*2 Assembly. House of the Iowa General *3 OOSTERHOUT, Before VAN Circuit Additionally, plaintiffs claim that other Judge, and and Mc- STEPHENSON inequitable, arbitrary irrational MANUS, Judges. District predominant factors become the factor Legislature in the Judge. OOSTERHOUT, VAN Circuit and that invidious discrimination exists upon by hearing reason This case on for thereof. came duly the merits before this constituted Plaintiffs pur- offered evidence assign- three-judge pursuant court pose attempting of to show that actual ment on 28 and 1963. Plain- March against discrimination existed them in by Harry Smith, appeared Rob- tiffs H. Legislature impeded which the en- Frerichs, ert F. A. their Wilson and C. legislation actment of in which attorneys, appeared and defendants brought were interested and which about Attorney Hultman, General of Evan legislation which cast unfair tax bur- Iowa, Bump, N. So- State of Wilbur upon dens them. Iowa, their licitor General of the State of Swisher, Plaintiffs’ witness Scott who attorneys. parties respective intro- ably Leg- served as a member of the argued rested, their evidence and duced many years, islature and defendants’ orally and written the case submitted Kendrick, witness William R. who has briefs, whereupon the case was submit- Secretary served for some time as and taken under advisement. This ted House, expressed each the view that ready is now for decision. case Legislature purposely has not in- and Lewis citi- Plaintiffs Davis tentionally invidiously discriminated the United States and the State zens of against any group or economic interest. qualified and are of Iowa residents evidence, might expected, There is They bring County, in Polk Iowa. voters Legislature existence behalf and this class action in,.behalf their own blocks, block, economic such as the farm similarly other Iowa voters group, the insurance block and the cities Defendants are state situated. largest having and that blocks mem- performing various du- officials bership are often more successful conducting elec- ties in connection with legislative programs. their for members of the Iowa General tions Assembly. pointed out, As hereinafter we believe plaintiffs pat- are entitled to relief if Jurisdiction is asserted virtue invidiously tern of dis- 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and and 28 §§ criminatory. We find it unwise and un- 1343(3), way U.S.C.A. relief § necessary political to enter into the thick- declaratory judgment pur- is asked attempt et and to determine whether suant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2201-2202. §§ plaintiffs specific have established against upon alleged instances discrimination Plaintiffs’ action is based them federally protected rights members of their class. violation guaranteed by equal protection clause We believe that Justice Stewart in his of the 14th found Amendment to § concurring opinion in Baker v. Carr suc- the Constitution the United States.1 cinctly holding states the extent of the says: upon when he such case action is based This teach- ings today Baker U.S. “The Court decides three things ‘(a) 7 L.Ed.2d Plaintiffs as- and no more: S.Ct. that any greater rights point also a violation of 1. Plaintiffs assert under such govern rights republican provision form to a than those claimed under guaranteed Article Section Amendment. 14th 4, of the Constitution. Plaintiffs do hot Assembly jurisdiction The Iowa consists possessed General justici- a house matter; (b) of a senate of members and subject that a of 108 divided state is is stated members. The of action able cause districts, into which 50 senatorial each of appellants entitled would be (c) relief; appropriate elects Each Iowa’s senator. - * * * repre- populous appellants have least elects a counties that the challenge sentative, populous standing 9 most the Tennessee while the pp. Ante, apiece. counties elect two statutes.’ U.S. 197-198.” 369 Const., amended, art. provides: *4 importance whether It is of no Representatives “The House of an agree principles not we with the or shall consist of not more than one are bound eight in Baker Carr. We nounced hundred and The members. it by to the extent representation such decision Ratio of shall de- us. directly upon before by the issues dividing bears termined num- whole that this clear believe it to be population We ber of as of state matter, subject jurisdiction by of the preceding shown the last justiciable is stat action cause of by a census, or national the whole standing to ed, plaintiffs have existing and that number of .counties then or bring organized, this action. county but each shall representative constitute one dis- presented for deter- The basic issues repre- trict and be entitled to one are: mination sentative, county having but each a existing Iowa constitution- 1. Do the population in excess of the ratio relating representation al number, provided as herein of three including Assembly, in the General fifths or more of ratio number such imple- as amendments and 1928 shall be entitled to one additional deny plaintiffs by statute, mented equal representative, but said addition protection in violation of the laws only shall extend coun- nine United 14th Amendment of of having greatest population.” ties Constitution? States population Iowa’s under the 1960 cen- validity Is the 2,757,537. sus is Iowa’s counties Plan, known as the amendment Shaff range population (1960 census) described, ripe adjudica- hereinafter (Adams) 7,468 266,315 (Polk). Thus so, such also is amendment tion nearly population one-tenth of the state’s 14th Amendment? violative County. Polk is concentrated in Polk remedy granted The to be in the County nearly populous is 36 times as prevail plaintiffs the consti- event yet County, only Adams it has as twice attack. tutional representatives number of in the shall discuss the or- issues We an House. While this is extreme ex- hereinabove stated. shall set der We singular ample, it is not a one. Six background pertinent factual forth 10,000 counties have less Iowa’s than stating applying the law re- before Thirty-five inhabitants. counties have a lating issues. to the various 15,000 population of less than and 76 counties, or over three-fourths Existing Apportionment. of the to- counties, popula- have number tal current of the Io- The 25,000and hence under less than the Assembly is fixed General wa county population 27,854. mean 6, 34, 35, 36 Article §§ Constitution opinion “A” attached amended, Schedule Iowa Code §§ and 41.1, general provides pic- appendix 42.1-.3, I.C.A. Woodbury. Pottawattamie, Hawk, Polk, Clinton, Dubuque, Johnson, Linn, Scott 2. Black among population ture per distribution limitation of one Senator periods. the Iowa counties various works against as of substantial discrimination populous the more counties. It is seen from “A” that Schedule average or mean dis- Senatorial population counties in excess have population 55,151, trict 50,000. or one-fiftieth Such 9 a com- counties have population. the total Iowa population As seen 1,024,485, bined again, Schedule “A” there are 7 coun- population. over of the total state 37% populations great- substantially ties with Their combined 55,000, er than can have at most House or one- consists 18 members representative each in membership. Senate. sixth of the House Five these counties represen- from twice smallest counties have 18 also average population to 5 times the collectively tatives combined but district. population 179,861, about 6%% population. state’s The House is The Senatorial districts established potentially least controlled the 55 Assembly the 59th General are set out counties; smallest total Iowa’s 27.4% 41.1, (1962). in Iowa Code I.C.A. Each population majority rep- elect a *5 largest of the seven counties constitutes resentatives. district, disparities repre- one so the regard. sentation are minimized in that “A” Schedule also shows substantial However, many disparities representation other districts within average are much (55,- smaller two-represen- than the one-representative and the 151). populous 26 county The least districts groups. 6 counties tative The populations ranging 29,696 falling from pop- between 40 50 thousand (10th district) 44,663 (14th district). more) (or or ulation have two three Combined, they majority elect a population 58 counties times although they only Senate populations include with under 20 thousand. Yet 35.6% of all Iowans. The just representative. most in- extreme all of them have one equality having exists Similarly, populous between 10th district the 9 counties (Polk County again) ; and the 27th range 53,663 representatives The two nearly population latter has figure times the 266,315 population, the latter former, being great while each one elects about 5 times as as the form- Senator. er. regard Senate, With to the the Iowa The Merits. Constitution, 3, 34, art. amended, “Invidious discrimination” must provides: be found to exist before it can be con “The composed Senate shall be equal protection rights cluded that ' fifty members to be elected from Douglas Justice violated. As has stated districts, the several senatorial es- concurring opinion in his in Baker v. tablished law and at the next ses- 186, 244-245, 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. general assembly sion of the held 691, 724: following taking of the state and “The traditional test under census, they appor- national shall be Equal Protection Clause has been among tioned the several counties whether a State has made ‘an invidi state, according or districts of the discrimination,’ ous as it does when population as shown the last particular it selects ‘a race or na census, preceding but no tionality oppressive treatment.’ be entitled to shall more than Skinner v. See Oklahoma [ex rel. (1) (Emphasis added.) senator.” 535, Williamson] U.S. 541 [62 italicized was clause added 1655], S.Ct. L.Ed. Uni in 1928. amendment equality test; versal is not the there spite weighting. of the constitutional room for mandate As we stat “according apportion population,” Optical ed in Co., Williamson v. Lee Supreme Apparently, S.Ct. Court docket.
348 U.S. 489 [75 yet 563], prohibition of none of ar- such been has as 99 L.Ed. ‘The cases gued goes Equal no direction Clause submitted. Until some Protection given application respect further discrimina than invidious ” reap- of invidious tion.’ discrimination to the portionment cases, lower courts will dissenting opinions in Baker v. difficulty continue to have in determin- concurring opinions Carr and the three ing applied meas- standards to be show a considerable variance in view uring invidious discrimination. as to what constitutes invidious discrim- points ination. As Justice Clark out in widely accepted It has been concurring opinion, his decision proof very dispar that ity substantial gives guides lower courts es sufficient to applied measuring standards to prima tablish a facie case of invidious invidious discrimination in the See, Thigpen g., discrimination. e. v. situation. Meyers, F.Supp. W.D.Wash., 211 Gray Sanders, D.Colo., McNichols, Lisco v. 9 L.Ed.2d strikes down the 477-478; F.Supp. 471, Burkhart, Moss v. Georgia County system unit for an elec- W.D.Okl., 885, 891; F.Supp. Seholle tion of United States Senators and state Hare, Mich. 116 N.W.2d officials a statewide basis as viola- course, proof, The burden is initial equal protection tive clause of the ly plaintiffs on the inasmuch as there ex Douglas, 14th Amendment. Justice writ- strong favoring presumption ists a ing majority, for the course of the validity A., M. the state law. W. C. *6 opinion states: S.D.N.Y., F.Supp. Simon, Inc. v. 208 368, 373; Adams, S.D.Fla., conception political “The 208 equal- Sobel v. pre ity F.Supp. Moreover, the Declaration of Inde- sumption validity pendence, Gettysburg is said to be all to Lincoln’s stronger pro Address, Fifteenth, to where state constitutional Seven- teenth, challenged. are Ter visions Sincock v. and Nineteenth Amendments ry, D.Del., F.Supp. 396, only thing per- can mean 210 —one son, one vote.” present case, quite In our sub Douglas distinguishes Justice disparity representation has stantial in Gray problem v. pre- Sanders from that respect both been established with sented in Baker v. Carr and disclaims ex- Assembly. In or houses General any pressing upon view der to conclusion that avoid the ultimate apportionment problem beyond what is invidiously present apportionment is specifically in stated says: Baker v. discriminatory, the must “ad defendants ques- “Nor does it presence evidence other duce tion, inherent in the bicameral form of might explain factors which this dis Government, our Federal whether a * * proportion Davis, Mann v. State have one house chosen with- 577, 584; E.D.Va., F.Supp. 213 see regard population.” out Meyers, supra, Thigpen F.Supp. v. 211 Notwithstanding such reservation in 832. If defendants are show a at able to majority opinion, Justices Stewart basis for classifications rational concurring opinion and Clark in a- phasize em- showing plaintiffs’ made, refute such will opinion the Sanders has prima facie ease. bearing upon the Baker v. Carr is- sues. Supreme stated in Court Mac- Dougall Green, 283-284, U.S. v. 335 Harlan, dissenting opin- Justice in his 1, 2, 3: 93 L.Ed. S.Ct. 69 ion, calls attention lit- power igation pending political assume that “To 30 states and foot- exclusively of upon 2 numbers is lists 10 function note he electoral cases 498 legislative rep- disregard accessibility practicalities 3. The government. related resentatives Thus, to their electors the Constitution geographical
protects factors. smaller the interests of giving against greater by ap- solemnity 4. The which the repre entirely unequal portionment the Senate enacted or were laws adopted. populations. It would sentation to doctrinaire, strange indeed, Simon, supra, A., See W. M. C. Inc. v. Court, applying broad such for this citing F.Supp. 208 Baker v. proc concepts Carr, supra; Fortson, as due N.D. Toombs v. laws, Ga., 248; Gray, F.Supp. 205 equal protection v. Sanders ess N.D.Ga., rev’d, F.Supp. deny assure power to State the U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. proper political in diffusion of Maryland Repre Committee for Fair thinly popu itiative as between its Md.Cir.Ct., Tawes, sentation Anne having con counties and those lated Co., Md., May Arundel 1962. These masses, view centrated interrelated, closely factors are and none practical fact have latter provide them would a conclusive test exerting po opportunities except in the factual situ most unusual weight polls avail not litical at the ations. The Constitu able the former. argued Defendants all gov practical tion —a instrument foregoing factors, expressly or either demands such ernment —makes no arguments impliedly. persua- Their Green, Colegrove v. the States. on whole, extent, but, sive to some on 1198, 90 L.Ed. 549 [66 U.S. S.Ct. justify explain fail to the severe Barrett, Colegrove 1432], inequalities that exist both houses. L. U.S. [67 Population been a central basis 1262].” Ed. of the General As- sembly from the of its territorial time opinions various Based original predecessors.3 cases, the Carr and related Baker v. *7 adopted provided stitution in 1846 at § acknowledged federal courts have lower apportionment for the of and 31 senators following be considered factors to the among representatives the coun- several any determining ra is there whether “according ties to number white the of unequal rep design plan to a tional pro- (but inhabitants each” § : resentation county vided that no shall be divided in presence aof his- or absence 1. The forming representative a senatorial or complexion for the basis torical district). Moreover, present con- our legislature. of the pri- required apportionment stitution pos- marily presence population or absence on the basis of until repealed to electors remedies available sections were sible machinery. political the state’s in 1904.4 within Establishing Gov- the Territorial An Aet Establish to Territorial Government approved April approved 12, 1838, § of Wisconsin ernment of Iowa June provides: along This Stat. 235. latter statute “An [of the 1787 Northwest and Ordinance nearly equal assembly] Constitution, reprinted shall made as Iowa are among practicable, pp. the several coun- as 1 Iowa Code Ann. 45-105. ties, the election of the Council 4. The Constitution of Representatives, giving each and sec- art. §§ 34r- Territory originally provided: tion population, shall, in the ratio of its Indians 34. The number “Sec. of senators excepted, nearly following period as as be.” next at the session each provision making enumeration, The same is in An made Aet such and the Territory Wisconsin, following Divide the and next session each United States basically apportioned however, same is not noted, in terms It that county recognizes authority coun units. historical representation. ties as units of basic malap- Defendants assert also unquestionably served Counties portionment effectively if it exists can be govern traditionally local as units of by cured methods outlined in the state geographical ment, and are still there Thus, constitution. Consti- represen justifying as reasons use provides tution ei- amendment its government. Com tative units in state by legislative proposal ther electoral and supra, Simon, pare A., W. Inc. M. C. by ratification conven- or Adams, 376-378; F.Supp. at Sobel case, tion.5 But so often the 321-322; supra, F.Supp. Jack machinery permits mal- amendment apportioned Bodine, N.J.Super. man v. Assembly per- General county certainly A.2d 642. And petuate inequality representation. of individu more than an accumulation accomplished When amendments thereby inequalities als, justifying some through legislative proposal method None counties. in favor the smaller legislature; the initiative is with the serve theless, would such considerations people and when for a constitu- vote only justify apportionment in the legislature tional deter- convention the Representatives; the Senate House of mines how the convention will be to each ments to than to a shall ular fix the ratio ing which shall have going the number of white posed sembly; the number form to one additional district tative districts “See. 36. At its first counties representative. “white” representative among of more census, “Sec. 35. equal among Constitution, dred “Section 1. Representatives by majority district any ; to the ratio fixed session, number, representative.” adopted to one-half four be entitled to ratios to be fixed into in either sections a Const, the several be fixed of the two than shall wherever it which will not be this Constitution organized representative several The Senate shall hereafter be formed. of white fifty members, and at the General if art. in 1868.] of be entitled Any district was deleted House of the Every county the same shall be by *8 representative. of the ratio fixed representation, a number of more, counties and Houses, shall be counties, according amendment or amend- law, every subsequent reg- appears inhabitants inhabitants one more than one containing counties, §§ State, according shall contain more [Note: session under this shall be entitled shall not consist by law; members elected and to at least one law one-half of Assembly representative; districts entitled such nor the House 3, General As- in apportioned apportioned and district inhabitants an provide: The word represen- the fore- No float- and also in addi- in each. be by law, amend- but no agreed singly those each, shall hun- each pro- vention the electors fied, ing thereon, hundred vide, bers law, case a aforesaid, the favor posed amend the members jority ments shall become a be held journals, sion, thereon, House, jority people, General the General as the General to be chosen at the next and shall be against such the General year stitution of this State. amendments shall be time of such amendment amendment “Section [*] General thereafter, the voting for three months shall of a Convention amendment majority in such then delegates to making Assembly and referred to the all the members elected question, with the people such provide by Sfc revise the same?’ Assembly Assembly shall be entered qualified such General it shall be the electors at such Assembly, proposition, seventy, published, At the manner, year Assembly or of the electors so such shall General to such or amendments to the amendment ‘Shall there be a Con- amendments, to submit yeas [*] also at such times as shall be decided qualified agreed to, one thousand Assembly; choice; and in each tenth general approve may, so next chosen as election, Constitution, part law for and at at previous general vote for Convention.” shall Assembly, amendment or shall such its [*] by of the Con- provided duty nays Legislature to vote for election to- or amend- such such next ses- law, pro- decide in on their the elec- for and provide; purpose, election, to each and in ratify quali- taken if, mem- [*] eight time pro- vot- ma- ma- long justification Carr, U.S. is some As there stituted.6 See Baker v. diversifying political ini- L.Ed.2d the state’s S.Ct. tiative, inequalities (Clark, concurring). the which arise J., easily equal (in accepted more protection) terms of argument strongest Defendants’ given plan clear the the people rati- majority a have that the majority A approval of a voters. original the fied each amendment by the constitutional amendment ratified people pres- providing for the 1857 constitution solemn is the most they apportionment system, and that ent the court action state can take. No holding against a constitu- have voted quickly should in absence discard it years every since ten tional convention overwhelming compulsion. rejected argument has been This then. by three-judge federal at least one The majority amendment ratified was grounds slightly 53%, inalien- “[t]he that more than pro- equal right nearly every able constitutional and it carried in depend upon larger repealed cannot made old tection It counties. Thigpen v. majority.” apportionment replaced the will of F.Supp. cit- supra, at Meyers, present provisions, which them with Indeed, supra. ing Burkhart, only Moss v. have since been once—in amended characteristically con- equal protection is 1928. The 1928 amendment added rights minorities. cerned with county limitation no be entitled shall rati- to more than one senator.7 It was in plaintiffs’ Nonetheless, claims nearly majority fied substantial only present thrust our case derive 64%; ma- under-representa 5 counties8 did the degree from the some jority turn Since populous Plaintiffs’ down amendment. tion of counties. any direct the 1928 amendment the have re- votes are not diluted voters sense; jected is their counties’ immediate it four constitutional convention diluted, be year times—in 1930 and each since. tenth in less have that their votes cause of greatest difficulty with defendants’ electing of the Gen members fluence argument people is that have not Assembly. Assuredly, as stated eral sys- ratified at Baker U.S. they tem; ratified basic structure of direct, plain, 705, plaintiffs assert system, population but more recent maintaining ef adequate interest in brought shifts have about severe distor- than rather fectiveness their votes apparent which were not in 1904. tions right general re all citizens again connection, In this reference is government quire be adminis that their made to Schedule “A”. according to law. There is tered According 1900 Federal Census standing plaintiffs question have recent available when most data—the also, their claim is that But sue. adopted amendment was the average —the “disfavors classification 22,544, population was in the counties which the voters into 50 state could be divided and the position reside, placing in a them districts which would senatorial constitutionally unjustifiable inequality 44,637. Compared average population of *9 irrationally favored voters vis^a-vis average district, with such 207-208, County, by populous counties.” far the most Polk now, (82,624) as would not have at 705. then any people represent called for consti- district com- can 6. convention, county. single posed but none was ever tutional held. Moines, Lee, Linn, Plymouth Des 8. County specify Oddly, not Polk voters favor- The does Constitution Scott. although districts almost of senatorial measure 2-to —1. number ed the require senators, it does two
5Q1 underrepresenta- required ber felt suffer that a convention would be futile been 2- much as inasmuch as the house as would be left to either details larger malapportioned Assembly. Moreover, coun- a to-1. the other General Compare Meyers, Thigpen supra, accorded substan- ties would have been legislature tially equal representation. F.Supp. at 832. The acted has upon reapportionment by adopting the data, population which were The 1920 sessions, Shaff Plan at two consecutive was amendment when the 1928 available legislative recognition This of needed greater adopted, dis- show a somewhat change n parity. apportionment, County’s population was Polk “average” about 3.2 times that un_ The conclusion is almost district, favor m so vote Senatorial disparities present avoidabIe that approve m- (cid:127)of amendment would in tfae of both houses of proportion equality m the m that Senate. transgress Assembly the Iowa General populous counties next three most equal protec constitutional limita of popu 1.9, 1.5, a- and 1.5 times the had justification tion. While there is some average district. tion of the Senatorial inequa]ityj for apparent some there is no inequalities thus existed While some very rational basis for the substantial they adopted, when the amendments were inequality that exists both houses. ., frequent mv„ The neither so extreme nor so » were existing pattern . n , , , , , great they today. 4,* (cid:127)as then the Since v reapportionment ;. , „ of the house . established of the counties have remained small bulk 19Q4 foy ^ amendment and the limita. they general population indeed, estab_ tion of one senator a count ly ¿i. the 1928 smaller—while a become somewhat i. A t. mno i , , „ amendment, lished effective- , significant . of more small but number ,. ly prevent legislature , . accom- , grown . populous . counties have immense- ^ phshmg ,. , , anything approaching propor- , have (cid:127) . ^ ly. today we repregentation tionate respective legislature. branches It our Tltioíí 7ÁlT i + Wa°U ^ view that such constitutional ... s i curren (cid:127) . prevent proportionate combination ^ A Schedule discloses distinct tend- representation in both houses of the G'en- n ency larger for the urban in- centers to Assembly, eral and that the constitutional largely population, -crease in at the ex- provisions, stand, now are in- pense of rural areas. Thus it would vidiously discriminatory and in violation likely appear population that future state equal protection clause of the 14th trends will be such as to rather increase Amendment, existing disparities. than diminish Plan people The fact that the of Iowa have Two successive Iowa General Assem against repeatedly voted a constitutional meeting blies, 1963, passed in 1961 and persuasive, convention is but not suffi proposed the same constitutional amend acceptance cient to establish their relating legislative apportion apportionment. pos There is no specified by inment the manner way knowing many sible how voters Constitution. See 59 G.A. ch. against though voted they the measure even 1, 60 proposed S.J.R. G.A. ch.-. Such regarded present system generally amendment been has being referred unsatisfactory. Witnesses who to as the Shaff Plan and we shall so study refer had made some on vote legislature provided it. The expressed constitutional convention issue the submission of the amend many voters, the view dissatisfied people special a vote of ment to at a present apportionment, voted be held on election to December against a constitutional convention be *10 they preferred legislative cause the meth have asked Plaintiffs us to declare this proposing amendments, proposed od of heretofore constitutional amendment to be Quite possibly significant a set out. num of the 14th violative Amendment. given representative apportion to basis with one the Plan would The Shaff being given county, each no consideration population The basis. a senate |on population of compact dis- to the wide in variance the be divided into 58
would 10%), the con- (within Thus we are equal populations various counties. tricts representative. fronted issue Justice with the to one each district elect along Douglas Gray Sanders, supra, in states Populous divided could be counties is, voting decided, one township not been whether boundaries that district legislature a be equal representation. house bicameral in order to receive (cid:127) regard population. en- chosen made to without Elaborate upon af- periodic reapportionment The lack of such issue decision sure by granted by stay emphazied judicial further the a redistrict- review in case ford judgment ing Justice entered to the constitution- Stewart does not conform Michigan Supreme requirements. the Court al Hare, a Scholle v. 116 N.W.2d composed of 99 be The House would Michigan case, four-to-three vote. In the members, each from one elected reapportionment not house was regard population differences. without Michigan in issue. The court’s decision are far Inequalities would arise which representation found that was the senate greater presently either exist than invidiously discriminatory provided disparities presumably house, Secretary that instruct- of State was in fu- more extreme still would become apply ed to to the for court for direction years. ture large an election of at if a senators valid Plan that the Shaff seems clear It reapportionment not of the senate was provision a reasonable fair and makes provided by August 20, for representation in the proportionate for granting stay, stated Justice Stewart constitutionally acceptable upon a Senate presents the case de- an issue not Appropriate population basis. cided in Baker v. Carr. would, plan implementation of such course, required the amend- in event immediately be question The arises adopted. jurisdiction to whether this court has upon pass constitutionality necessary detail not be should It inequalities Plan Shaff at now representation inherent this time. It is not They plan. would part House will Constitution and nearly as in same be only approved become so if it is at the populous system, except coun- the most election called No its consideration. only representative ties would predict certainty any one can with now disparities is, two—that instead the result of such Thus election. and the smaller counties those between give advisory opinion is asked to an exactly it is double what be ones would question.9 an abstract Plan mere Under Shaff now. 23.5% Supreme one-fourth) Court Life Aetna (that’s than less represented Hartford, Haworth, population would be Ins. Co. Conn. v. state’s pop- majority of the House. On 227, 239-240, 461, 463, County Adams would ulation basis part: states L.Ed. compari- over-represented 36-to-l “The Constitution limits the exer- County. Polk son with judicial power cise ‘cases’ lack ‘controversies.’ Plan corrects the ‘The term Shaff “controversies,” distinguishable respect proportionate “cases,” provides is so in it is but the elec- all Senate strictly upon comprehensive latter, than House area less of a I.C.A., 6.10, Such amendments. Iowa Code stitutional statute 9. Section jurisdiction way enlarges District Courts the state authorizes opinions upon proposed advisory give courts. federal *11 A., supra, only Simon, civil W. M. C. Inc. suits and includes * * * Declaratory F.Supp. at 379 the court observes: nature.’ Judgment 1934, limita- in its Act of is, course, “This court bound to controversy,’ tion to of actual ‘cases give supremacy to the U. Constitu- S. regard manifestly Constitution, tion over a but State operative provision stitutional and is invalidity unless the is clear and only respect to controversies definite, we are reluctant over- which such in the constitutional throw of the electors this choice * * * Declaratory sense. this state. Judgment fall deemed to Act must be may “In this connection we well congressional within this ambit of power, heed the wise of dis- admonitions relief so far as it authorizes tinguished United members exercise which is consonant Supreme States Court who judicial deter- function spoken as follows: mination of controversies to “ ‘The traditions and habits of judicial under the Constitution the centuries were to be not intended power extends. overthrown when that amendment ‘controversy’ must “A sense passed.’ [the Fourteenth] was judi- appropriate be Opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes Unit- cial determination. Osborn v. Rail- Interstate Consolidated Street 738, Bank, ed 819 [6 States 9 Wheat. way Massachusetts, 1907, Co. v. 204], justiciable L.Ed. A contro- 79, 87, 26, 27, U.S. 28 S.Ct. 52 L.Ed. versy distinguished is thus dispute hypotheti- difference or of a “ ‘The Constitution contin- character; from one cal or abstract uously operating Charter of Govern- academic or moot.” impossible ment does not demand the Corporations, In Coffman v. Breeze impractical.’ Opinion 324, 302, Inc., 323 U.S. 65 S.Ct. Hirabayashi Chief Justice Stone in it is said: L.Ed. States, 1943, v. United 320 U.S. declaratory judgment 1375, 1387, proce- “The S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. dure is available the federal courts only involving in cases an actual ‘“* * * legislature, [T]he * * * controversy,
case or
acting
sphere, presumed
within its
it
not made the medium for
people
to know the needs of the
securing
advisory opinion
in a
Opinion
the State.’
of Chief Justice
controversy which has not arisen.”
Hughes
Yeomans,
in Townsend v.
441, 451,
League
301 U.S.
57 S.Ct.
To like effect
see
Nebraska
847,
where,
appropriate
under
ground
county representation
one-
in
for
may
validity
proposed amendments
legislature has heretofore-
branch of the
a
question
whether
be
on
relevant
been set out.
good
making
to
effort
a
faith
state is
amending
The
the Iowa
methods of
existing
rectify
discrimination.
invidious
and it.
Constitution have been discussed
say
record,
Upon
cannot
we
prod-
is the
shown that the Shaff Plan
attempting in
Iowa has
been
not
amendatory processes.
uct of one of the
good
provide
to
for constitutional
faith
people upon
dear-
The vote of the
legislative
apportionment
bodies.
in its
may
by
presented
issue
Plan
the Shaff
Carr,
states:
In
v.
Justice Clark
Baker
ultimately be held
be of
considerable-
significance
“I
consider intervention
passing upon
would not
the ration-
by
field
ality
into
delicate
this Court
so
Under-
amendment.
any
avail-
circumstances,
relief
there were
other
we feel
that we-
such
people of Tennessee.”
any way attempt
able to the
in-
should not
by
at
369
82 S.Ct.
upon
U.S.
fluence
Plan
the vote
the Shaff
expressing
premature
upon
its-
view
recog
Many
have
trial courts
constitutionality.
made-
course
Such
that available
obvious fact
nized the
by
inability upon the-
clear
reason of our
correcting any
procedure
mal
for
state
existing
say
basis
standards
branches
degree
any
of assurance what standards-
greatly preferred
may
Supreme
adopt,
hereafter
Court
have
imposed
court decree
federal
upon
presented.
here
undecided issue
entry
reason
decree for
withheld
possible
It is
the time the voters-
ap
permit the
to take
able time to
state
expressed
view
Adams,
propriate
D.C.
action. Sobel v.
upon
light
Plan, further
will'
the Shaff
D.C.,
S.D.Fla.,
316;
F.Supp.
214
be shed
standards for determin-
McNichols,
F.Supp.
D.C.
v.
Lisco
ing invidious discrimination in the situ-
D.Colo.,
F.Supp. 471, 478-479.
Supreme
ation before
Court
us
conflicting
many
de-
lower
The
pending
in some
now
cases
before-
law
arti-
and numerous
review
cisions
Moreover,
upon appeal.
such court
bearing
pre-
problem
upon the
here
cles10
event
Plan
the Shaff
should be voted
legisla-
light upon the
shed little
sented
down, needless interference with state
Su-
standards
tive
processes
will be avoided.
ultimately adopt. Sup-
preme
will
Court
existing
may
port
be found
cases
Remedy.
The
validity
M.
Plan.
C.
the Shaff
W.
present case,
unlike
our
the situa-
supra;
Adams,
A.,
Simon,
Sobel v.
Inc. v.
Carr,
many
in Baker
other
N.J.Super.
Bodine,
supra; Jackman v.
legislature
cases,
reported
the Iowa
414,