*1 infringement validity will run from the date of amounts this decision judgment Supreme April amounts Court had court enters that such and the Appeals’ decision are the Court of owed. affirmed pro- February 1949. This increased POST OPINION BRIEFS spite place of fact duction took to briefs Counsel are directed submit found) (as Appeals that the Court of solely question amount on the of what the full substitute 700 series fluxes were damages for the of nominal should be flux could have for the 660 and therefore infringement. period Plaintiff of second readily by meet used defendants been or before its brief on should submit requirements in- further their without on September defendants fringing plaintiff’s patent. Counsel or before October I from in- been with this case its have along plaintiff with its submit shall also firmly ception I that am convinced judgment brief, consistent a form of everything within its Lincoln done has Ap- Court of of the mandate with the power patent mo- or avoid the defeat opinion. peals this and with nopoly rightfully belonged to right Certainly plaintiff. do has up point. I have
this to a believe
far nessmen, to which busi- exceeded the bounds rights, of their
solicitous
permitted go passing into the without “exceptional” envisioned the stat- case negatives strong
ute. are as Sometimes positives. significant as I think it is PETUSKEY, A. Bul- Robert G. William following finding rejected the master lough, and Farrol M. Black Clinton requested by defendants: Lambert, Plaintiffs, R. guilty been Defendants have not any v. unconscionable conduct their RAMPTON, L. as Calvin Governor action, defense de- this and their Miller, Utah, Clyde as Sec L. State of good fense been conducted Utah, retary the State of State of faith. Larsen, Sharp as Auditor M. finding, Baker, adopted Utah, I Treas Had the master this as State of Linn C. Utah, Phil L. Han urer of the State of aside, had con- have to set it after sen, Attorney the State as General sidering all I to which have the matters County Weiler, Utah, as Jacob A. alluded. Lake, County of Salt State Clerk of the Creer, County Utah, INTEREST John Preston as County, Commissioner Lake of Salt ruling appeals I believe the Larsen, Utah, as State of William G. court decision on is that there interest County Commissioner Lake Salt is to no interest until the amount owed Utah, County, State of and Marvin G. liquidated. holding Jenson, that interest Commissioner Salt Utah, County, Lake State of Defend was to run from the date of the master’s ants. report category falls into this infringement. period Civ. No. C7-63. first It appeals doubtful intended court United States District Court to have all interest accumulate from the Utah, D. report date of the master’s on —even Central Division. covering unliquidated damages the sec July period infringement ond amount —an appeals made uncertain court de remanding recompu cision the case for damages tation of the for the second
period. recomputed Interest on the *2 City, Utah, Boyden, S. Lake
John Salt plaintiffs. for Atty. Hansen, Phil Gen. of State L. Boyce, Utah, N. and Ronald Chief Utah, Atty. Gen., Asst. State Rampton, Clyde L. defendants Calvin L. Larsen, Miller, Sharp Linn C. Baker N. Phil L. Hansen. County Giles, A. Lake Grover Salt Weiler, Atty., for Jacob Wil- defendants Larsen, iam John Preston Creer G. G. Marvin Jenson. Judge, LEWIS,
Before Circuit CHRISTENSEN, RITTER and District udges J Judge. RITTER, District brought proceeding1 to invoke This is Sep jurisdiction retained this court grant injunctive tember 1964 affirmative relief should the fail, reapportion refuse or be unable validly. regular Legislature, The Utah State bill, year
session for the enacted a May 11, 1965, providing for re- effective districting State, nearly more Legislature equal “A”) population (Appendix on a basis. Legislature action of the is his- This toric. No other since state- legislative hood has constructed nearly equal popula- in both houses so long history is tion. This end of a attempts reapportion, frustrated beginning of a era. new significance Legislature’s forcefully by action demonstrated few statistics: an In election for state senator Act, given person under the 1963 one was voting power times the of another 5% person merely because he lived in a rural area.4
In an election state senator under Act, per the 1965 the ratio of inhabitants County districts, senator in Weber upon Supplemental Morgan ‘three, Rich, 1. Based a Second Com- 4. Contrast district plaint. eighteen, Summit, & and district Wash- ington County, with the Weber and Salt F.Supp. (1964). 2. 234 County Lake districts. 1965, Chap. 72, p. 3. Laws of Utah explosive one. But County an states been highest, to the Carbon are the here. lowest, district, is 1.74 to giving dangerously per- close to This is upon And, mem- no reflection it is voting County twice son in Carbon this difficult bers power person in a Weber of a complex requires fur- matter some than But it is a lot better district. 5V2 ther action the court. voting power. *3 times the Broadly speaking, the was repre- 2. In an election for state finding solutions to two confronted with Act, person sentative under the 1963 one problems: 1. To redistriet the State voting given power of was 18 times the constitutional mandate conform to the merely person he lived another because person, To work “one vote”. one county.5 in a rural area or in the smallest plan practicable and constitutional out a malap- old for transition from the the representative In an election for state portioned consti- to the new Act, under the 1965 ratio of inhabit- the tutional one. per representative ants Weber between again County districts, the which are I highest, County district, and the Tooele lowest, which is the 1.55 to 1. THE STATE REDISTRICTING representative This is a than to 1. districts little worse and Senatorial 1% But, again cry designated is a far from 18 times. Act and in the defined except are entitled to where counties provides The the new statute one one or more than than senator more members, State Senate shall consist of 28 representative. of this To take care Representa- and that the State House county districting, provision is within tives shall consist of 69 members. county ap- appointment made for the Lake, seats, In Senate of 28 Salt portionment committees. Weber, seats; Utah and Davis have 31,808 average in- Senatorial districts State, the rest of the habitants, representative and seats, Lake, In a House of 69 Salt ' average 12,908. Until Weber, seats; Utah and Davis have 49 more in counties entitled to committees State, the rest of the representative one or com- than senator County seats, plus Salt Lake plete county redistricting, we the within Utah, seats, either Weber or each with 3 ap- validity of can test senatorial and one other district would consti- only through portionments the use of majority tute a of the Senate. average figures Lake, population in Salt County, seats, Salt Lake with 28 Elder, Weber, Davis, Cache, Utah, Box Utah, seats, either Weber each with 8 We have Carbon Tooele Counties. majority would constitute a of the House. figures6 population dis- actual for all in multi-dis- than those tricts other easy It could not for been some trict listed. counties legislators bring themselves vote strong highest for this for measure. were number of inhabitants There figure average opposition Legislature. currents of in each State Senator is composed 36,915 But differences each three Weber were through per County reason and lowest number obedience law. Senators. The County, And this action Ameri- is in where adds lustre to the State Senator Carbon making 21,135 people represent can tradition of a inhabi- free one senator will changes through fundamental district. reason tants discussion and without violence. furnish Weber districts also highest average figure problem House
This difficult and fed- state Tooele, relationships be, representation 13,843. eral could and in some member — County, upon fifteen, population figures 5. Contrast district 6. All are based Carbon n withdistrict 29, Daggett County. the 1960 census. population 17,868, rep- awith and two Legis- think We that means that districts, resentative has the lowest aver- job lature should do the on the best can age figure representation 8,934. population. basis of And, good that calls for some old-fashion- represented Weber is the most under ed common sense. County in the House. both Senate and (Appendix “B”) The ratio of inhabitants disparities Weber, It is that the true per senator in Weber to that Carbon Cache, Utah, Davis, Lake and Salt said, County is 1.74 to 1. As we have Senate, Weber, Salt Lake dangerously this is much close to twice as Utah, “greater in the House are than voting power in the Carbon senator than fifty per cent of norm” and thus “sub- in each of the The ra- Weber senators. ject judicial scrutiny may to close represented tios of most under coun- shown to abe result of factors other than ties are: equality population substantial impermissible,” therefore court this
SENATE
F.Supp. 960,
said in 234
to 1
Weber
.....................1.74
weight
is some
dilution
the
There
1
Cache......................1.69
to
given
Reynolds
votes but as
was stated
to 1
Utah.......................1.68
Sims, supra,
practical
impos-
v.
“It is a
1
Salt Lake...................1.64
to
arrange
sibility
legislative
to
districts so
Davis
to 1
......................1.53
that each
an
of
one has
identical number
residents,
citizens,
or
The
voters.”
highest
represent
the
ratios
These
five
said,
court
“Mathematical exactness or
in the Senate.
precision
hardly
a workable constitu-
requirement”
quoted
tional
Justice
HOUSE
(Bain
Holmes
Peanut Co. of Texas v.
1
.....................1.55
to
Weber
Penson,
228,
501,
499,
282 U.S.
51 S.Ct.
1
Salt Lake ..................1.53
to
482):
75 L.Ed.
1
Utah.......................1.50
to
“We
1
must remember that the ma-
Davis
to
..............:.......1.45
chinery
government
Cache......................1.33
would not
work if it were not
a little
allowed
the
The
three of
ratios are
first
these
play
joints.”
in its
highest
in the House.
ways
There are two
to attack the
figures
analysis
prompted
These
an
bringing
problem
disparities
the
redistricting
testing
legislative
together:
(1)
closer
the number
increase
against
Supreme Court
the United States
assigned
representatives
of senators and
ungenerous
standard.
not
It
counties;
represented
say
Legislature
to the most
the
itself
under
that what
long
represents
surprisingly
legislative
(2) rearrange
has
done
the
scheme
high
step
But,
has
court
forward.
the
districting by placing
of the small
some
said,
“Equal
re-
the
Protection Clause
together
represented
most over
counties
quires that a state make an honest and
sufficiently
in a district
increased
with
districts,
good faith effort
to construct
population.
legislature,
nearly
in both houses of
its
These are the
equal
choices.
population
practicable.”7
as is
The court’s
is not ex
mandate
Our conclusion is that without reform-
pressed
precisely
ing
measured terms.
legislative
it would not
the
principle
broadly
is laid down
to con
practicable for the
the
court to reduce
nearly
equal popu
struct districts as
Any
disparities.
changes
likely
would be
practicable.”
lation “as is
to create
distortion.
worse
Reynolds
Chief
Justice
Warren
v.
S.Ct.
12 L.Ed.
decided
Sims,
pp. 577-578,
377 U.S.
June
the
practicable
commend to
and we
change
around would
the districts
To
thoughtful
Legislature
consideration
doing
over what
in the court
result
problems,
study of these
further
has done.
easy
of solution.
are
Legis-
light
progress the
In the
already made,
we believe
lature
II
should
commended
this matter
PRESENT
FROM
TRANSITION
further consideration.
for its
LEGISLATURE
(
8. Article See.
370 specifically senator in 1964 elected would 2 Section 11 list senatorial by- 31, 1968, continued until December districts in which no senators will legislative fiat. general November, 1968, elected until the Consistent second sentence election. Those districts are the follow- ing: paragraphs Section the fourth and fifth DISTRICTS COUNTIES County
2,3 &5 Salt Lake County 12 Weber County
18 & 19 Davis County 20 Box Elder Morgan, Summit, 22 Rich, & Duchesne
Wasatch Counties County 23 Carbon Emery, Daggett
24 Grand, & Uintah Coun-
ties Juab & Tooele Counties 2, 3, (Salt In new repre- Lake Coun- 2. Some senatorial new ty), (Weber County), (Davis sentative districts multi-district coun- 18 and 19 ties, would be left without County), (Box County), Elder and 23 November, until after the 1966 election. (Carbon sig- County), there no would be instance, For Salt Lake has 11 changes represented nificant in the areas only districts, new senatorial but 6 sena- the senators but the elected (the tors Act new abolished the office senators office continued in large one senator who was elected at 31, 1968, though, until December re-we County). county Salt Lake peat, they elected under an uncon- *6 were representative only districts but 24 statute, stitutional and one the Act representatives. examples elected Other repealed. of 1965 are:
NUMBER OF ELECTED NUMBER OF NEW SENATORS AND REPRE- COUNTIES DISTRICTS _SENTATIVES_ Weber 3 Senatorial 2 Senators Representative Representatives Weber 8 7 Utah 3 Senatorial 2 Senators Representative Utah Representatives 8 7 Representative Representatives Davis 5 4 Representative Representatives Cache 3 2 Representative Representative Carbon 2 1 Representative Tooele Representative 2 1 representative (Duchesne 3. In five Wasatch), tricts 60 and 61 by which, instance, (Daggett in Uintah,) (Juab each were formed and 62 and Mil- combining counties, lard), (Emery Grand), two there and 69 representatives (Kane Washington). would be two instead of In dis- one new trict, Summit) one for each dis- (Morgan, district. These would be Rich and representatives instead The inhabitants there would Grand be (Beaver, 31, represented one, in district 67 would be until December new Sowards, Garfield, Wayne), 1966, by Taylor would there Senators Piute and 1968, representatives 31, until December and thereafter until four December by 31, Senator Sowards. The inhabitants 1966. County participated Grand in election Emery County be without would Taylor 1962, upon of Senator in but representation state senate in the voter 1966, expiration of his term at end of May 11, years, from for one-half four and they opportunity to would not have an Act) (the until effective date for vote senatorial until January 1969. meets in general By legis- in election by they fiat, represented lative would Emery County formerly in old dis- was Sowards, Senator for who did not stand L. trict 10. In 1964 Vernon Senator County. election from 4-year Grand It should Holman elected for a term was pointed Taylor, out who Emery County that Senator that district. is now was elected in 1962 from Grand and San up new district which is made Counties, Juan Emery, Daggett would lose San Juan Grand, Uintah County from the area he was elected Holman resides Counties. Senator represent, gain and would County, Counties of this Garfield which is outside Emery, Daggett and district, consequently Uintah the bal- new he no ance. of longer his term. represent inhabitants County. Tay- Emery Samuel J. Senator Morgan, Rich and Summit Coun- lor was elected in 1962 from the Counties representa- ties would be without voter of Grand and Juan. His term ex- San years tion for two from 1966 to 1968. pires 31, 1966. is a resi- December He being district, dent of the new his home Senator John A. Lambert was elected County. represent in Grand Leland So- Senator 1962 to of Mor- Counties gan, expires wards was in 1964 from old dis- elected Rich and Summit. His term Daggett up trict forming which was made December 1966. In new dis- Counties, Emery 22, Morgan, and Uintah trict Rich and Summit were Grand have been added dis- to form new added to Duchesne and Wasatch. Sena- Harmston, trict 24. Under the new Act the inhabi- tor Gordon E. was Emery County repre- represent tants of would lose elected to Duchesne and Wa- by sentation Senator Holman. De- Until satch. Both senators reside in new dis- 31, 1966, they repre- cember would be trict and the of that dis- inhabitants Taylor Sowards, sented represented Senators trict would be until them opportunity whom have had no December 1966. The inhabitants of Morgan, vote. From the end of 1966 until De- Rich and Summit Counties *7 31, they 1968, repre- cember opportunity would be would not have an vote sented Senator representation Sowards. The inhabi- senatorial in the 1966 Emery County general tants of election, represented would be but would be given opportunity an 31, 1968, by to vote for new until December Senator representation general senatorial Harmston. at the So, May 11, election in 1966. from 1965 It is manifest this situation is mon- (the Act) effective date the the until strous, way. wholly in a small It is lack- Legislature January 1969, in meets ing rationality. Legislature in The Emery County residents would not have up delay long set a scheme that too will representation
voter
in the
reapportionment
State Senate.
equal
constitutional
representation
Legislature.
in the Utah
5. Grand
would be without
years
voter
high
for two
court has
The
said:9 “When a
1966 to 1968.
power wholly
State exercises
the
within
Lightfoot,
347,
Gomiffion v.
125,
130,
domain of state it is should be done in accordance with Sec- judicial 1, Reapportionment But such tions from federal review. 4 of the regular legis- when state insulation is over Act of so that in the not carried Leg- January power for cir- used an instrument in the as lative session right.” cumventing reap- federally protected constitutionally will islature be a portioned one. a fed have The citizens Utah upon rely, authority, the Su- We Legislature right erally protected to a proper preme the statement about Court’s conformity apportioned in which has been courts federal which remedial devices They to federal constitutional standards. in should state cases. utilize Legislature until will not such a have January 1969, Act. the 1965 under techniques new in this “Remedial developing will area of the law Carr, U.S. 82 S.Ct. Baker v. probably cir- often differ with the March L.Ed.2d was decided challenged appor- cumstances regular 26, 1962. time two Since variety con- of local and a tionment held, legislative the sessions have been enough say now ditions. It sessions of and 1965. legislative appor- that, once a State’s January 16, 1963. This action was filed found to has been tionment scheme stemming from Baker v. line of cases The unconstitutional, including Reynolds supra, Carr, Sims, v. a court would unusual case which Legislature were in the mill. The was taking appropriate justified in not upon all that while. notice action to insure that no further elec- in- tions are conducted under Legislature In en- the 1963 session plan. However, under certain valid reapportionment acted a act was circumstances, im- an such where patently And, unconstitutional. pending imminent and a election is 1965 session have enacted one already machinery is State’s election constitutionally appor- denies the state progress, equitable considerations January tioned until might withholding justify a court in long. delay This is too immediately granting effec- legislative apportion- in a tive relief THE REMEDIES existing case, though ment even left of Utah should not be in- State found scheme was awarding withholding Legislature. regard In valid. our without a We relief, a court is entitled immediate power ample the terms of to continue proximity to and should consider the legislators present in the forthcoming of a election and the through general election November complexities mechanics and of state To and until December rely laws, election and should act and say least, people for this voted general upon equitable principles. Legislature. timing relief, respect With Repre- reasonably
All of the House of seats a court can endeavor filled, anyway, disruption at the sentatives will be avoid a of the election general might Tues- process election to be held the first re- result from *8 day Monday changes precipitate quiring in November after the first that nearly possible, of One-half, 1966. as as could make or embar- unreasonable normally rassing filled be on in ad- the Senate seats demands a State great justing requirements at same time. No dislocation to the the place Mr. if seats of all sena- decree. As stated will take the court’s concurring representatives, Douglas, tors, are in Baker as as of all well Justice ‘any required Carr, This be time. relief accorded can to at that v. be filled equal protec- light that the denial the of well-known fashioned the ” Reynolds is tion of to the citizens of Utah principles equity.’ law v. Sims, a can a supra, page at situation that tolerate 84 S.Ct. at ‘dragging suspend feet,’ a pages 1893, for to delay right by to constitutional is general State in this first election right. deny Similarly, that it is the 1966. Redis- will held in November be duty of as as the the well tricting within counties under Section duty approach the of this court to hardly expected to of the 1965 Act be can problem under completed special election be in time for a existing law.” municipal at the of our elections time It is manifest in the 1965 Act that November, And, there are some legislators sought to themselves continue no munici- counties which will be there of their elected office until the end bringing pal elections this fall. While terms, senators until December eleven Legislature appor- properly into its this, that 1968. And in face of the fact unduly course tioned should not de- be they had the acts under which been layed, rushing it seems to us mat- to elected had been held unconstitutional require special ters a too bit fast to repealed by For a moreover were them. Legislature election of the in November very long period of all efforts to ob- time special 1965. And to hold a election Legis- constitutionally apportioned tain a put taxpayers then would to consid- lature in this State been frustrated. have expense. erable additional delay There is now a further unfortunate session, Legislature, If the at its 1965 January until have we shall before really early had wanted to an con- Legisla- effect constitutionally apportioned reapportionment stitutional it would have ture.10 simple up been a matter to the ma- set Nothing today do be inter- to we chinery special for a statewide election preted authorizing Legislature at legislators in November any prior January pass session to 1967 to staggered senate terms and all. But any legislation reapportionment further Legislatures Utah’s have never shown stagger except to the terms of the sena- any reapportionment enthusiasm for on tors in accordance with the Consti- State population. the basis of no This one was particularly, tution of Utah. And exception, any and this is not because nothing today interpreted we do tois political partisanship. authorizing legislative action with respect may necessary say,
This court found to to amendment which F.Supp. proposed (1964) page the Constitution Note permit apportionment United States to 6: including population. factors other than “We note here somewhat wide- spread public statements of some We do not assume persons are, may charged be, who unconstitutionally would act in de- responsibility Supreme law- fiance mandates of the making reapportionment is a Court United States and of this subject upon ‘willing they court if should be called into session drag poten- prior their January 1, Hence, feet’ or again, to ‘await changes stay tial give in the federal law or we our hand and do not in- now say junctive Constitution.’ It is sufficient to affirmative relief we interesting speed by passed day 10. It to note Senate on the tenth session, compared Legislature’s which the last me- State Congress (S.J.R. #5) hesitancy properly reapportion moralized to call under provide court, a constitutional convention to the mandate of this which action reapportionment (sixtieth) day “on factors other than occurred on the final *9 population”, which resolutions the State the session. present think that the welfare tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- may people of of thus best ment of United the Utah to the Constitution the State Legislature, be- the served. Should States. January attempt tween now and Utah 2. That all 28 members of the unconstitutionally reapportion to or at- Senate, the as as all members of well tempt ratify any proposed to amendment Representatives, House of elected shall be to the Constitution of the United States general election, first at the on the first apportion to one or houses of the both Tuesday Monday after first the Novem- Legislature popula- on factors other than year ber, 1966, for two terms of office give tion, duty to will be this court’s Legislature staggered only, unless the necessity further to the of consideration the of terms senators. giving plaintiffs injunctive affirma- and 3. That the members of the Utah by judicial decree, tive and for such relief Representatives Senate House of and again purpose jurisdiction. we retain November, from shall be elected may may newly or not call a the the Governor constructed under special session, may may place Reapportionment Act of 1965. agenda. Having apportionment upon its 4. That the terms of officeof the sena- regard long during period to the of time representatives present. tors and Legislature in the which all efforts to obtain a constitu- De- shall continued until tionally Legislature apportioned have 31, 1966, cember to assure the State State, been in this the frustrated to Legislature during this at all times January delay further until unfortunate period; transition terms and that the 1967 before we shall a constitu- have representa- of all such senators and office tionally apportioned Legislature, well- expire tives shall and become vacated general principles equity known re- time, notwithstanding any provision that quire Legislature that the not consider contrary Reapportionment to the in the any upon proposal or vote to the amend Act of 1965. v Constitution of the on the United States Legislature may, 5. That the if it subject legislative reapportionment, so, stagger should wish to do the terms Legislature require that not take the of senators to conform to Utah Con- any legislative subject action on the any special stitution at be- session held except stagger to event, and, 31,1966, fore December continuity. provide terms senators to regular should do so not later than the special Legislature If a session of session in 1967. prior January should be called 6. That which shall place and if the Governor should regular January, meet in session in subject upon agenda, its composed shall from may stagger- provision wish to make representative the senatorial dis- ing the terms of senators to conform pursuant provi- tricts constructed VI, Article Section 4 of Utah Con- Reapportionment sions of the of 1965 Act stitution. It would be desirable to do this for a senate 28 and a house of 69 seats. early possible, nothing as court judgment That the of this court Legis- prevent
has said is intended to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, supra, reflected in shall taking lature such action at such judgment subject be a final and as such special session if should be one. there immediate at the review instance parties. Every common sense consid argues eration that remedial measures be jurisdiction 8. That all case practicable taken at the earliest To time. including aspects grant other in- end, we hold: junctive plain- relief to affirmative tiffs, is retained this court. Reapportion- That Section 2 of the ment Equal Act of accordingly. 1965 violates the Pro- A decree will be entered *10 “A”
APPENDIX No. 8 H.B. McKay, Harding, Hamilton, By Messrs.
and Mrs. Yance. OF THE ACT FOR IN LEGISLATURE AN PROVIDING REPRESENTATION UTAH; A OF THE OF FOR REAPPORTIONMENT PROVIDING STATE LEGISLATURE; THE AND REPRESENTA- SENATORIAL CREATING DISTRICTS; FOR THE ELECTION OF SENATORS TIVE PROVIDING REPRESENTATIVES; REP- AND AND DESIGNATING SENATORIAL UTAH; THE OF PROVIDING RESENTATIVE OF DISTRICTS STATE FOR IN MORE THAN ONE SENATOR DISTRICTS COUNTIES HAVING REPRESENTATIVE; 36-1-1, AND OR AND REPEALING SECTIONS 36-1-2, 1953, BY CHAPTER UTAH CODE AMENDED ANNOTATED AS 61, 54, OF 1955, BY LAWS OF UTAH AS AMENDED CHAPTER LAWS 1953, 1963, 36-1-4, UTAH CODE AND SECTION UTAH ANNOTATED AMENDED AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER OF UTAH LAWS AS BY CHAPTER BY CHAPTER OF UTAH AMENDED LAWS AS OF UTAH LAWS Be is enacted State Utah: members, 1. The Section senate this state shall consist with one mem- of 28 large ber to be elected from each senatorial district. No shall be senator elected county
in a numbers, more than one senatorial district. boundaries designated of such senatorial districts are and estab- hereby lished follows: through Eleven, City
Districts One Lake sor Vcors inclusive: Salt —eleven Twelve, County Districts Thirteen and Fourteen: Weber senators —three Fifteen, County Districts Sixteen and Seventeen: Utah senators —three Eighteen County Districts and Nineteen: Davis senators —two Twenty: County District Box Elder senator —one Twenty-one: County
District Cache senator —one Twenty-two: District Morgan, Rich, Summit, Coun- Duchesne and Wasatch ties —one senator Twenty-three:
District Carbon senator —one Twenty-four: Emery, Daggett Grand, District Counties —one Uintah senator Twenty-five:
District Juab and Tooele Counties —one senator Twenty-six: Millard, District Sanpete and Beaver senator Counties —one Twenty-seven: Iron, Washington District Kane Counties —one senator Twenty-eight: District Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Garfield San Juan Counties— one senator If, redistricting by act, as a
Section result of this two or more senators who were elected in 1964 shall reside in one senatorial district of such terms expire senators shall December 1966. All elected were other senators who represent 1964 shall remain in office and senatorial re- districts expiration respective possible side until the of their terms of office. Whenever provided designate committee and num- in section 4 shall county including ber senatorial within a so sena- as to avoid torial more than district one senator who was elected *11 15, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 6, .9, be from 1,
Senators shall elected senatorial districts general year term, and 28 27 at election to held be in 1966 a four years every and four thereafter. general 7, 11,
Senators shall be elected from senatorial districts and at the general year term, held in election to be for a two and at the election to be year term, every years held in for a four and four thereafter. 22, 23, 19, 20, be 5, 12, shall elected from senatorial districts Senators general year every term,
and 25 at the election held in four and be years four thereafter. general A senator shall be at elected from senatorial district 18 election year term, general be held 1968 for a two election held in 1970 and at to be years year term, every for a four and four thereafter. n Section representatives mem- 3. The house of of 69 of this shall consist state bers, repre- representative with one member to be elected No district. each large county represen- sentative one shall be elected in a than which has more representa- numbers, tative district. The boundaries and of such hereby designated tive districts are and as follows: established through Twenty-eight, County twenty- One Districts inclusive: Lake Salt — eight representatives. Twenty-nine through County eight Districts Thirty-six, inclusive: Weber — representatives. Thirty-seven through County eight . Forty-four, Districts inclusive: Utah — representatives. Forty-five through County repre- Districts Forty-nine, inclusive: Davis —five sentatives. Fifty, Fifty-one Fifty-two: County representatives Districts Cache —three Fifty-three Fifty-four: County representatives Districts Box Elder —two Fifty-five Fifty-six: County representatives Districts Carbon —two Fifty-seven Fifty-eight: County representatives Districts Tooele —two Fifty-nine: Morgan, representative District Rich and Summit Counties —one Sixty: representative District Duchesne and Wasatch Counties —one Sixty-one: Daggett representative District Uintah Counties —one Sixty-two: representative District Juab and Millard Counties —one Sixty-three: Sanpete County representative District —one Sixty-four: Emery representative District and Grand Counties —one Sixty-five: County representative District Sevier —one Sixty-six: County representative District San Juan —one Sixty-seven: Beaver, Wayne repre- Garfield, District Piute Counties —one sentative Sixty-eight: representative
District Iron —one Sixty-nine: Washington representative District Kane and Counties —one appointed county Section An shall be in each committee provided is entitled to than one in section 1 act more senator as of this and/or representative provided is entitled more one 3 of this than in section county act. who committee shall consist electors of five appointed employees state, city, county, elected or oificers school district or of the may legislature subdivision, except that members state political other appointed shall be Two members the committee on the committee. serve committee, a mem- county one of whom shall party executive Democratic legislature county, members a resident of the two ber state committee, county party appointed by Republican executive shall committee legislature coun- the state and a resident of whom shall a member of one by majority ty, four members. vote of other and one member shall be elected by party and is not available event a member state In *12 county appointment electors. from other residence, shall made the committee be appointment by political party com- executive of such The committee members the thirty days act and the mittees within the date of this shall be made after effective county appointments. respective the notified be of such clerks counties shall meeting county immediately appointed of of The shall call a the members clerk appoint- committee, meeting If the which the fifth member shall be elected. political parties made ment of is not authorized to be made the members July 1, appoint county two 1965, chairman of of shall the board the commissioners Republican party party members from the Democratic from the two members committee, that, provided party to serve of the if shall have as members either appointed only members, appoint committee the of board two chairman said shall political appointment. party members from the the which has made agree upon If fifth four the the committee members have not been able to days appointment member county of within ten after the the board their of chairman immediately members into commissioners shall call four the committee meeting person a and the two and the two Democratic shall select a members Republican person shall a board shall members select and the chairman persons draw lots to the fifth mem- determine which of the selected shall thus be days of ber the fifteen committee. Within the election or after selection meeting county fifth member of the the com- committee clerk call a of the shall purpose electing pro- mittee for the of a shall then chairman and the committee expeditiously discharge possible ceed as as shall its duties. The committee designate voting up determine and representative which make the districts shall senatorial and/or county. districts in the based near- determination shall as Such be ly possible upon voting population as the actual that the in each district to insure nearly equal possible population senatorial representative are the districts as as nearly Represen- equal possible population. districts are as as may voting tative be the All districts divided in formation of senatorial districts. representative contiguous. districts a senatorial or The com- shall district be popula- mittee shall use the last official available to determine federal census may registration lists, tion and use voter data school census data and other help voting will population actual The determine in each district. committee provided may request shall be any information the coun- it officeof ty any public may clerk and shall have access to or records documents helpful figures. determining population to it in has com- When the committee designation pleted representative of senatorial and furnish a districts shall copy county thereof to the board of The board shall commissioners. clerk of said prepare certify then map representative of a such senatorial and secretary January file 1, it with the of on or state before Section 5. allow Should of the United amended to Constitution States be legislatures apportioned any states to on factors or both house governor days population, other than shall, date within from the effective appoint study plan amendment, an such committee recommend other than thereof factors house on population. The committee shall shall consist of nine four members members: repre- consisting republicans the house and two two members senators consisting ; and two of two senators sentatives four democrats members shall be citizen representatives; be a ninth member shall members the house of age registered voting years he district where of 21 in a over who is a voter governor appoint the committee who resides. shall endeavor to members geographical representative ethnic, interests population, are economic and of the state. 36-1-2, amend- 1953, Annotated Sections Utah Code Section 36-1-1 by chapter 61, by chapter 54, of Utah 1955,
ed Laws Utah as amended Laws 60, by chapter 36-1-4, as amended Section Annotated Utah Code by chapter 61, amended Laws Utah as amended Laws Utah by chapter hereby repealed. Laws of Utah “B” APPENDIX
STATE SENATE *14 Judge (con- CHRISTENSEN, stand and that the correc- section cannot District fully dissenting by curring result, is tive action taken the- court in the myself, justified appropriate. I part). find agree however, unable to two basic I conclusions concur in the numbered aspects prevailing opinion which of the prevailing opinion much of the and with importance re- are deemed of as to such concerning Reap- that the Utah is said dissenting quire a statement. portionment of of Laws Utah Act I. Chap. particularly P. analysis com- If, only prevailing 2 thereof. The is Section as is in the inferred convincing prehensive latter opinion,1 believe, that the Re- but as I the Utah federally Legislature January, portioned 1. “The have a citizens Utah until * * *” right Legislature protected (p.372) to a conformity apportioned great place to has been if will take “No dislocation They senators, federal constitutional standards. well as of all the seats of all representatives, as Legislature required [with will not such a have to be filled out action in lieu of the court’s corrective in ac- time. should be done at that This January 1969, Section until under 2] with Sections of the cordance * * *” (p.372). Reapportionment 1965Act that so Act regular legislative “In the 1963 session the in Janu- session reapportionment ary enacted a act that was will a con- ” * * * patently And, stitutionally reapportioned in the unconstitutional. one they (p. 372). enacted one which 1965 session have constitutionally ap- denies the state a (with arrogating Act of 1965 to the court the function of 2) watchdog perpetual legisla- court’s order substituted for Section state constitutionally permissible legislature passes, and ture. If and involves when the apportionment, pass, or valid this should have threatens to further acts in con- among rulings specific been included flict with the Constitution of the United court, precatory dispositions ad- and the or to frustrate our States concerning brought visory expressions prior acts, to additional as or there is to our by by appropriate pleadings attention action to be taken fur- voting ther power should not volunteered.2 invidious discrimination in have been repugnant which is to the Con- Having con- in effect sustained the stitution, enough pass upon time these stitutionality present act as mod- other situations. by us, jurisdiction ified the retention of seeing merely purpose for the II. legislature, passed by as the Act me to dis Related considerations lead out, order, modified our but is carried sent the views contained in the purposes unlimited view immediately paragraphs pre last three ceding continuing opin- in the advice contained conclusions, the final not because ion, apprehend placing I in the will be us necessarily I take issue with most of position holding sword over the inap them but because I consider it legislators indefinitely heads state propriate express any them this any jurisdiction without reference to Theretofore, properly time. that, it was stated actually possess. which we Legisla “We do not assume that the Practically conceptually unconstitutionally well ture would act thing speaking, Supreme lit- there is no such as “a defiance of the mandates unconstitutionality. practi- tle” In the Court the United States and of this duty judgment calities of isit the court’s if court should be called into session prior January 1, to come ato conclusion on the facts be- in effect 1967”. Yet giv- constitutionality assumption fore of a it as this abandoned and it speculated special en act or course of action within the reali- session were if called, ties the situation —and we have. That and if there were included may the case be close to and con- the line Governor in the call matters which we *15 tain seeds our future intervention appropriate would not consider for in legislators strengthen legislative should not action, leg the Act terim if developing in view of pursuant conditions does islature to such authorization “ * * * responsibilities judg- relieve us of the attempt act, should to so ment, having judgment, give reached that duty will be this court’s further perpetually we are not invested with the necessity giving consideration to the powers supervision.3 plaintiffs This case some- injunctive and affirmative re time must not, against by judicial come an end and we should decree, pur lief such background pose again of such ex- jurisdiction.” we retain pressions, give appearance even the duty may be, any, our What further if light progress legis- 2. “In the bring conformity us more into with the ” * * * already made, lature requirements believe that we constitutional this (p. 369). matter should be commended Legislature for its further consideration * * *” (p. 369) Petuskey Clyde, As was stated v. good F.Supp. 960, (D.C.Utah 1964) “The has evidenced its “The faith, discretionary we have confidence that it will faced with a give its problem only by principle consideration to the commands of limited the Constitution of upon the United States and must be based sub equality population the Constitution of Utah and stantial with such judgment members their solemn will minor ‘are free from deviations as give further consideration to the com- taint of or discrimination’ ”. arbitrariness plexities reapportionment (Citing Sincock, and will en- Roman v. 377 U.S. 620.) act from time to time such laws will 84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d developments and rem await what should should be in
edies we should consider jurisdic only further dicated when our Certainly, in view of
tion invoked.
adequate power to secure otherwise com
pliance we should without fac hesitate structuring judgment to ven
tual of our into
ture unchartered sea direct injunction against legislative voting Supreme Court itself thus upon.4
far has hesitated Fed to venture
eral-state best deli are too relations cate, fraught important oppor tunity many per for too conflicts to thus being carried,
mit our even with the best purposes, beyond matters which have properly presented
been to us and which Equal
are essential to enforce the Pro
tection Clause of the Constitution only
United States.5 This serve unnecessarily indefinitely an cast
lengthening pe shadow over matters of discordantly
culiar state concern with the
Tenth Amendment.6 CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
RAILEX
v. COMPANY,
WHITE Inc., MACHINE Conveyor Company, Inc., White
Defendants.
No. 64-C-1076.
United States District Court
E. D. New York.
June Toombs, 1965, deny 4. See any Fortson person jurisdic- v. 379 U.S. within its 527; equal protection laws,” S.Ct. L.Ed. Hoff tion the Buckley, al., et al. v. et 379 U.S. powers 6. Amendment X. “The dele- (1965). 85 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d gated to the United States the Con- stitution, prohibited nor States, respec- 5. Amendment XIV. “No State shall make are reserved to the States * * * tively or enforce shall people.” law which or to the