it un
less its
clear. Northeastern Gas Trans
invalidity
mission
v. Collins,
Co.
138 Conn.
87 A.2d
139. It is the
duty
the courts to reconcile legis
lative enactments with
constitution,
if that can
*33
be done logically and
it
reasonably,
must be
presumed that
the legislature,
enacting
law,
intended that it should be valid. DeMond v. Liquor
Control Commission, 129 Conn. 642, 645, 30 A.2d
547; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Southbury,
The vital question is whether the seventeenth cen- was sus within completed, of the meaning thirty- first amendment, before the opening the 1951 ses- sion of the General Assembly. The of a taking cen- sus is a prodigious task. The statute prescribes three-year period beginning January 1 first year of each decennium starting
defines as the “decennial census period,” the time completed. 46 Stat. which the census shall be
within of the § authorizes the director 202. It 21, 13 U.S.C. reports. publish bulletins and census census to plaintiffs, § in their 213. The 46 Stat. U.S.C. sustaining majority opinion, argument, and the point argument, was available to out that there that Assembly, governor of the and members General January convening 1951 session on of the before the population of Con an enumeration wards towns, necticut broken down into cities, voting an ade would have furnished districts which rearrange quate upon which to the senatorial basis This material was obtainable districts of the state. upon request in certain from the bureau upon payment That all of a fee. dividuals and may that the census but it does not follow be.so, completed, meaning within require amendment, so as to action Assembly upon are not such available data. We popu with an enumeration of the concerned whether sufficiently lation had been finished or the census completed concerning it could so information have been obtained from bureau in Wash the census ington. language precise. of the amendment is requires any redistricting It “after done completion of a census of States.” the United obviously The framers of in readily tended that there be some definite time legislature ascertainable after which should act. than No better time could been chosen have *34 complete figures the date when final for and officially published Connecticut census were as was bureau, done on November Thence 28,1951. everybody forth could know what figures by city, borough, and vot were, ward town, ing publication district. Not until this could official truly completed. said that construing provisions We are of constitution. duty logic
Our is to if and them, construe reason permit, they so will and work- be understandable able if we find, future. Therefore we should “completion can, that the words census” refer of a readily to some act or fixed and date, certain officially complete when the census is determinable, available to all. vot- matter that affects the ing rights of the voters of the it is state, whole essen- tial that the members of the General should certainty complete. know with when is It the census only just upon people is that the should the data have legislature majority opinion which their acts. The entirely leaves this date or act air. It com- pletely fails to If make either a census definite.
complete when sufficient who available, data are say just when that is or whether it is before time convening or after the for date a General Assembly? divergence There could well be a opinion any legislator. which could confound best, At depend upon caprice that time would whim or an official the census bureau. hand, On the other publication of the final Connecticut, required by as authorized and law, is a definite and marking final act of the census. The day publication is a definite and final date. It is legislators known to the and аll officialdom and the people question as well. Thereafter can there be no about the of the census and the time when completed. it was majority opinion points every to the fact changing
act the limits of senatorial districts has year immediately following been enacted in the year argues of the decennial census. It further that through years governors down and others have *35 immediately following
pointed session out that the year is one taken the in which the census is legislature so All this could be can act. in which the assumption upon yet that an based and have been necessarily completed. not It does had census completed actually had been that census follow thirty-first amendment. of the within the intendment precise question which to we have The fact that the raised This has never been before. in this case decide upon this has been first court called is the time language aof “the determine what thirty-first it is used in the amend- census” means as upon phrase. If we case turns this ment. The whole complete that the within hold that means when of the the intendment finally population are Connecticut officiallypublished all, and made available to and so logical, reasonable result we arrive at uncertainty for future all avoids confusion disposes case at bar. completed Assuming before that the census convening session the General majority opinion goes Assembly, on to construe mean the 1951 sessiоn since that, the amendment redistricting state, failed to redistrict cannot again until If that case, be considered is the legislature, by refusing act at a one branch following can census, session years. postpone for ten needed Con- cededly, unjust disparity popu- is a wide and there among lation the senatorial districts now estab- many popula- lished. have as as four times the Some tion of others. Since senate is that branch of legislature people supposed in which the are to be equality represented basis of on the public requires welfare this the districts, *36 controlling discrepancy That is the be remedied.
purpose of the amendment.
given
power
is
“if found
to alter the districts
necessary
preserve
proper equality
popula-
to
a
stating
in each
tion
district.” This is tantamount to
discrepancy
pres-
that when there
so
a
obvious
as
ently
legislature
duty
exists the
a
is under
to exer-
power.
provi-
cise that
Courts are bound to construe a
accomplish
sion
aof
it will
constitution so that
purpose intended.
Walker,
Palka v.
It is not to here the citation of majority cases dissenting opinions in the which legislature hold that, if the next after a census fails succeeding may legislature a to act, do so. True, provisions those cases do not concern constitutional They identical with our own. do deal, with however, provisions obviously constitutionаl which are de- signed accomplish purpose, the same that is, a every years. brought once ten This is requirement about legis- constitutional that lature at a following” session “next or con- “first vened” after a decennial census shall do such re- districting may require. Legisla- the situation powers, tures have broad if one session fails obviously necessary take action which is going it is long way subsequent meeting to hold that no legislature perform can the function. While the purpose main amendment, and of provisions the constitutional discussed in the eases, require redistricting every years was to one ten preserve equality representation, their was also purpose fortifying to avoid more than one. In immedi- of the legislature
claim a session that that no session act and a census can ately following census, another act until after thereafter can words upon stress lay majority great established, when districts, . . session except . “shall not be altered of a cen- after the next assembly general be with the entire it must means, read as sus.” This contained, the language sentence *37 decen- in one when there has been until another nium shall not be another there oper- becomes The prohibition has been completed. redis- has acted to legislature ative when the do when it has failed to so. trict and not pro- justice of the chief dissenting opinion construction duces a reasonable workable I to which subscribe. amendment and one M. Administrator of Lula (Estate Arcee Bruce, Floyd Administrator McElhannon, v. Knott) McElhannon) (Estate Isaac Wynne Inglis, Daly, J., Baldwin, O’Sullivan, Js. C.