*1 In the Matter of the DIS- LEGISLATIVE TRICTING OF ASSEM GENERAL By BLY of Iowa as Enacted Gen 63rd Assembly (House 781). eral RASMUSSEN, Margaret
Clark R. A. Schroed er, O’Neal,Jacky Willie J. L. Adams Burke, Applicants, W. Robert Turner, RAY, Governor,
Robert C. Richard Attorney General, Synhorst, Secre Melvin Secretary tary State, Lane, Carrol A., 63rd William G. Rep Kendrick, Chief Clerk of A., Respondents. resentatives of the 63rd G.
No. 53764.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Feb.
which may apportion- be considered in the ing of senatorial districts. No law so permit the of shall establishment majority whereby senatorial districts of represent the members of the senate shall popu- percent forty (40) less than of lation of the as most state shown recent United decennial census.” States Following Sixty- this amendment Assembly third chapter General enacted 328: joint
“A resolution establish a com- mission study appor- to conduct a tionment Assembly of the General and to make recommendations to As- the General sembly, principles stating study for the and Smith, City, Dan Harry M. Sioux John- providing and for action.” ston, Moines, applicants. Des for This chapter testimony referred to in the Gen., Turner, Atty. Elizabeth C. Richard as (Senate Resolution be- 5) Gen., Nolan, E. Atty. and Richard A. Asst. Joint publication came January effective on Gen., respondents. Haesemeyer, for Sol. 1969. Section created a 14-member commis- MASON, Justice. composed persons sion to be of selected the state of each larg- chairmen of the two original proceeding is an before This political parties est in Iowa from residents of constitutionality to review the congressional of each the seven of Iowa’s un- of tricts. chapter Sixty-third der Acts of Assembly. chapter, referred General provided organization for of Section 2 781, appor- in the record House commission; to hold authorized Representa- tions Senate and hearings, employ and technical assistance membership Assembly of the General tives representatives political consult with the 1970elections. parties groups. III, Article Iowa Con- guidelines Section afforded these stitution,- as amended November the commission: provides: possi- March if “On or before composed “The senate of not shall be ble, April and in than event later fifty rep- than and the house more 1969, the commission shall file in the of- than resentatives not more one hundred secretary apportion- fice of state representa- (100) members. Senators and which shall be consistent tives shall be elected from districts estab- following principles: lished law. Each district established compact contiguous territo- be of shall repre- “a. There shall one hundred ry. apportioned The shall be into fifty senatorial dis- sentative districts and representative senatorial single-mem- shall tricts. Each district population. The as- the basis of ber district. may provide sembly by law factors apportioned in conflict with “b. Both houses shall population, addition States, constitution of the United basis shown the 1960 Districts 1.09to 1.20. Plan 7 with a var- States decennial census. United point departure substantially equal iance 1.10became shall be of contiguous compact for the commission’s work. commis- shall be plan signed by territory, required by the Constitution 14 members was all largest Its April the Constitution filed House dis- of the state of Iowa and 26,000; 29,590, trict was the smallest *3 of the United States. 58,622, largest district was the Senate shall district consist “c. Each senatorial 52,116. The smallest ratio of extremes representative districts. entire two 1was to 1.14 in the House and 1 to 1.12in the A ratio of 1:1.14 means the Senate. voting precinct shall divided “d. No percent greater 14 than largest district is forming a district. the smallest. “e. District boundaries shall follow receiving After the commission’s recom- county possible, sub- boundaries wherever ap- the 6 mendation June ject the requirements to constitutional proved which became law House File 781 principles other stated this section. high July provides low 1. It the same plan the but House commission possible, “f. Wherever senators shall be 58,822 high district of permitted complete establishes a the terms which making 52,116, popula- smallest they Any were the elected. senator elected be- 1.13:1 four-year term, in the Senate 1968 for a and who is the tion variance districts. smallest only largest residing senator his district under tween apportionment plan, permitted shall be ways in two may compared Districts complete his If sen- term. two or more largest, to the smallest of the (cid:127) —the ratio ators reside in the same senatorial district de- district an ideal the deviation or plan, under the that district shall elect dis- number of by dividing the termined senator in the 1970 elections and terms total the 1960 into established tricts to be necessary per- be shortened shall where general- The commission population. mit such election.” criterion. the former applied ly Section retained for the As- General by the as determined Population of Iowa sembly freedom of action adopt to either 2,757,537. The was census federal plan, modify adopt commissio,n’s has House a 100-member district ideal plan itsof own. 27,575, ideal senate population 55,150. The act further provided plan for 50 members trict adopted be applicable should for the 1970 III, section language of Article elections. original ju- amended, grants this court Appointed apportionment an organized commissioners to review and risdiction employed technical adopted by legislature: assistance to program computer and furnish the commission quali- by any application “Upon verified apportionment plans generated by com- shall review elector, supreme court fied puter from data furnished. The basic cri- gen- adopted by the apportionment an input teria included in the fed into the into has been enacted assembly which eral computer were: population, determine supreme court Should the law. compactness and contiguity of districts. re- comply with the plan does such ba- federal census furnished the constitution, court quirements sic data for all plans considered days ninety (90) within shall by the arbitrary commission with certain apportionment cause adjustments shifts. supreme comply. The which shall litiga- of all original jurisdiction Eleven shall have submitted to were the com- questioning the mission with a from tion variance of requirements any apportionment and state constitutional assembly or general assembly.” respondents failed to deviation justify plan adopted districts; among (2) requiring are electors of for review Applicants preservation re- voting precincts political subdivisions who various Iowa greater population variance than sulted Amend- violates contend necessary is unconstitutional and the same Ar- federal constitution ment 14 proscription chapter re- 1(4), section I, the Iowa Constitution ticle apportion- sulted an unconstitutional in sena- population variance because of ; adoption by the commission and districts. representative torial and Assembly of a de stand- General minimis population variance rather than an ard of legislature failed to They assert equal practicable standard” “as equal achieve good-faith make a *4 equal- population increased deviations provisions certain population districts and unconstitutionally ity; chapter dele- (^) 89 legis- delegation of constitute a act gates legislators placed a to incumbent provision power; lative power to determine certain district 5, voting supra, that no set out 3(d), shall remain of- among themselves who forming a dis- precinct shall be divided pre- term ended and who shall have his fice prohibited the most accurate trict use of the act discriminates maturely; (5) and resulted in a available and data electors, disenfranchising against certain equality than neces- greater deviation from totally. them As- sary; the commission and General and unequal to size sembly created districts of Lomenzo, WMCA, In 377 II. Inc. v. for proportionate representation increase 1418, 1428, 633, 653, 12 L. 84 S.Ct. U.S. rejected plans with dis- groups interest and 568; for Fair Maryland Committee Ed.2d chapter 89. unequal than those of tricts less 656, Tawes, Representation v. U.S. 595; 1429, 1439, 674, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. unequal assert districts They further Mann, 678, 690, 84 S.Ct. Davis v. 377 U.S. county, existing preserve to were created 1447, 609; Sin Roman 1441, 12 L.Ed.2d v. boundaries, pre- precinct township and 1457, 695, 1449, cock, 708, 84 377 U.S. S.Ct. membership legislators; serve incumbent 620; Forty-fourth and Lucas v. 12 L.Ed.2d justification there is no constitutional 734, 713, Colo., 377 U.S. Gen. Assem. variances; equal- more and 632, 1459, 1472, decid L.Ed.2d all S.Ct. could ly apportioned legislative districts Sims, Reynolds as v. day ed same have been created. 506, 1362, 533, 12 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. * * said, Reynolds v. “In Sims Court attorney governor, are the Respondents Clause Equal Protection we held secretary secretary of the state, general, a houses of bi seats in both requires that House of chief clerk of the Senate appor legislature must be state cameral appli- They deny all Representatives. population basis.” substantially aon tioned sup- invalidity and cants’ contentions pop- only limited permitting port the act as Tawes, Rep. Fair v. Maryland Com. are unavoidable ulation variances which 1439, 12 at supra, despite good-faith a de minimis statement: contains this L.Ed.2d at nearly equality, absolute achieve practicable. “ * * * determining validity [I]n plan, the same apportionment of a State’s may be here Applicants’ contentions I. appli- standards are federal chapter 89 as-asserting summarized in a litigated the matter cable whether popula- with a legislative districts created federal or a state court.” both federal which violates tion variance Sims, supra, percent In v. 377 U.S. at are per 7.3 above and 5.7 1389-1390, 12 L.Ed.2d at cent the average. below In the de percent per said: viations are 6.6 above and 5.5 average. cent below the “By holding that as a federal constitu- McCulloch, leg- of a state requisite both houses Kruidenier v. 258 Iowa tional popula- 1121, 1149, apportioned noted islature must be N.W.2d we Equal Reyn- Protec- basis, we mean that the recognition tion Court’s an requires impossibility that a State make olds tion Clause good precision” faith effort construct “mathematical exactness honest districts, legislature, its quoted houses of both from that decision: practi- equal population as “ * * * long divergences as the So im- practical that it is realize cable. We from a strict standard are based arrange possibility legitimate considerations to the incident identical number of one has that each policy, of a rational effectuation citizens, Mathe- or voters. residents, or the equal-population some deviations from hardly precision matical exactness principle constitutionally permissible requirement.” workable constitutional to the of seats Sincock, supra, 377 U.S. bi- Roman in either both the two houses 1458, 12 L.Ed.2d at *5 legislature.” 84 cameral state. Id. at 579 of S.Ct. U.S., guideline: furnishes 84 537 of 12 377 1391 of S.Ct. L.Ed. “ [*] * [T]he proper judicial ap- 2d. whether, under
proach to ascertain far the Court has not at- is Thus existing figure in the in- tempted per- to particular percentage circumstances fix legislative apportion- legislative apportion- in whose variation dividual State missible issue, a faithful been sat- is there has and has said that “the most ment at ment population-based of isfactory arriving to a of at detailed adherence means minor deviations representation, requirements with such in the area recognizing certain in only may legislative apportionment” as occur Sims, any ar- taint of v. Reynolds are free from case-by-case that See factors basis. 1390, 12 578, at supra, or discrimination.” at 84 bitrariness 377 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at 537. cases handed the five Reynolds and quote following set out Reynolds, date, each in- In supra, cited the same down McCulloch, supra, v. ap- in Kruidenier proposed plans for legislative volved said, history alone, nor neither “But Houses of Court in the two portionment seats interests, group or other sorts Alabama, Vir- economic York, Maryland, New attempting permissible in factors legislatures. and Colorado Delaware ginia, population-based disparities from justify variances plain population representation.” apportion present legislative district held inde variances exceed ment Iowa accomplish the means Whatever Preisler, 394 U. Kirkpatrick v. fensible objective must be sub ment, overriding 519, (de 1225, 526, L.Ed.2d 22 89 S.Ct. S. population among equality of stantial 2.- percent above only viations 3.13 districts, so that the vote various held in average were percent below 84 weight to equal in approximately citizen the small largest to ; ratio of the valid the state. citizen any other that of v. in Wells 1) was 1.06 est district at Sims, 377 U.S. supra, Reynolds v. 1234, 22 Rockefeller, 89 S.Ct. 394 U.S. at L.Ed.2d 12 84 S.Ct. ranged 6.4 535, (deviations L.Ed.2d Electoral 6,.6 Illinois State v. Skolnick percent below percent above 691, a F.Supp. 307 Board, (N.D.Ill.E.D.), deviations average). In H.F. 781
25 three-judge considering Illi “The ‘as nearly practicable’ federal court as standard apportionment plans requires for its nois’ that the good-faith State make a Representatives and House said: precise to achieve mathematical equality. Reynolds See v. 377 U.S. express “The Supreme has not in Court 533, 577, 1362, 1389, 12 L.Ed.2d suggestion terms p. withdrawn its 578 (1964). 506 Unless variances U.S., S.Ct., 84 1390of 537 of 12 L. [of among congressional districts are shown to that, ‘Somewhat more Ed.2d] effort, despite resulted such the State flexibility may constitutionally therefore variance, must justify each no matter how permissible to state small.” congressional than in has, tricting.’ however, The Court said Preisler, In Kirkpatrick 394 U. that the both standard in situations is ‘as S. at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d nearly practicable,’ as and has defined the 524, the rejected argu Missouri’s standard, (p. Kirkpatrick 531) [of percent there is a fixed numerical U.S., S.Ct., L.Ed.2d], 1229 of 525 of age population enough variance small as ‘only permitting, limited considered de satisfy minimis and to variances which despite are unavoidable question nearly practica without the “as good-faith equal- effort to achieve absolute ble” standard. After detailing its reasons ” ity, justification or for which is shown.’ in support rejection of the de minimis
approach the
“see no
Court could
nonarbi-
trary way
pick
point
a cutoff
at which
question
is whether districts
suddenly
variances
become de
by chapter
popula
created
are based
Moreover,
minimis.
to consider a certain
practicable
tion
as is
range of variances
minimis
de
would en
required by Wesberry
Sanders,
courage legislators to strive for
range
11 L.Ed.2d
and as that
*6
equality
nearly
rather than for
as
prac
as
apportionment
standard is
in later
clarified
ticable.”
Supreme
cases before the
Court.
Sims,
here,
in
Although
pre-
The commission
filed
the Court
v.
as
560-561,
supra,
viously noted,
percent
had
377 U.S.
deviations of
1381,
percent
recognized
in the
and 14
in the
L.Ed.2d at
Senate
House.
Wes-
berry,
congressional
legislature
It
clear the
which
dis-
is
Iowa
started with
involved
disposi-
apportionment plan,
trict
was not
creating legislative
these variances in
dis-
tive of
that
directly controlling
or
Court’s
tricts under
File 781.
House
involving
legislative
decision in
state
cases
wholly
controversies, it
neither was it
opinion acknowledgement Reyn-
said
In our
in
inapposite
as an
Wesberry
refers
supra,
impossibility
olds v.
“clearly
that
authority
precision”
established
“mathematical exactness
as
representative
principle
the fundamental
requirement
a workable
equal
country
in
one of
government
this
justify “somewhat
which would
more flexi-
people,
representation
numbers of
equal
apportionment
bility”
legislature
in state
race, sex, economic sta-
regard to
without
disparity
plans
permit
does not
tus,
a State.”
place
or
within
of residence
by House File
magnitude created
781 “only
pop-
acceptable
the limited
legally
7, 1969,
April
years
Almost five
later
are unavoidable
ulation variances which
elucidating the “as
in
despite good-faith
achieve abso-
nearly
standard announced
practicable”
justification is
for which
equality,
lute
Kirkpatrick
Wesberry, supra,
said
v.
Kirk-
pronouncement in
under the
shown”
Preisler,
89 S.Ct.
patrick v. Preisler.
1229,
734-735, 1472-1473, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 at S.Ct. deci- expressly reserved at the Court noted, applicants previously III. As of 7 upon validity of variation the and proscription 5(d) of contend the Adams, supra, 385 percent. Swann v. See voting that chapter 1(4), at 572, L.Ed.2d U.S. at forming a in precinct should be divided in an unconsti- legislative district resulted variance. population tutional Municipalities League In of Nebraska Marsh, supra, three-judge federal Sims, supra, The Court percent ratio of 6 between disapproved a 1390, L.Ed. Ne- districts in largest and smallest distinction some noting that 2d at plan. legislative apportionment braska’s population precincts, might congressional be made between it is difficult to regions of representation, building said: use legislative this size as blocks ** equality. to achieve popula- The “* * * may polit- be to use It feasible tion inputs generate used to Plans 10 and extent in greater ical lines to a subdivision townships were precincts. The use legislative districts than establishing state would, of smaller in my units congressional still af- districting while opinion, popula- tend further reduce the fording adequate representation parts to all * * * tion Breaking pre- variance. of of To so zvould be constitu- the State. do perfect cincts assist in getting would valid, ap- resulting as the tionally long If I being were redistrict without portionment substantially was one based intact, maintaining precincts restricted to I princi- equal population get population fig- assume that I would ple way” significant zeas in any not diluted ures from a census tract enumeration (Emphasis supplied). provides. district data which the census my understanding of that this data much guideline, although foregoing rec- has already been Legisla- collected ognizing that a workable tive Research I Bureau. assume apportionment might use of achieved Legislative certify Research Bureau could political subdivisions the formation of data based on using enumeration districts legislative districts, emphasized portion tract groupings.” census against guard resulting cautions to dilution equality population principle. hesitancy had no crossing county redistricting lines in under admonition is renewed Wells v. Rockefeller, governmental H.F. 781. Other bodies do 89 S. U.S. not always precinct voting lines atCt. L.Ed.2d at where § and from time to time our cities towns repeats Court by Kirkpat- enunciation such popula- altered to achieve variances, lines accept rick that “to equality. tion are not aware of small, We large or in order districts to create why may valid voting precinct reason lines specific interest orientations anti- accomplishment if it altered aids premise thetical to the basic of the consti- of a legally accepted apportionment “as tutional provide equal repre- command to practicable”. equal sentation people.” numbers of Guidelines furnished Under circumstances before require legislatures good- to make a requirement keeping this court the vot faith repre- achieve precincts ing intact was one factors sentation in adopting apportion- constitutionally brought inval about requirement ment. To follow the of S.J.R. apportionment. prohibit id This directive 5 and precinct H.F. voting lines ed most data use accurate available. constantly kept intact in formation accomplishment make propositions urged could IV. All have been *8 goal this impossible. individually considered whether mentioned or not reaching our conclusion. Support for a determination that elimi- nation proscription would have re- ap turn V. now to the relief We sulted greater population equality is plicants from this seek—an order found in testimony this of Professor providing apportionment of Senate and Liittschwager, the technical assistant to the for elections. commission: part of their prayer por rests “The input III, smaller the regions the better tion of pro Article which * * * get one can population equality. vides that this court an ap if determines Cities such as fairly Waterloo large portionment by have plan adopted the General Preisler, su- Kirkpatrick v. condemned consti- comply Assembly does the command by pra. All restricted were it shall within requirements, tutional voting precincts in- keep ap- 5(d) of adopted an days adopt be or cause to constitutional mus- pass None could comply. tact. plan shall portionment which by the furnished guidelines ter under steps under two This clause embodies therefore We Court. (1) a determination circumstances here: population-based available validity of the of the constitutional adopted by the court could be reached) adopted (which we have established one alternative court, within requirement this ne- with the and are confronted H.F. 781 in- determining days filing a decision after adoption of causing cessity adopting of le- adopted validity, or cause of acceptable without benefit legally gally acceptable plan. efforts. the commission's step Compliance second of with the computer be service would Aid of the presents unusual constitutional mandate Professor obtained. desirable and could be problems to the application its when Liittschwager testified: attempted. primary detail election We juris- gener- computer at this time rather than retain is still available some “The purpose plans in the legislative diction of the matter for the district ate further adopt- days of supplemental to 45 entering a order either State Iowa. Within data, gen- ing causing adoption a valid redis- I could receiving redistricting wholly plan which be inef- tricting would erate additional practicalities all because of plans for for the fective State.” element involved. time necessary However, data gathering primary for elections is holding The time any com- then would consume time. Even fixed 43.7 in this manner: Code section to the plans puter-generated submitted fig- on 1960 census court would be based primary political “The election all relying, advisability even ures. parties voting shall held at the usual be ten-year-old data establish- part, on such places of precincts the several on the first redistricting plan re- ing at this time Tuesday Monday after the first in June popula- quired to based on substantial pri- each even year.” numbered The 1970 questiona- definitely tion would mary will held thus be 2. June required for time ble. Additional would provides filing Section 43.11 nom- submitted the court’s consideration papers: ination adoption. before formal papers in “Nomination behalf aof candi- constitutionally adopt a For us valid date shall be filed: require more apportionment plan would day last before the time than is available * * filing papers for nomination “2. for member of the legislature. assembly, in the secretary office days state not more than eighty-five nor presented consideration An additional sixty-five less than days prior day to the amendment to sentence first fixed for holding primary said election. III, Article section 35: * * day The last to file nomination papers is March general assembly shall 1971 and “The *9 following immediately the year in each plans The 11 census determine States decennial submitted to United the commis- representatives had population senators variances of the number from to9 assembly the elected percent greater deviations than those — representative senatorial and BECKER, establish (dissenting). Justice tricts.” I reluctantly dissent from IV, Divisions V and opinion VI of the and the result. present A change districting plan the My reluctance stems gravity from the by undoubtedly this court would fol- the issue and unanimity of the court in by change lowed another for the 1972elec- reaching the indicated result. There is a apparent population tion because of shifts imposed new duty by this court amend- which will in the be reflected 1970 census. ment to the Iowa Constitution. Since I agree cannot that because of the time ele- We decline to use estimates ment involved we can or per- should fail to as a apportionment basis for a duty, form this necessary it seems to set since not we are convinced of their accura- out the reasons for position taken. cy. It I. should first be clear that I concur For reasons stated we deem it unwise I, in Divisions II and wherein III adoption adoption undertake or cause court apportionment plan finds the repre- any redistricting plan for elec- the 1970 by sented House File 781 is unconstitu- tions. imperative government tional Equal as violative of the Protection continue and to that end deviations Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to might otherwise be fatal will be tolerated the United States im- Constitution. This for the Hence, pur- elections. for the mediately brings us to our own duties un- pose year’s of this accept elections we will der the recently adopted section 36 Arti- provisions of H.F. 781 as an interim III cle of the Iowa Constitution: measure. Because of the constitutional de- fects apportionment H.F. it pre- “Upon application by any quali- verified may scribes not be used after the 1970 elector, supreme fied shall court review elections. apportionment an plan adopted gen- assembly eral which has been enacted into VI. III, As instructed Article supreme law. Should the court determine 36, we direct adopt the 1971 such plan comply does not with the re- a plan of redistricting legally acceptable constitution, quirements of the the court guidelines under the set forth in this deci- days shall ninety within or sion, bearing is, “population mind that apportionment plan cause to be an of necessity, starting point for consid- comply. supreme which shall eration and controlling criterion for shall original jurisdiction litiga- of all judgment legislative apportionment con- tion questioning apportionment troversies” 377 general assembly any apportionment U.S. 12 L.Ed.2d at plan adopted by general assembly.” 530, and Kirkpatrick further the caveat in the first review is sentence Article 36 Preisler, supra, simply permitted by appli- not this court .“problems 22 L.Ed.2d at cation elector. Such review verified created partisan politics justify cannot is mandated. If are to our we follow Iowa Constitution we must review the matter. which does otherwise pass constitutional muster.” plan is Likewise if we determine such unconstitutional, apparently and we are
All costs taxed to of Iowa. “adopt point, unanimous on the we shall adopted” except LeGRAND, All concur cause to be a constitutional Justices J., I, II, Lettschwager who Professor testified new com- concurs Divisions and III puter opinion, generated with- joins but in Divisions I and based could be BECKER, days. puts II of to 45 the dissent constitu- J. *10 body reapportion legislature to on like the the whole task day mandate for tional 90 representa- substantially equal the preparation of basis light. The in a reasonable bipartisan- requires, tion. just the This not computer assistance and material ship, nonpartisanship. It sub- requires it is plans could be of individual consideration recognized the mitted this was day the 90 limitation. done within they proposed a when legislatures practical duty on abnegated This is our amendment for Iowa late grounds. It is said is too to it Presumably it was also rec- Constitution. predicated is wholly plan. result new The ognized by people the when the filing on dates practi- the election dates they approved the amendment. The not primary is 1970 elections. A asking the cal inherent in elect- difficulties June It is in terms of con- sacrosanct. inferior to (political) body reapportion ed itself plainly to mandated stitutional law what is to regard (political) without the election our action constitution itself. If recognized people the results the were when legislature difficulty the creates a time if all job court to do else looked to this the only put date back the primary the to try perform duty. need the failed. should to We days.1 I can- gain to date used say plan is ac- It is to this no answer to the would legislature
not refuse believe only one ceptable applies leg- it to because date if it change primary voting the but census. The islature because of the new have the did I believe this court would admittedly malapportioned legislature will power duty any primary to declare apportion- adopting a new the task of for- on malapportioned election based the simply perpetuates the to void a new elec- mula and to order wrong. condoning malap- this Our action later This inheres in the tion at a date. portionment the we will legislature notifies imposed us the Iowa con- duty new though mandated to do so. we are amendment. stitutional accept result even an unconstitutional “prac- problem resolution of The this unreliability As the 1960census grounds to tical” starts the immediate erosion figures, decided House 781 is concept. we have of the new Iowa constitutional though legislature even unconstitutional grounds Practical familiar constitution- are Carr, figures. need not and relied on those We al Baker rationalizations. Before estimates, probably should not use no mat- 7 L.Ed.2d carefully ter The “thorny how 1960 census made. “impractical” was enter figures point are the best available. The reapportionment” thicket of so the courts is, talking we are not about grossest inequality. kind of tolerated the malappor- legislature. of the 1973 It is the been But law has whenever constitutional that is legislature tionment the 1971 according followed to its clear intent and popu- inequities issue. inherent purpose “practical” difficulties have lation shifts since the 1960census una- been met. To do. use voidable no matter what we large part fight A over the Unit- begs ques- this as a reason for inaction ed States insistence on Court’s tion. equal representation waged is practical. doubtful base what point reviewing all cas- There little impractical expect said a political opinion. ably es in the majority noted primary September 8, 1. It should be noted the June date Thus 97 held on legislature. days gained perform all was the same 1969 would be that, prior past important upsetting Before 1968 and several task without elections, primaries Sep patterns voting prejudice were held in and with no primary anyone. longer tember for one If the election. time When is no course, can, date formula for election was essence set again primary primary used election would election desires. date as it *11 by None of those decided longer simply cases were a matter equity. Under constitu- federal courts under the state our new state constitutional amendment we tional mandate we have in Iowa. a have further people. mandate from our timing of the relief court This should follow subject
On the our new consti- tutional sought, provision States and cause a United constitution- ally acceptable reapportionment in 1362, 1393, adopted. said: 12 L.Ed.2d the difficult not consider here “We do reap- another reason for II. There is question proper remedial devices of the portionment by this court which is not con- which courts utilize in state federal should by majority. This is the disen- sidered legislative apportionment cases. Remedial Fourth of the voters of the franchisement techniques developing and area in this new Waterloo, legis- The Iowa. Ward probably will often differ with law Pre- assigned certain Four lature Ward challenged appor- the circumstances of the Thirty-sec- cincts to One Subdistrict variety tionment and a local conditions. did not Districts. ond Senatorial that, is enough say to now once a State’s opposition the senate meet with because has been apportionment scheme The up for 1968. seat was not vote unconstitutional, found to it would be be precincts out legislature took the the unusual case in which a court would be assigned them to an- Subdistrict One justified taking appropriate in not action is senatorial seat other district where the to insure no further elections con- people up not for vote Thus the 1970. However, plan. ducted under the invalid lost precincts of the affected their vote circumstances, under certain such as where Appar- senator both in 1970. impending an election is imminent and a ently they not had to a chance vote machinery already State’s election is senator 1964 and will not have since equitable progress, might considerations then, (the chance to so vote until if justify a in withholding granting court again reapportionment might shift immediately legisla- effective in a relief elsewhere). them apportionment case, tive though even existing apportionment scheme was found above situation involves several awarding invalid. In withholding im- disenfranchisement, thousand voters. Such relief, mediate a court is to and entitled all, justified if justifiable at must should proximity consider the of a forth- necessity meeting strongest basis of coming election and the mechanics and equal population Such justifi- standards. complexities laws, of state election cation is not in the record. rely upon should act equitable principles. timing me, least, very With to the is a To this situation relief, a court reasonably can reapportion- to strong endeavor additional reason for disruption avoid a process of the election because no correction might result from requiring precipi- affecting can be made without the balance changes tate that could make unreasonable of other districts.
or embarrassing demands on a in ad- State analysis wrong foregoing III. If the justing requirements to the of the court’s to the court has another alternative House decree. As stated Douglas, Mr. Justice biparti- an File achieve 781. concurring Carr, ‘any in Baker v. relief ac- appor- legislature san caused result the corded can be light fashioned ” As tionment commission to be formed. principles equity.’ well-known pro- majority, the noted resolution Here impossi- viding election is not made it imminent. for the commission There is time both to a consti- implement draw and ble for the commission achieve by prohibiting result Further tutional division sion, and is sub- delivered commission precincts. Nevertheless not a new stantially complete. If that, up a solution tried did come by this court as directed formulated acceptable, was constitutionally while constitution, I believe the commis- equality than closer to least little implemented. Any should the result only was Not *12 necessary minor corrections could fairer, at also equality, closer to was speedily made. because major political parties,
least to the somewhat more out from a it was worked open this the three alternatives Of equal position. bargaining court, plan, of a (2) formulation new (1) it is late make a new constitu- If too plan, adoption the commission plan, it too late cause tional ac- the least affirmance House plan finally agreed upon adoption of the standpoint con- ceptable both from bipartisan up commission set dealing is the fair plain stitutional law replete in- legislature. The record is majority. third alternative way bipartisan stances commit- with the proceed I in accordance would juggled tee the districts traded areas or cause constitutional mandate political purposes. rather than constitutionally adequate adopted a then continued same population based process, worsening the result. plan. Divi- I must dissent from therefore IV, sions and VI and the result. V the two and more Of fairer equal, standpoint, plan. commission’s Pressure of time LeGRAND, and practicality J., does not militate against I and joins Divisions adopted by It was the commis- II.