*1
William and husband Gretchen wife; Rohrer; Douglas Samuel A. John; Long; Bingo E. Si Coeur D'Al ene, Idaho, municipal corporation; Be Jones, Gen., Frost, Atty. Thomas Jim C. County, newah subdivision of McClure, Deputy Attys. and Kenneth R. Idaho; High and Post Falls the State Gen., defendants-appellants. District, Plaintiffs-Respondents, way d’Alene, Givens, Coeur Raymond C. Hellar. plaintiffs-respondents CENARRUSA, Secretary Pete T. of the Boise, Mather, for intervenors. Susan Idaho; Chapin, Clifford in his capacity County Bonner official Clerk HUNTLEY, Justice. similarly and on of those behalf situat ed; Idaho, Defendants-Ap and State of appellants seek a review of By this pellants. an order of the district court which held apportionment of the Ida- present No. 14700. legislature ho is unconstitutional as viola-
Supreme Court Idaho. which tive of reads: June AND
“SENATORIAL REPRESENTA- rep- TIVE senatorial or DISTRICTS —A District, resentative when more than one same, shall be county shall constitute counties, and no composed creating divided in such county shall be (Emphasis supplied.) districts.” undisputed thirty-four It is districts created thirty-five Bill 830 of the second session of the House (codified as I.C. Forty-fifth Legislature 67-202) portion contain a of a divided leg- county. Twenty-two thirty-five join portion all or a of one islative districts portions of one or more other apparent direct violation against dividing constitutional representa- or to form senatorial counties tive districts. census receipt of 1980 federal
Following March, information July special convened in session was itself. reapportioning purpose reapportionment produced The session 1004, which was vetoed Bill Senate ses- regular The second governor. Legislature passed Forty-Sixth sion of the Bill plan in House another produced That session then also vetoed. ap- establishing present Bill House portionment scheme.
In
for
of a
counties as
in the ac-
reapportionment
forty-four
both houses
defendants
1982,
17,
hearing
the
the
legislature,
May
bicameral
United
tion. After
state
the
plaintiffs’
States
Court has
that
entered its order
denying
mandated
objective
the
election in
overriding
enjoin
general
must be substantial motion to
the
November, 1982,
partial
a
equality
population among
of
the various
but rendered
de-
districts
is
order that
violates Art.
claratory
so that
vote of
citizen
H.B. 830
3,
5,
that
approximately equal
weight
to
of
the Idaho
and that
of
any other
in the
legis-
citizen
state.
of Idaho can be divided into
State
equal represen-
providing
lative districts
for
prior
There is no doubt that
enact-
to the
order to
the mandates
comply
tation in
the apportionment
ment of HB 830
without
the United States Constitution
legislative
Equal
districts violated the
county boundaries.
Court or-
violating
Protection Clause
the Fourteenth
issues
respect
dered that “with
deter-
the United
Amendment of
States Constitu-
order,
is hereby
mined
above
it
certi-
by
light
tion when viewed in
cen-
the 1980
the above
be final ...”
fied that
order shall
sus.
variations ran from
54(b). The
court fur-
under I.R.C.P.
trial
44,793
2,
17,930
34,
to
in district
in district
ther ordered:
districting
and a new
plan was constitution-
jurisdiction
“2. The Court shall retain
ally necessary
equal
order to achieve
for
further
and
proceedings
this case
representation. House Bill
appear
830 does
Order, if
modification of this
need be.
to
representation require-
meet the
regularly
In the event that the next
ment of the United States Constitution.
Legislature
convened
State
does
This action was initiated in
1982 for
April
constitutional, legislative
a
redis-
pass
not
declaratory judgment
injunctive
and
relief.
pursuant
Opinion,
law
tricting
to this
and
plaintiffs challenged
the reapportion-
provide
Special
for a
Election thereunder
ment
as unconstitutional
art. 3
under
will,
during
this Court
after a dead-
5 of the Idaho
sought
and
1, 1983,
April
line of
a Court
enter
Or-
preliminary
permanent
injunction
Legislative Redistricting and
dered
Order
against conducting the
primary
Special Legislative
for a
Election.
general elections.
4. With
to the issues determined
The second amended complaint chal-
Order,
by
hereby
above
it is
certified
lenged the statute on the basis
the divi-
the above Order shall be a final
sion of
the division of the Coeur
which an
Order
tak-
d’Alene Indian
sepa-
Reservation into four
provided Appellate
en as
the Idaho
districts,
rate
and the failure to follow tra-
Rules and Idaho Rule of
Procedure
Civil
ditional municipal, county,
geographical
54(b).”
boundaries. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for
adjourned
The 1983
session
on
preliminary injunction
de-
restraining
April
and as of
date the
25,1982,
fendants
conducting May
had taken
reappor-
no action
was
primary
May
set for
hearing
April
tion
court-ordered
3,1982, along with several defense motions.
stay
No
court’s
deadline.
trial
order
By
4,May
written order dated
by either
sought
party.
enjoin
plaintiffs’
Court denied
motion to
stated in
ex rel. Brassey
This court
election, but
down
primary
set the matter
Hanson,
P.2d 706
hearing
an additional
on May
(1959):
for hearing
plaintiffs’
pre-
motion
judicial pow-
“It is fundamental
injunction
enjoin
holding
liminary
to declare
action invalid
er
of 1982.
general election November
grounds is to be exer-
upon constitutional
order,
granted
May
4th
court also
only in clear
cised
cases....
plaintiffs’
permission
to file a
motion
“
passed
complaint
second amended
in the
of a
‘In
case of statutes
form
Assembly
class
and assailed as un-
joining
Legislative
action
clerks
is
constitutional the
not whether
citizen is
approximately equal
weight
condemn,
it
it is
whether
to that
citizen in the
possible
but
other
State.”
is
com-
S.Ct. at 1390.
possible
uphold;
we stand
mitted to the rule that a
will not
statute
Noting
uniquely
that Idaho “is
situated
be declared
unless its
unconstitutional
social,
by virtue
topography,
of its
econom-
placed,
judgment,
in our
nullity
beyond
ic,
interests,”
religious
the district court
”
*3
reasonable doubt’
S.Ct.
Idaho lies in two time zones. There are
Supreme
Court held:
in Idaho bound to-
major regions
three
standard,
constitutional
“as a basic
economics,
gether by transportation,
requires
Equal Protection Clause
that the
major
three
communications. Our
uni-
seats of both houses of a
state
bicameral
in each
occupy
place
region.
versities
apportioned
pop-
must be
on a
it has been said that
Facetiously,
Simply stated,
ulation basis.
an individu-
i.e., Boise,
has
capitals,
three
right
al’s
to vote for state
legislators
Southwest; Spokane, Washington in the
unconstitutionally
impaired when its
north;
City,
Lake
Utah in the
Salt
is in a substantial
weight
fashion diluted
southeast.
with votes
liv-
compared
when
of citizens
notice
judicial
Court can take
that
parts
in other
of the State.”
closely
Spo-
North Idaho is more
tied
However,
Supreme
Court noted:
kane,
social, economic,
Washington,
legitimately
“A
desire to main-
may
State
reasons than to
transportation
other
integrity
political
tain
of various
sub-
of
parts
of Idaho.
State
divisions,
possible,
provide
insofar as
promote
In order to
the interests of
districts of
terri-
compact
major
area
areas
each
in the three
designing
legislative apportion-
tory
State,
the various counties
State
may
ment scheme. Valid considerations
political, geograph-
have
been the
always
aims.
Indiscriminate dis-
underlie such
ic, economic,
and social unit
regard
tricting,
without
people
functioning
depended
or
subdivision or natural
historical bound-
governments.
their local
lines,
open
little more
an
ary
may be
than
on a
taxes are collected
coun-
Property
partisan gerrymandering.
invitation to
taxing
basis
districts rare-
ty
and various
the rule
Single-member districts
ever,
if
lines.
ly,
cross
State,
might
while another
one
based on the
Law enforcement is
coun-
by cre-
flexibility
desire to achieve some
and various
ty
department
city
sheriff’s
districts.
multimember or floterial
ating
police
county.”
within
departments
of accomplishment,
Whatever the means
Sims, supra,
Supreme
overriding objective
Reynolds
must be substan-
that,
respect
appor-
var-
to the
population among
tial
Court noted
with
equality of
districts,
tionment
districts,
state
ious
so
vote
“such.
precision
specific
“mathematical
exactness or
is word
The inclusion of that
pronoun suggests
does
hardly
require-
a workable constitutional
districts,
ment,”
that,
but
not extend to all
composed
which are
only to such districts
a strict
long
divergences
“So
as the
pronoun
“more
one
county.”
than
legiti-
standard are based on
antecedent,
prior
must have an
and the
the effec-
mate considerations incident to
made
more than
up
reference to districts
some
policy,
tuation of a rational state
that antecedent.
county clearly supplies
one
equal-population
from the
deviations
permissible
are
principle
constitutionally
agree
interpretation
We
with the
of art.
apportionment
urged
City
of Boise.
Such
houses
seats in either or both of the two
only plain
construction is not
and obvious
legislature.”
a bicameral state
section,
reading
comports
but also
at 1391.
S.Ct.
suggestion
with the
of the United States
preservation
boundary
against
of historical
the use of multi-
*4
unique
lines and
subdivisions has been rec- member
unless there are
districts
ognized
justification
as
deviation
dis-
justify
some
factors that would
use of such
See,
Johnson,
requirement
from the basic
tricts.
Connor v.
U.S.
690,
1760,
(1971),
districts be as
might required to become involved believe, I process. actual reapportionment however, judi- reapportionment by only should be a last resort.
ciary continu- Supreme Court has judicial re- ally recognized the need for as a legislature straint and Particu- government. coordinate branch should be judicial do I believe restraint larly courts in this delicate area of exercised reor- legislature substantially forcing mem- some of its ganize legislate itself and wisdom, if bership out of existence. Our have, from that of the we is different necessary to in the numbers legislature also, factors to be consensus and in the reach very Those factors enunciated considered. judge which make Idaho by the district weighed by large unique might be better all representation body member differences rather than the areas of those or even single judge district membership of this Court.
Hopefully, necessary, if pending will so act. With the cause Court, no real appeal in this there has been I impetus need nor action. into judiciary would not rush to intrude the what I conceive to be a clear process. *6 Thomas, Caldwell, appellants.
Andrew
respondent. appearance by No PER CURIAM.
664 P.2d in small the McConnells Skogerson sued SKOGERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, Lori judgment and received claims court decided against them. McConnells McCONNELL, Jerry C. Lawrence were they court where appeal to district Defendants-Appellants. de novo. I.R.C.P. to receive a trial entitled post indigency 81(n). Unable because No. by I.C. required bonds the cash Supreme Court of Idaho. 81(7), and I.R.C.P. and -2312 1-2311 §§ for an order the district court they moved 8, 1983. June fees, se- costs and waiving prepayment of The dis- 31-3220. curity pursuant I.C. § motion, reasoning trict court denied in excess the motion would be grant that to