*1 MOSS, Plaintiff, Harry R. BURKHART, Treasur State A.
William Auditor; Andy Anderson, er; Leininger Mike Dunn, Lawton J. D. Conners, composing Tax the Oklahoma Oklahoma; of the State Commission Chairman, F. Fitzgerald, Herbert Clee Vice-Chairman, R. Hewett, and Louie Geiser, Secretary, of the State Members of Okla Election Board of the Edmondson, homa; Gover J. Howard Oklahoma, Defend nor the State ants, Rasberry, Price, R. J. John M.
M. A. Grimes, Roy Directors Hutchens Government, an Local Oklahomans For association, al., unincorporated Inter et
venors.
No. 9130.
United States District
W. D. Oklahoma. April 1962. Facts and Law
Further Statement Interlocutory on the Merits and Decree June 1962. Amend Decree Alter or
On Motion to Aug. 1962. Aug. 8,
Dissenting Opinion
Rizley, Judge, District dissented
motion alter amend decree. *2 White, City, Sid Okl., Oklahoma Harry
plaintiff,
R. Moss.
Stagner,
City, Okl.,
Delmer
Burkhart,
defendant William A.
Treasurer.
Atty.
Hanson,
Gen.,
Fred
First Asst.
Lynn,
Armstrong,
D.
E. J.
Albert
Okla-
Old.,
Andy
City,
for defendants
homa
and,
County
Auditor,
D.
Anderson,
repre-
J.
As
State.
such
Leininger
alleges
voter,
Mike Con-
sentative
Dunn,
citizen and
he
Lawton
shifting population
Tax Com-
ners, composing
because of the
the Oklahoma
of the State of Oklahoma from
rural
of Oklahoma.
mission of the State
*3
areas,
sections to the cities and urban
Okl.,
City,
Wagner, Oklahoma
John
and because of the
and refusal
failure
Old.,
Blackstock, Bristow,
for
and Robert
of
reapportion
the
to
Chairman,
Fitzgerald,
defendants Clee
required by
members as
Article
Sec-
Vice-Chairman,
Hewett,
Herbert F.
tion
of the Oklahoma
Secretary,
of
Geiser,
Members
Louie R.
legislative
department
become so
has
the State
Election Board of
the State
grossly malapportioned
ballot
of Oklahoma.
vote
plaintiff
similarly
and those
City,
Reynolds, Oklahoma
Norman
situated,
for
the elected
of
members
Okl.,
Edmond-
J. Howard
for defendant
Legislature,
amounts to less than
son,
Oklahoma.
of
State
Governor of
sufferage
one-tenth of the
citi-
of other
residing
zens
ly
sparse-
in the rural or
Old.,
more
City,
Hirsh, Oklahoma
Leon S.
communities;
Legisla-
settled
that the
Price,
M.
A.
John
M.
for Intervenors
ture
repeatedly
reappor-
Roy
refused to
Rasberry,
Hutchens and
J. R.
compliance
itself in
with the
For
Grimes,
Oklahomans
Directors of
mandate;
stitutional
Pe-
Initiative
Government,
unincorporated as-
Local
judicial
titions have failed and the
de-
sociation.
partment
impotence
has confessed its
Rinehart,
Reno, Okl., for in-
El
J. A.
require compliance,
consequence
as a
of
Price.
tervenor M. A.
plaintiff
which the
and his class must
Okl.,
City,
Spradlin,
D.
Oklahoma
G.
deprivation
process
suffer the
of due
of
Democratic
intervenor Council of
for
equal protection
laws,
law and
Neighborhood Clubs.
appro-
to taxation
reference
and the
priation
public funds,
the serious
Otjen,
Otjen, Carter,
&
Huddleston
impairment
pray-
of his franchise. The
Okl.,
Enid,
intervenor Oklahoma
recognize
er is that this Court
and en-
Farm Bureau.
right
equal
force his
government,
to an
voice in his
City, Old.,
Crowe,
Oklahoma
P.V.
aas
civil
within the
League Women Voters.
intervenor
meaning of the Constitution and laws of
States;
the United
and that the Court
MURRAH,
Judge, and
Circuit
Before
legislative department
declare the
DAUGHERTY, District
RIZLEY and
malapportioned
State Oklahoma so
Judges.
deprive
republican
its citizens of a
government,
form of
deprive
and to
Judge.
MURRAH, Circuit
plaintiff,
similarly
and those
situated, the
laws;
having
Pleadings
declared,
proceed
so
enjoin
sequel
is a
action
to Rad-
class
This
Auditor,
the State
Treasurer,
Gary, D.C.,
F.Supp. 541,
ford
Members of the Oklahoma Tax Com-
plaintiff
named
another
assailed
taking any
mission from
official actions
Apportionment Statutes
Oklahoma
appropriations
on
or enactments of those
of the members to the
the election
claiming
to exercise
author-
Legislature,
deprivation
as a
Oklahoma
ity; and,
plaintiff
if
be mis-
laws,
equal protection of the
remedy
taken in the
sought, he be then
by
him
the Fourteenth
vouchsafed
granted
remedy
such
as will relieve and
United
States Con-
Amendment
cure the evils from which he continues
plaintiff
Like the named
stitution.
suffer.
case,
plaintiff
the Radford
here is a
subsequently
plaintiff
resident of
and a
citizen and
moved populous
qualified
make the
of the most
Members of
voter
Election
pensible parties
sought
defendant,
parties
to the relief
and'
additional
Board
must,
complaint
therefore,
the suit
reiterate the
dismissed.
amended
his
answering,
deprivation
Further
the Intervenors de-
franchise
his
vote, ny
justiciability
sought,
of the relief
diminution
destruction
Legis-
political
They
specifically
in nature.
of the refusal
reason
deny
present apportionment
reapportion itself,
lature to
as command-
Legislature operates
spe-
to de-
ed
the Constitution. Plaintiff
ny
plaintiff
alleged
cifically
his class
protection
laws,
allege-
so,
had,
if
the State of Oklahoma
ample provision
day
granted
February, 1962,
is made
13th
directing
Constitution and
mandamus,
laws of
writ of
Secre-
State Ok-
*4
tary
lahoma for
ment;
Board,
reapportion-
or his
constitutional
the State Election
filings
that
successor,
past
years,
office
within the
for the
to receive
two
people
the
freely
Representative
had,
of the
pursuant
the
State
State
at
elections,
held
sug-
expressly
existing
rejected
laws,
complywith
election
and to
gested
revisions of their
re-
ministerial or
functions
other
laws; and, that at
quired by
the
(House
last
Bill 1033
session of the
such laws.
Legislature,
Representa-
the House
Legislature,
Twenty-eighth
14
of the
tives, by legislative action,
reappor-
did
seq., 97-
seq.,
45.1 et
et
O.S.A.
71
§§
tion itself and
ap-
that such action was
101.)
proved by the Governor of the State.
It
jur-
court
federal
plaintiff asserts
alleged
is further
reapportion-
that a
28
subject
under
matter
of the
isdiction
ment,
provided by
the Oklahoma Con-
justiciable con-
1343(3);
that a
U.S.C. §
stitution
by
and effected
virtue of shift-
and,
the
presented;
that
troversy is
ing
changing
and
population of the State
standing
maintain
plaintiff has
adoption
since the
relief, the
By way
immediate
suit.
would result in an invidious discrimina-
injunction
plaintiff
an
seeks
against many
State,
citizens of the
Board,
Election
the State
members of
deprive
and
them of
protection
certifying the
prevent
from
them
Finally,
laws.
alleged
it is
that
nomination
for
of candidates
names
reapportionment under the Constitution
primary
forthcoming May 1, 1962
of Oklahoma
exclusively
is vested
from
House and Senate
for
election
Legislature;
the Governor of the
districts,
existing
or in the alterna-
the
tive,
solely
State is vested
power
with the
directing
defendant
an order
convocation; and,
Legislature
certify
candi-
the said
Members to
Board
wholly impotent
to reapportion, re-
large.
by
the State
for election
dates
district or
representation
reallocate its
and set
case was submitted
After
January,
until
1963, unless the Governor
April
Monday,
disposition on
required
final
by
for
23,
this Court to call the
Rasberry,
Price,
M.
John
M. A.
extraordinary
into
session.
Roy Grimes, Direc-
and
Hutchens
R.
J.
Jurisdiction
For Local Govern-
of Oklahomans
tors
association,
jurisdiction
unincorporated
Federal Court
ment,
upon
rests
necessary
for
claimed redress
the deprivation,
permitted to intervene
un-
were
law,
der color of State
parties
privi-
In their
proper
to the suit.
or
by
alleged
lege
answer,
the State
secured
was
performed all minis-
of the United
had
clause
Board
States
Election
Constitu-
by
required
functions
tion. See
U.S.C.
other
§
terial
This
forthcoming pri-
is constituted and
convened
the conduct
under
for
2284, pursuant
; mary
in relation to
all further acts
28 U.S.C. §
to 28 U.S.C.
hear
pending
election must be
suit,
determine the
§
allegation
upon
performed
the several
Coun- based
done
uncon-
State;
stitutionality
and,
apportion-
ty
Boards of the
Election
Oklahoma
are, therefore,
prayer
and the
such Boards
indis- ment statutes
for
inter-
(Feb. 13,
appears
1962).
injunction,
locutory
permanent
It also
operation
straining
Senate at-
enforcement
tempted
reapportion
entire
(cid:127)of such statutes.
purposes,
for senatorial
but the Act was
hearing
came on
When the matter
invalid,
declared
the Oklahoma Su-
relief,
plea
temporary
(cid:127)on the
preme Court directed the State Elec-
person
appeared
Election
Board
filings
tion Board
for the office
to receive
joined
counsel,
in the statement
ap-
Senate, pursuant
the State
support of
plaintiff in
counsel
portionment
in existence since 1941.
laws
allegations
in the Petition.
Board,
Reed v.
369 P.2d
State Election
Burkhart,
Treasurer, William A.
'State
(Feb. 13, 1962);
also Memoran-
see
-appeared by
counsel
confessed
dum
Decision in No.
Ludlow
allegations
Up-
material
Petition.
13, 1962).
(Feb.
State Election Board
open
plaintiff in
on oral motion of the
attorney
Speaking through
of rec-
his
(cid:127)court, Okla-
of the State of
Governor
ord, the
of Okla-
Governor of the State
Edmondson,
homa,
Howard
J.
Honorable
homa, represented
he
to the Court that
party
He there-
was made a
upon
defendant.
program
was elected
Governor
appearance
at-
entered his
reapportion
Legislature;
that he had
Reynolds,
torney,
and consented
Norman
*5
reapportionment
in com-
recommended
to be sued
a defendant in this action.
pliance with
mandate
the constitutional
Tax
and
'The Oklahoma
Commission
legislative
during
to each
ad-
session
his
Andy
Auditor,
Anderson,
appeared
State
;
sponsored
ministration
that he
by
counsel,
Hanson,
Fred
Assistant
Petition,
Initiative
at
aimed
constitu-
.Attorney General.
requisite
compliance,
tional
the
on which
signatures
obtained, but which was
were
Case
Statement
the
September
polls
defeated at the
on
Court,
parties
At the
the
bar of
the
1960;
in
that
defendant
Ludlow v.
as a
n freely conceded,
parties
did the
in
Board, supra,
State
and as
Election
Gary, supra,
Radford
that
v.
Okla-
the
actions,
curiae in the other recent
amicus
Legislature had,
homa
since
failed
e.,
supra,
Winters,
i.
Jones
Brown v.
v.
n and
reapportion
the
refused to
State
Board, supra, and Reed
State Election
(cid:127)compliance
mandate of
with the
the Ok-
Board, supra, he
State Election
made
v.
lahoma Constitution. Our
was
attention
suggestions concerning relief,
Reapportionment
(cid:127)called to
the
Act
jurisdic-
judgment
the
his
were within
(House
1033) by
1961
Bill
which the
Supreme
tional reach
purported
Representatives
House of
to Court;
Supreme
pleas
that in
to the
reapportion itself, and that
the Okla- Court,
special
he
to convoke a
had offered
Supreme
adjudged
had
homa
Court
it in
Legislature,
if that
session
noncompliance with the
constitutional
jurisdiction and
would assume
indicate
grounds
quirements,
the same
for
disposition
relief,
to afford
the
in.
apportionment
prior
which the
were
acts
Legislature failed to act.
event the
deficient; but,
held
the Oklahoma
n our
enjoin
had
Governor also calls
attention
refused to
filings
pendency
the
of another
under it
Initiative
and elections
on the
ground
pre- Petition to
the
under
amend
elections
-existing
greater
enforcement of the
result in
transfer the
constitu-
law would
far
apportionment
inequalities
representation
tional
formula from
than elec-
Legislature
Appor-
to a Constitutional
under
1961 Act. See
Jones v.
tions
Winters,
(Dee.
19, 1961).
We
told
P.2d 135
tionment Commission.
369
And,
Secretary
petition
had
the
bearing
filed in December
ordered the
was
219,000 signa-
:
filings
approximately
Board to
Election
receive
;
protest
Representative
been
that a
pending
filed and
office of
under
tures
pursuant
a Referee of
and
1961 Act.
now
before
to the
Brown is
Supreme Court;
Board,
last
State Election
P.2d 140 State
years,
homa,
Petition has
no Initiative
sixteen
as evidenced
1960 Decen-
people
Census,
required
vote of
nial
received the
distribution
peti-
that,
any event,
pending
population by Counties,
as shown
upon
agree
They
in sufficient
such
tion cannot be voted
census.
to the
also
provide
representation
Legislature by
for election of
time to
basis
Legislature
Districts,
members
Counties and
while
deny
session.
Intervenors do not seem
the al-
legations
complaint
to the effect
upon
experience, the
Based
Gov-
that
representation
expressed the
further
ernor
attempts
view that
population
results in
by legis-
reapportionment
disparity
voting strength
between
lative
initiative action would be vain
populous
sparsely
populated
vot-
futile;
plaintiff
and his
if the
ing
districts,
specifically deny that
equal pro-
class
afforded
invidiously
inequality
such numerical
laws,
tection of the
vouchsafed
them
discriminatory,
prove
offer
Constitution, they
must find it
peculiar
reason
economic and
here—that this Court is the
effective
geographic
pres-
characteristics of the
upon
source of relief.
con-
Based
ently
voting districts,
constituted
the vot-
viction,
willingly
the Governor has
en-
ing disparity
constitutionally justified,
appearance
tered his
aas
defendant in
rationally
affords
citizens
this case and now
to convoke the
offers
including
plain-
State of
extraordinary session,
un-
class,
tiff and his
der Article
Constitution,
Section
the Oklahoma
the laws.
specific purpose
enacting system
of election laws
Justiciability
Standing
To
require-
Sue
sonance with constitutional
*6
ments,
special
or call a
election under
majority
A
Rad-
Court in
5,
Article
Section 20 of the Oklahoma
Gary, supra,
ford
denied relief in the
v.
O.S.,
541,
Constitution and 26
Section
for
deprivation
face of a confessed
of con
filling
purpose
of
vacancies
rights,
stitutional
under color of State
sulting
forth-coming
for failure of the
law,
positive
because of the
admonition
1,May
sug-
It
1962.
is
“equity powers
to refuse to exercise our
gested
any special
cost of
elec-
posing political
arising
in cases
issues
may
paid
appropriations
be
from
geographical
from a state’s
distribution
contingency fund,
from the Governor’s
strength among
political
of electoral
its
pledged
pur-
and such funds are
for that
Peters,
subdivisions.” South v.
276, 277,
339 U.S.
pose as the occasion arises.
641,
70 S.Ct.
891 voting rights, relief, as between electoral sought some denied and often Leg- now, Until the Oklahoma remedy. districts. appropriate proceeded premise islature has on the plaintiff class seek voting allocating that strength matter their protect interest of an or vindicate strictly was within their discre- adequate in- plain, direct own—“a tion, caprice. or even The Intervenors maintaining effectiveness terest retrospect offer to rational show in merely vote,” interest a citizen’s they disparity, are, for the basis Carr, good government. Baker v. See course, proof entitled to their Having jurisdiction of p. 82 S.Ct. Meanwhile, no we find will be heard. can justiciable controversy, this Court a empowered saying rational that a vote basis equitable other to secure ten one electoral district which worth constitutionally of a relief for the denial protected electoral dis- times the vote in another right. legislative body, af- trict for same Temporary Relief The Case fords the law disfavored face of voter. On the relief, prerequisite to aAs present record, course, upon plain is, incumbent appears the State Oklahoma to be unconstitutionality tiff establish closely “crazy quilt” appor- akin to the Apportionment Stat of the Oklahoma tionment in Tennessee. utes, plaintiff cannot sustain showing disparity by merely burden brings This matter us voting strength various afforded, appropriate relief to be inequality districts. Numerical electoral pending the final determination of the necessarily strength voting of prove does case on its merits. A voting deprivation for the case reluctantly Court has declined immediate deprivation rights. re actionable An interlocutory relief the form an in only from invidious discrimina sults junction forbidding forth-coming rationality. disparity without tion—a May 1, primary election, 1962 alter MacDougall Green, v. 335 U.S. ordering natively, the election to be con Mary 3; L.Ed. McGowan S.Ct. large. ducted Our reasons L.Ed. land, 81 S.Ct. 366 U.S. summarized follows: *7 Carr, supra. 393; It seems 2d Baker v. of the Intervenors’ tendered Because disparity say, however, fair to rationality, the un- issue of drastic and voting strength be one in of ten to the sought precedented relief is deemed in- out a tween electoral makes districts appropriate. effect of an in- such prima case invidious facie for discrimina junctive disrupt decree would be to justification. tion, calls for strict long system electoral on established un- by all, that It must be conceded facts. settled statutory apportionment present does the Moreover, question some there is comply with Oklahoma Constitu cerning injunctive of an effectiveness But, so, statutory appor even tion. decree, in view of the fact candidates comply which does tionment legislative already offices have facto, Constitution, not, ipso does State County been certified Election laws, equal protection of the afford guaranteed of for the conduct the election Boards Amend under Fourteenth canvassing Indeed, votes. applied test found to be ment. told some candidates we and, Constitution we in the federal unopposed, offices involved rationality seen, on the turns forth-coming have or either apportionment. election, are, general therefore, suggested presently entitled to a certificate chal- of elec- one has No give uniformity In order to lenged apportionment laws were con- tion. necessary thought relief, it would thus or enacted with ceived way affording equality void these certificates of elec- purpose some substantial merits, tion, vacant. issue and determination on its and declare these offices likely speed. and with all deliberate result be confusion The chaos, would provocative interminable FURTHER OF STATEMENT litigation. AND THE FACTS LAW ON Additionally, no assurance we have MERITS Legislature, convened present if even hearing on When this case on for came extraordinary session, enact a would in constitutionally acceptable temporary relief, motion for held system ap- we complaint justiciable sufficient to state a portionment for the laws and election cognizable controversy, successors, under U.S.C. election of its nomination and prior three-judge § which this In which to the 1963 session. jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. event, provisions § the Con- under the pursuant 2281. We ex- U.S.C. § stitution of the State pressed Legislature the view that a numerical dis- present members of parity legis- of as much as ten to one in until offices would to hold their continue districts, quali- lative electoral raised a serious successors were elected question malapportionment, presumably Article See fied— may very prima well Constitu- constitute a facie Section case for invidious discrimination. tion. clumsy It would be an awkward thing for this to undertake The Intervenors offered to show Legis- reapportion and redistrict retrospect dispar- a rational basis for the Oklahoma, in lature of the ac- State ity, injunctive temporary and we denied judicially devised cordance with some proceed relief and ordered the case to formula, more difficult to at- and even to issue and trial on its merits “with all special tempt supervise nominations speed.” deliberate Leg- reapportioned elections The case now comes trial on Certainly, under- we should islature. merits, parties appearing per- essentially take this function by counsel, pro- son or as in former only aas last resort. ceedings. stipulations, From the evi- dence, judicial notice, and other facts of mean, however, This does we find that there has been token task we will not is insurmountable reapportionment by the Okla- it, ulti- if the circumstances undertake legislative body homa of its since 1911. it, mately compel does the denial of nor Legislature Both branches of the mean that immediate relief herein consistently disregarded provisions present not be af- should respect opportunity pros- forded enact reapportionment, thought with no laws, pective reapportionment in accord- affording *8 of the supreme land, law of the ance with laws. While there have been a number of supra, Carr, in Baker v. as announced attempts reapportion by Initiative Pe- allegiance all owe to which we Referendum, tition propo- all such Legislatures of other amenable. sals have been polls. defeated at appropriate have taken action to states comply pending is There now in the require- the constitutional Court of a further Initiative inescapable ments, when faced Petition, providing for constitutional re- doing Asbury duty See Park so. Press apportionment through the medium of a 1, 705; Woolley, 161 33 N.J. A.2d v. Reapportionment pe- Commission. This Lamb, N.J.Super. 39, Application of 67 vigorously opposed by tition has been Magraw 822; Donovan, D.C., v. 169 A.2d case, Intervenors in this and has been D.C., F.Supp. 901, F.Supp. 184, 163 159 pending in the courts for more than five- D.C., F.Supp. 803. 177 See also Sims months. Frink, Secretary al. of State of et Alabama, (D.C.1962) F.Supp. application et al. 205 of the 1960 Federal- Meanwhile, proceed existing case will legisla- this to Census in Oklahoma vidiously is, sure, discriminatory, graphically to be demon- apportionment, tive cogent disparity and, of it as we have present evidence numerical strates the may seen, sufficiently disproportionate weight be votes cast of the relative showing. Legisla- prima to constitute a facie respective of the members so, think, census, This is our By we because under to this ture. reference legislative appor- republican democratic present institutions applied suffrage right government, Rep- form of tionment, one vote County is, be, the individual must in Cimarron resentative keystone denominator, the same office common votes for fourteen —the self-government. Indeed, County, votes in and eleven framers Oklahoma recognized County. disparity Oklahoma Constitution The numerical Tulsa existing principle providing this inalienable in the Districts Senatorial population greater. instance, vote should be the even For one 26, comprising basis electoral No. diffusion. See: Ar- District Senatorial ticle Counties, equals Sections 9 Marshall 26.4 Love and the Consti- tution of comprising Tul- District State Oklahoma. votes in No. Under County. principle sa that 61 The facts reveal Representa- equality rule, numerical of the House of is the members constituting represent tives, majority, exception. deviation is Jones v. Freeman, population Okl. of the total State. P.2d 564. 26% think principle We The other 60 members of that House should also be guideline determining our represent population, of the or an whether 74% equal protection average persons Repre- 28,642 per the laws has been simplist terms, processes. honored sentative. Reduced to its State electoral Legis- counter-vailing There be means that a of the relevant factors, responsible geography, economics, such as lature is population of the 26% remaining Repre- media and group mass and that the represent functional or vot- ing strength. people. But factors, none sentatives of the of these 74% separately whether considered or collec- analysis Applying this to the State tively, can principle overcome the basic Senate, it will be that nine seen Senators underlying right of an individual to represent people, or an aver- 52% cast an effective vote. Excerpts See: age 128,642 Senator; persons per testimony Joseph from Pray, of Dr. at- represent other 35 Senators about 48% Appendix. tached hereto as population. voting In terms of specifically Intervenors have denied' strength, great this means that a ma- irrationality existing numeri- jority of the Senators answerable to disparity apportion- cal and contend slightly people, less than one-half the ment in accordance with the mandate of represent nine of the 44 Senators operate Oklahoma Constitution would population. 52% deprive them of the Approaching these from an- statistics They say of the laws. seem to view, point of all but 15 of other the 77 present apportion- deviation from the over-represented, districts are when their deprivation ment would be a of their compared population actual to that rights. sum, In claim a Federal required up which would make present constitutional appor- *9 ratio, State constitutional under the tionment. present Summarizing further, census. Before this case came on for discrepan- the facts reveal that there are hearing, Intervenors moved for a con present apportionment cies under of as tinuance, the and renewed motion on the twenty-six one, weight much as in the hearing date, order to obtain suffi of an individual vote. and time to correllate evaluate cient what data, competent justify disparity they mere While numerical considered voting strength ing existing se, apportionment. not, per is Par- the in- eight (8) sep- Amendment. The Court they Fourteenth ticularly, forth set appropriate- categories not heard on the arately evidence statisti- numbered allegedly relief, matter is set information, ness of the and the cal data day hearing compilation. for further on the 31st quiring time additional July, 1962, purpose cate- for the of determin- of these An examination of each ing granted. suggested gories the form of relief to be the all of reveals that been, Meanwhile, is, note at desirable to and has seems information data or suggested remedies, readily form of some of the to which all available times or, may the public Plaintiff be entitled: records to the Intervenors any person. matter, interested Legisla- by Reapportionment 1. the suggested may Moreover, the be that This, course, ture itself. is the most of, product a rather than factors are efficacious,for, desirable and the most existing for, rational basis the discrim- said, duty we have constitutional may Surely, acquire ination. one upon legisla- rests first and foremost right status, to a which is constitutional body, duty tive whose it is to observe disregard persistent by created comply supreme law the precepts. short, In constitutional land, judicially as it construed is pull up Intervenors themselves applied. by bootstraps. their own unconstitutional We, 2. Initiative Referendum. Additionally, it should be noted course, pending have in mind the fifty days elapsed more than since possible Initiative Petition as a available temporary denial of relief and the remedy, but the here can- asserted case was ordered to trial on its merits. depend upon not be made to the will of so, Inter- Even we cannot believe majority. It is founded the Fed- prejudiced in venors have been man- gives Statute, eral deprivation which redress for the unavailability ner informa- including rights, of civil say they pertinent. tion which is We integrity of the ballot. brought are thus the conclusion Reapportionment Judicial in- 3. defense, if the Intervenors have a based judicially tervention, either some de- upon rationality present ap- large until formula or election vised portionment, diligently have not apportionment is achieved constitutional by pursued it. The continuance was con- action. Neither of these sequently denied. desirable, and will be alternatives record, the Court con On this Legislature fails resorted to if existing apportionment cludes constitutionally reapportion itself, so both houses the Okla officesof equal protection of laws. to afford egre Legislature grossly homa connection, it should be In that noted giously disproportionate, and ra without ample time for the that there Governor justification in law or fact. basis tional Legisla- present to call the of this State apportionment conclude We extraordinary session for ture into Legislature under and enacting system specific purpose of of its statutes virtue laws, reapportionment comply which will discriminatory invidiously requirements equal pro- voters, and his class of Plaintiff manner, In this of the laws. tection Legislators are, therefore, uncon all such statutes act, will be free to unencum- void. stitutional unentangled legisla- with the bered problems Plaintiff and his class are confront tive session, convening general early appropriate equitable relief, entitled substantially therefore, If, special insure is in which will session, reapportionment of has been called the Okla before the numerical Legislature, judgment, final in a manner fixed herein for to accord date homa *10 September pro be continued until Plaintiff and his class ease will legislative guaranteed laws, 1962 to await action. tection “Q. key word, when, That in course this is the and if If we bring analyze necessary litigation, to what it invidious becomes discrimination by means, reapportionment quite then we understand about constitutional what judicial talking action, time then, it will Courts are direct about. Now enough proof here, we have the counter- hear and consider it stands un- may disputed, vailing factors, reappor- enter into has been no there equation es- tionment reapportionment, Meanwhile, based since statehood. as you sentially know, upon population. Until we a have had rather radical stayed. day, judicial population in shift metropolitan hand is into centers State, of the and so we stand APPENDIX facts, here on disparity with a wide Testimony Excerpts of Dr. from the representation on a ratio which is Hearing Pray, Joseph held at the shown here as much one to 26. You 12, 1962. June understand that fact? “Q. J.) Doctor, MURRAH, (By C. Yes, “A. sir. may which, my you question in I ask “Q. then, population basis, Now on a goes judgment, heart this law- and the facts before this Court demon- plaintiffs You understand that the suit. beyond doubt, strate that there ais case, qualified this who are electors in in disparity population wide with re- County State, populous here a complaining in the spect to representation, ratio, rep- apportion- present legislative body. My resentation in the op- ment laws State question is, what other factors should the against invidiously erate to discriminate government science of take into consid- voting them exercise eration, therefore, what other factors rights. You also understand Court should this Court take into considera- empowered hear and determine that equal protection tion in terms of seeking complaint, and what are now we laws, proper to assure a diffusion of pres- is whether or not the to determine political factors, initiative? What other of this in- ent laws representation, than numerical should fringe equal protection clause of the we take into consideration? You could Fourteenth Amendment in- help this immeasurably, you if vidiously discriminates these enlighten would us on that. plaintiffs. You understand that? parity between one numerical That teenth tions. proper so discrimination. between its ed States sir. does “A. “Q. “A. Yes “A. “Q. long as it those diffusion of Amendment, * * * You understand that? Yes (By has said that require laws, say, having sir. equality sir, I Dr. doesn’t thinly populated there guaranteed by Joseph (T)he Courts have said understand diffusion. concentrated political County amount to does Pray) be some dis- equal protec- initiative exactitude. the Unit- invidious assure I Counties another, achieve popula- do, Four- minority opinions, laws yes common denominator is the individual. We ential cent expressed cal * about refer to anticipating when Baker versus Carr * times in the next five “A. This come not who * * * * power. years, study [******] whole back to this comes To start at some talking this, It necessity there. has g0es very This is the issue, is a fundamental politics, particularly been suffrage, it seems to question, * about human to start at some and am very problem ** diffusion much to the heart years, much arena, key place when I talked various views We are me, is influ- who many, thinking interested where the but I did question. the sub- possibly polities. society. politi- in going many place *11 thing instance, wouldn’t con- ject groups how votes—this sort of pressure per- done much with the basis are, interference does influential and how enough campaign go getting numbers. son about cam- funds or run an effective how to “Q. any Nor room tolerance? goes question mass paign. It into ** “A. Not tolerance. room for refers whether communication. It rough ready relationship there is a area, plaintiffs, being don’t urban an necessity, if here which some is a how counter-vailing facilities at have you person’s think a should be vote disposal. press has metropolitan counted. these Now about counter-vail- great ain contention been matter of ing regularly. I factors which come like ours. It hard to tell whether society think will have to- take care you you. helps It has been it or hurts ways again those other when we large group question of whether this by giving power peo- divide the access to significant per- was more this little than right ple vote, privilege of vot- son, may may repre- be their who or ing although disregard authority some majority position sentative. Take the you bring it, counter-vailing can these Carr, in Baker versus of when terms place you in. factors Some have start you presumably should strike down Democracy general prin- in a with the apportionment scheme, if no ra- there is ciple equality. of numerical tional basis. tiff and those like him. present statutory apportionment on the criminate ground “Q. We are “A. The operates invidiously operation asked to strike down particular plain- of the scheme? dis- higher percentage traditionally casts tors, Can we take that “A. One doesn’t exercise its “Q. [******] and the * * * populous County assuming into consideration? of its * * * qualified one a much doesn’t. right— County elec- n .stresses orsome Tennessee, n suffragepower which n when which, white constitution, vote sort have one it, tion. much long me, grounds “A. “Q. Yes, “A. not this or if our votes people [******] ****** you appreciate was from our it takes into consideration there This is a you * * thing, other reason was the discrimination think, not counted because * * being look at it vote is * and which extent of what suffrage phase based on being made effective. This for various and this sort of situation, * cases ais very important point to you operation. And affected being it would also violate very good race, is as terms of whether is not different it seems to made the extent a diffusion of reasons, because their let us especially, our bad as if the of this you had in effective, of fraud National analogy, analogy, suffrage say, ques- view calls you me. would one fied as sentation where it has been tried in obvious could ther admitted or not. Do IAs into consideration. you tection of the laws? could stated a moment disparity “A. “Q. “Q. Declining “A. “Q. “A. law? little other factors experience are [******] understand the justify say in the fact justify affording Yes. I don’t think May In other factors but numbers? I disparity, do talking will in America. That modification in a so I ask init if say you Any he chooses. Is that what with functional about? ago, terms ** other you testimony today, which this Court so. which this Court of this cannot take that we have a wide * constitutional you factors I minute but stands, equal pro- question: think of * repre- justi- make ** ei- as *12 you legislative proc- here, do not think that economic part Europe as of * * * Germany- thing political that enter into factors This is a ess. * * * assump- justify equation years are such as would on tried for * * * system working disparity? (of) out a numerical tion mostly more representation which Justify going “A. numer- dynamic as- vital because some arrangement ical ? go on or- pects political off decisions “Q. Yes. ganized efforts rather than efforts “A. I don’t. do not think there rep- you try individuals; functional when any group. should be * * * resentation. “Q. you Do know of factors? you “Q. you explain mean what Will question “A. There is no but what by functional? might minority groups, be council “A. use of an economic The minority minority, urban minority or a rural body up an individual set would struggle every- groups like will and based on of individuals instead thing get making power, to more decision dynamic representation economical or whatever their members call it. So legs groups and one the state always striving, there be this thing on; keep falls back assured, but this should not be the representation, per or what- cent three starting point. You should start with per cent be three it is. Would it ever dignity the individual and of the individ- years from and so on? ten political groupings now ual all of that. dynamic interest “Q. Something approximates rapidly groups political life is- a in our equality, numerical They changing arrangement. have come “A. Yes. very significantly today and to the fore * * * “Q. your starting This is point? not so much tomorrow. Is that using groups prime example other starting point “A. The is there.” individual, rep- rather economic than the bogged resentation. It has down because INTERLOCUTORY DECREE political to be made some- decision has remembered, Be it that this ac- class * * * in- where. You start with the regularly hearing came tion on June you try him, dividual and to adhere to 12, 1962, pursuant notice, peti- aas basis rather than use a functional of the Plaintiff his annul tion class to you group. posi- If built in a favorable apportionment statutes of the State minority group, tion for a favorable how as violative of the you get would dynamics rid of it ? How would the protection clause of the Constitution you developed if would re- States, deprivation United and a group it? rights and their civil under 28 his U.S.C. “Q. government system Under our parties appearing person, § recog- dignity of the individual is by counsel, as indicated in the former * * nized and the individuals are here having hearing. The Court received evi- asserting right personal con- having judicial taken dence notice of nection, and, course, we are concerned being matters, pertinent fully ad- not with classes so much as we are the premises, vised in the doth find and con- dignity personal of the individual and his : clude vote and vote counted. specially 1. That constituted inquiry That is our and that is our con- jurisdiction three-judge your cern. Then I understand testi- parties, subject matter and of the certainly mony, put and I don’t wish to power hear and decide the your mouth, words in I under- troversy pleadings. presented your testimony, you say stand as a stu- government opinion dent of 2. The Court is of the the science of existing particular problem as a student of statutes of the State of Ok- our relating through lahoma, for the tinued runoff elec- general the members and election of tions election nomination said Legisla- maining complete of both houses of the elec- be held to discriminatory invidiously process. Gragg Dudley, ture against See: *13 class; hence, 281, Moreover, by reap- the Plaintiff Okl. 289 and P. 254. being portionment necessarily prospec- and null void. being accomplished tive in nature and IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, IT effect, Interlocutory De- future said Title ADJUDGED AND DECREED applies cree 1964 and to the elections of 14, 9-77, inclusive, Secs. 99 and 100 including any elections, future election (1961), 5, 11 of O.S. and Article Section which follow the 1962 election Constitution, pres- where Oklahoma progress is in been since now and has ently hereby operative, be, and February, 1962. void, prospectively and declared null and inoperative elections. for all future With to a considera reference IT FURTHER IS ORDERED tion of the to effect remedies available July 31, 1962, reapportionment cause be continued until selection future appropriate remedy, constitutionally for the effectuation of acceptable re- of a judgment. opinion lief final is of the and decides general that it defer action to the session ON MOTION ALTER TO OR Legislature be of the Oklahoma held AMEND DECREE. 1963, for final with date to be fixed Legislature action the matter such PER CURIAM. guidelines positive or standards with hearing The above matter came on for being Legislature in now furnished said assignment pursuant day discharging on the 31st responsi the matter July, 1962, on the Motion to or bility reapportion Alter houses of said both Decree, ensuing Amend Legislature filed the Intervenors 1964 and Price, A.M. et Directors of Oklaho- al.. elections. Government, mans For Local an unin- following guidelines standards corporated association, and for a con- are established: sideration of the remedies for various reapportionment implemen- suitable 1. previous tation in view of the Interlocu- Legislature The Oklahoma will tory Decree entered this Court on reapportioned general princi be ple on the 19, June 1962. equality, substantial numerical ap that each
The said end voter shall Motion to Alter or proximately power overruled, except by Amend way the same Decree is influ ence election of members of the clarification the order it is general houses, which two is in consonance with the scheduled elec spirit tion, 6, intent and 1962, on Oklahoma be held November and the not affected the order of Constitution this Court of the Fourteenth Amendment of entered June clause the effect present Constitution. the laws under the United States legislature apportioned of Oklahoma is 2. “prospectively null and void and in operative for all future Representatives elections.” The The House of forthcoming November 1962 election Oklahoma be re not a “future election” apportioned provi within the in accordance meaning Interlocutory Decree, said the Oklahoma Constitution relat sions ing way being House, except election under such the Court finds the time said entered, order was that the seven member ceil and declares having filing peri 10(d), same started ing in Section established Article February, having populous od Oklahoma Constitution for inhabitants; discrimina- number of in invidious shall be Counties results class, contiguous compact practicable. and his Plaintiff Amend- Fourteenth therefore violates the 5. States ment the United forming legisla The matter of disregarded. must Senate, Districts, tive either House among Counties is left to the discretion Legislature, pertinent under the being ceiling The said member seven provisions with re Constitution eliminated, and Tulsa Counties spect equality, to substantial numerical seats, and 15 are entitled respectively, *14 contiguity. compactness and In this con reapportion- proper under Suggested nection the Memorandum and ment, Federal the 1960 Census. under Decree, Order And filed this Court July 30, by on 1962 the Honorable Fred 4. Hansen, Acting First Assistant and At the Oklahoma The Senate of torney General, is recommended as a Legislature reapportioned in ac will be helpful treatise, most a and contains provisions the Okla the of cordance with Suggested Order And Decree which indi relating thereto. In homa Constitution legislative apportionment a cates however, connection, the Court is this brought houses, by both which has been studied an irreconcil face to face with Court, the and which is believed meet incongruity 9(a) Ar in Section of able the desired standards. Constitution, 5, ticle of Oklahoma hence, Legisla- Five months when the appor respect formula with convenes, reapportion it ture must itself incongruity is tioning This the Senate. in accordance with the constitutional “except” clause in Section caused 9(a), mandate, judicially reapportioned. or discrepancy be creates judicial reapportion- We have withheld and number of Districts tween the total ment on the solemn word of the inter- re of We the total number Senators. legislators vening that once their con- incongruity equality in favor of solve this duty unequivocally stitutional and representation, which is mentioned discharge clear, they unescapably it will 9(a) 9(b), and three times in Sections fidelity. befitting with honor believing it do that con as we Jurisdiction is retained in this case general principle of the sonance with and the same is continued until the 8th Constitution, as construed Oklahoma day March, which time the Court Jones Oklahoma called, proper and if will be action case Freeman, P.2d 193 Okl. 146 by the Oklahoma been taken nearly conforms and more guidance Legislature under the afforded protection Fourteenth clause herein, ap- will the same be affirmed and Consti the United States Amendment to Failing proved and this case dismissed. general principle Applying this tution. accomplishment, this Court will then equality, will the Oklahoma Senate reapportionment by ju- and decree order Districts Sena thus consist of conformity order, dicial with the Census, 1960 Federal Under the tors. guidance furnished. herein eight County is entitled Oklahoma Senators; Tulsa Districts Senatorial Judge RIZLEY, (dissenting). District County, Districts Senatorial seven County, Senators; and, June 1962 this Court Comanche two On filed a opinion styled Those above unanimous Districts Senators. Senatorial quote: having multiple and I in which Senatorial Dis said cause Counties within themselves be districted tricts case now comes “The trial on its requisite number Districts appearing into merits, parties person * * legislative act, provided each such Dis stipu- counsel *. From the or lations, ju- trict shall contain as near as be an evidence other facts notice, only- irreconciliable, dicial we principle repugnant find there has been as a reapportionment by law; token to constitutional that offers resist- legislative body ance, hostile, refractory, Oklahoma of since distasteful, re- Legisla- pellent.” “Repugnant implies Both branches a nature disregarded consistently ture provisions ideas, tastes, principles, alien to one’s or stirring up of the State with and a of resistance loath- respect reapportionment, no ing; unlovely forbidding with repellent, a affording thought quality away; causes one back abhorrent, of the laws.” repugnance that stimulates antagonism.” attempts We then reviewed all keeping reapportionment In opinion, had been our June we made to obtain fifty years, filed past in- in Oklahoma for cluding in which decree we said petition quote: attempt by opin- initiative “The is of record, existing ion that and then said: “On statutes of existing relating appor- appor- State of concludes of both tionment for the tionment houses offices nomination and election grossly members of both houses of *15 Legislature egregiously disproportionate, invidiously Oklahoma discriminatory against and with- are justification in law out rational basis or the Plaintiff and apportion- class; hence, or fact. We conclude that and null void. Legislature ment of IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, “IT by under and virtue of ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Title invidiously discriminatory is statutes 14, 9-77, inclusive, Secs. 99 and 100 O.S. Plaintiff and his class (1961), 5, and Article Section 11 of the are, voters, and all such statutes there- presently Oklahoma where fore, (Italics and void.” unconstitutional operative, be, they hereby and are de- ours). prospectively void, clared null and and opinion: said in June We our further inoperative for all future elections.” “The Plaintiff and entitled his class majority take) seem to comfort appropriate equitable relief, to which “prospectively inoperative” words substantially insure numerical and construe future elections not to mean Legis- reapportionment of the Oklahoma They the November election in 1962. lature, in a manner to accord the Plaintiff say by refusing further that us our protection his class opinion enjoin primary first elec- guaranteed laws, by Fourteenth tion, illegal we that condoned the Amendment.” statutes, say unconstitutional Court, It should be noted that after primary general that because the reviewing history of the Oklahoma election, election is in fact all the same Legislature century, for half a not was obliged recognize that we are a it as using simply the word content legal election, notwithstanding we emphasized “disproportionate”, but have said the under statutes which is it using “grossly and the woi*ds term being held are null and void. egregiously disproportionate”. Web- my judicial In search “egre- Dictionary decisions defines the word ster’s giously” beginning, since the something am unable find prominent, that is as says, decision of court conspicuous quality, eminent, for bad by condoning illegal a void and flagrant; stat- as word “invidious” by condoning wrong, you or ute “tending odium, will, breathe to excite ill legality give into the statute and give offense; likely envy; unjust- operate who it, those under discriminating.” says ly it even Mr. Webster wrong. though is “repugnant” synonymous with “repugnant” “opposed then he defines In an endeavor to overturn the earlier reciprocally opposed, contradictory, opinion Court, of this entered herein on legal gives constitution that two members 19th, June They authority. Representatives House of be at must unsupported reasons twenty-one years age general least at the say: (1) election at the November, a future time their means not election 1962 is held in election; general date not in June election and (2) that when we said legis- primary election. under which statutes apportioned unconstitutional “The pre- lature Constitution does just in June void, they qualifications void were scribe the candi- aof August could primary and that we date and not in a election.” operation of the Constitution. trol the In Carter, State ex rel. Williamson v. authority ma- only 382, cited 177 Okl. 949, 59 P.2d support jority in its decree Court said: general finding in No- election “At the adoption time of the vember, election is not a future 1962 is Constitution, great consideration P. Gragg Dudley, given 143 Okl. was question popular to the point not in 254. This case itself public election of officials. The Con- interpretation therein since the required stitution pass registration, process election includes mandatory primary law. Sec- general elections, election However, article Const. election and the announcement of recognized has been well it related pure dicta insofar turns is state, highest primaries. Senator There a State states, courts of other that there is sought Lt. Gov- office of run for the a wide distinction between ‘election’ *16 that this question raised was ernor. The primary and being election; a the latter 5, 23 Section violated Article statutory provided methods that All was Oklahoma Constitution. representatives for the selection ruling necessary decision was to that political parties of the various in the not com- election was November provided by ‘elections’ the Constitu- plete counted votes were until tion for the selection of the various known. the result made state, county, public and other offi- 3, 1 Article Section of the Oklahoma cers.” provides: Constitution perfectly We submit that is obvious “Qualified electors majority that what the meant in June * * * shall be citizens who have entirely and what now mean are ** * resided in the election things. two different precinct days thirty preceding next majority in its haste to recede the election at which such elector opinion glossed from our June 19th offers to vote.” very important question a over of law. registration Under Oklahoma law a say, court, That is to where we did period provided before the opinion, June declares a statute election, election, the run-off and still creating public void, null offices general another before the election. If statute is null and void ab initio. This theoiy adopted by majority length principle of law is set out at correct, registrations the last named two Shelby landmark case of Norton v. would provi- violate this constitutional County, 425, 118 6 U.S. 30 S.Ct. sion. Supreme L.Ed. Court of Ten- practical aAs matter the Oklahoma had earlier nessee declared a statute al- Supreme case of Stafford v. lowing a board of commissioners sub- Board, Election 203 Okl. to railroad stock scribe unconstitutional. distinguish P.2d did the cited case appealed was The case the United page following: and said 620 the par- One Court. States agree argued “We with the contention if ties that there not a de was petitioner provision jure officer, the officers were de argued party justifies per- if no The other tection and acts facto. unconstitutional, there was formed under it.” the statute existing there could was no office suggested, As I have heretofore Mr. Justice officer. a de facto not be to take com- of the Court seems answering posed, question Field, “prospectively fort in the words null said: inoperative elec- void all future tions”, cited if the Oklahoma case above it is “But contended void, argument creating hat into a cocked knocks this by was act board saying power do not officers not have were courts the commissioners inoperative make a from the jure, they of- to point statute nevertheless de were Quoting adjudication facto, the acts forward. and that ficers de case, rel. an State ex from earlier Florida court a de facto the board as 249,102 Greer, county.” binding upon Nuveen v. Fla. So. page said, at our 547: Said Mr. Field: invalidity “Validity relate to by the is met fact “This contention under the the enactment of existing statute officer, there can no either organic to a law jure facto, no de if there is de subsequent date. The courts attempting office to fill. the act As power inopera- make a statute no to create office commissioner adjudi- tive from the date of law, the officenever never became a invalidity, cated because courts * * * Their came into existence. merely adjudge that a statute position is, act, organic law, and the Con- flicts with though may in unconstitutional, operates then stitution make nothing office, terms create an enactment, the statute void from its apparent existence further than its having power no to control the courts validity necessary give operation Constitution.” That incumbent. acts of assumed give weight We bound ana although position, stated validity authorities, to the Oklahoma *17 nothing form, else. broad amounts to and when the Oklahoma Court said has argu- by any It is difficult to meet it power say a no to when that courts have beyond An un- ment this statement. inoperative, is not after statute is or law; act is not a it constitutional being declaring the statute void as once unconstitutional, rights; imposes no no it confers duties; certainly it would be protection; it it no affords presumptuous part attempt on our legal office; is, no in con- creates operation of the control the Constitu- though inoperative templation, as say Far me to tion. it from be passed.” it had never been proper question no that there is a case Supreme Court fol- own Oklahoma Our place a is the de facto but what there United States lowed doctrine, but ours This is such. case of ex rel. Tharel v. in the upon is founded consideration doctrine of County of of The Board Commissioners necessity protection policy and for the of County, 188 Old. P.2d Creek 542, public individuals whose inter- says quote: I which thereby. affected Offices ests general public, rule that an “The un- benefit of the is created though having statute, permitted parties private are not constitutional to in- law, persons and name titles quire the form is in of clothed into good authority. reality law, wholly void, For no but is order and legal contemplation society, authority peace their is to be and operative as in- is prescribed respected some mode is as if it had never until been rights imposes duties, passed. It to determine their to serve. no law power rights, here. The offices no bestows no is not case fers Such legislature authority one, any pro- null no were determined affords
90S exist, They longer respect and the no and void. representation contemplated State, sure a in this have 19th become decree June invidiously discriminatory orderly the situation. correction of since adoption away provisions; majority from backed said “and The strength provisions now and is said cannot the earlier decree be met or enforced by any legislation they conforming taking position sanction a where thereto they It is without contravention condemned. Amendment which my opinion it position, XIV to Constitution of United untenable unqualified duty States.” is the
apportion. question These intervenors even power positively judiciary is evidence There no to enforce the any finding that there Fourteenth record to sustain Amendment and state that ample primary, any a time to a decree herein is run-off, would be an unlawful general derogation a to elect powers. election and a of their This was legislature. pleading. all In fact their constitutional contrary. the evidence is hearing they At the substantiated by introducing plethora intent a of unex- in the records also evidence There is plained figures and useless and charts to hold available that funds can be made they orally stated substantiated legal, This would be the elections. ignore their contention that should we postpone we the relief which and not they ignore and that census can sub- say plaintiff and all of his class equality apportioning or in stantial delayed justice de- “Justice entitled. submitting per- constitutional revisions nied.” taining apportionment. Finally majority, ex- in order to produced opin- only Intervenors from the June two wit- themselves tricate Speaker judicial nesses. they ion, re- House of have withheld state solemn, Representatives, expressed hope who apportionment on the word of reapportion legislators that the House could intervening that once their opinion duty unequivocally to hazard an fused ability as to the constitutional unescapably clear, discharge pass apportion- Senate might provisions, fidelity. say paren- befitting ment I have honor and thetically, it is obvious do not find such if there the record and searched hope might part individual promise House on the be able provisions, contrary, pass such legislator. nowhere no To there can be single hope that the Senate can do so since it record disclose does malapportioned far more legislator, less both is much than *18 legis- represented The other Houses, House. witness was a State have many years’ keeping service, act in with Senator who intends lature stronger make or this would no Constitution statement than the State either ready majority responsibili- the he to assume was decree. Court’s people at hear- intervened ties State. On who cross- Senate State remedy plead- ing he state in their examination always admitted he that had on legislative ready ings a session been desire assume such that re- although they may sponsibility, institute con- he further admit- order “in ¡pres- processes apportion- to correct the he had voted ted that stitutional discriminatory existing ently constitu- in accordance with the ment State Con- during further, “any provisions”; previous re- stitution session. tional might decree, based had each lief, the Court He served nine which ses- aforesaid, population Supreme would the State sions since census Court in on invidiously arbitrary ques- and discrimina- Freeman stated Jones v. that be finally, intervening “very tory”; de- these went to the attempt democracy”, contend to show vitals the Court in fendants provisions solemnly case had Constitution the Jones further acting placed Attorney faith in the State General and a State uphold oaths. This Election Board its constitutional that have co- offered full operation. comply say witness he would can stated Who dare that their only successors, act after Court order of this but who will office March be clearly United cooperative, the law is outlined less much subsequent cooperative Supreme States at all? only Lord opinions, take the might majority While I bleed with the long Senator convince this knows how intervenors, downtrodden who like him. others pleaded with do the Court for a chance to themselves, only is, therefore, respectfully interpret submitted can I what It wholly they may my have their statement minds brothers’ past challenging record, only the facts acts without basis century Supreme history dis- Court of half but also for almost wholly justifica- 200,000 more than without it is residents of Oklahoma close that signed hopelessly only Petition, who an lead to a Initiative tion and can pro- Board, everyone Election can else session chaotic get attempted nothing who dis- than the submission them more duce charge which, duty if their constitutional amendment of a constitutional fidelity. honor and adopted, the Fourteenth would violate Supreme Even the Amendment. respectfully dissent. in its most opinion, Election Brown v. State cent al.; Okl., P.2d 140 stated: Board et legislator may be individual
“An
willing out of of- himself to vote fice, to find difficult it would be willing his con- vote one who RIALS, Plaintiff, Edward E. contrary legislator out of stituents V to their wishes.” RIBICOFF, Secretary of Abraham A. respectfully that we submitted It Health, Welfare, Education interpreta- deferred to should Defendant. legislators to tion of the abilities A. No. Civ. expressed reapportion themselves as Court and Chief the State United States District Court State, in a far who Executive of Kentucky, D.W. judge position to the situation better Paducah. significant It is than we. July 17, 1962. legislator’s word rea- is the solemn staying given by son patent- hand, judicial reason is and this ly unsound. wrong legal exist. haveWe found wronged majority would refer this *19 politi- plaintiff to a those class fact, remedy political remedy. In cal very suggested one has Therefore, wrong. no see caused delaying judicial justification contrary I foresee
hand delay and further a result chaos This
complications a result thereof. having been fortunate Executive, Treasurer, an a State Chief