*1 145 Apportionment. Board Pickens v. 246 W. 2d 556 S.
4-9781 25, 1952. February delivered Opinion Byron Goodson, petitioner. for Holland, Ike Murry, Attorney General Cleveland General, respondent. Assistant Attorney Obief In a styled Justice. cause Smith, Grieein v. The Board Apportionment, 611, Smith 219 Ark. S. 2d W. directive that Pulaski or county, the senatorial district of which a it became part, given three at least senators. This was as thought necessary, a opinion reflects, because the 1950 census disclosed 196,685, the of the state county and the Thirteenth 1,909,511, embracing alone was from under-represented Pulaski of 80.26. standpoint equation numerical percentage requires Amendment No. 23 to the Constitution the state into convenient senatorial dis- Board divide “in manner as that the Senate be based such shall tricts repre- upon Senator state, each the inhabitants of the equal practicable, there- senting, nearly number as as *2 one Senator.” at least of, each district shall have [and] requisites com- Primary posed be shall are that the Senate be divided. shall of 35 and that no members that it was case decided in December found by num- whole when the nearest 1,909,511is divided 35 from a ber is hence the ideal considered 54,557; district, population standpoint only, a mathematical would have provides -wisely very that of 54,557. But the Amendment given be convenience and that districts consideration, composed contiguous in our of A counties. statement power Supreme former perform is that Court also
the work But it was involved revision. constitutionally-imposed that said because of Board’s merger legislative func- of and administrative duties—a controversy to allow that should be remanded tions—the process reapportionment agency to consummate the —a consequential necessity was when the Thirteenth district inequalities given a third Senator. The record showed petitioners. complained other than those of the two dayA after the decision was handed down Court’s affecting changes the Board met and made certain west- ern and southwestern counties or districts. Under reapportionment 1937, still effective to district con- as stituency composed district Scott, Fifth was Logan and Polk, 44,499 Logan counties, with a combined By 1950. 4th Board’s action of December put was taken from this district with Tell and Pope Eighth to form the with district, a Montgomery of 57,608. dis- was taken from the Ninth trict and combined with Scott, Polk, Sevier, and Little comprise popula- River, to new Fifth district with a standpoint, tion of from a numerical but —ideal petitioners objectionable to in this case for other reasons. alleged It was that the distance from northern to southern boundaries of the district thus created was county’s than 150 miles, more and that Howard north- corner less than ten western miles from Oklahoma—
147 practical impediment from, stand- that, a territorial point, separate Howard into areas. district cut the formerly with county, district Sevier in the Sixth Hempstead merged with Pike and River, Little changes were made other district. No the Ninth form except for where the mandate in the Thirteenth ac- Effect of the Board’s was followed. three senators from 34 to 33. the number of districts was to reduce tion ap- days 5 of Amendment allows Section petition peals the Board. The before us was filed from timely but the manner; Court, in a sensitive to a state- hoping suggestions, wide concern and for constructive persons January would 21st interested announced *3 February given 11th to file briefs. This neces- until be proposed any regrouping sarily not incon- meant that previous would be con- with the Court’s sistent exception Attorney of the General’s With sidered. been received. has brief none percentage discrep- was remanded the cause
When pointed greatest (other than the old to, ancies were Mississippi district) being in the Thirteenth county Thirtieth — phenomenal growth agricul- The of this alone. turally-rich been such that when the 1950 population figures were released the had in- census senatorially, under-repre- it and, was 82,375; creased sented 50.99%. — Twenty-third came
The next Jefferson population county. There the was and 76,075, the under- representation was 39.44%. population combined of
The and Saline Garland district, 70,918, the Fourteenth an under- counties, representation of 29.99%. Howard, The Sixth Sevier, Little district — 37,325,
River counties—with of was over- represented 31.59%. Pope Eighth and Tell counties—with district — 37,348, over-represented of enumeration 31.54%.' under-represented were or con- districts over-
Other siderably than more 20%. integration
Through which, into districts of counties wholly appropriate, paper, appears the mathematical on point will cut to a where the variant differential can be plus slight greater than fraction. 10%, in be no instance that the would be so near differ- Some districts would be over or under be but Several ence would .30%. and half a dozen others would not ex- 1%, less than would But to do this the number districts ceed 3%. prac- boundary changes in to be reduced to have existing brought tically all districts would be logically urged It could that such a radical about. resulting assignment in in the numbers, reduction of two nine districts, one, Senators to each of three to four to ten, and one to each of the other would conform to one, approximate idea of mathematical constitutional equality. not
We are unmindful of the Board’s difficulties redistricting. No doubt the members who concurred phases 4th result believed the December that when all disparity problem were considered the justify the two extremes was not between sufficient to necessarily complete that would inconveniences attend reassignment Something of counties to districts. of the problem inappro- the Court. It confronts is same not priate say judges entirely that not one of the sat- *4 arrangements; imperative with all district but it isfied is disposed be now of, the matter that preferences hence individual yield necessity. to must opinions Although our differ, fundamentals have The first essential not been sacrificed. is that Missis- county’s under-represented sippi Thirtieth district is Clyde involving In the E. Smith case Pulaski 50.99%. county’s necessary say district we found it Thirteenth to under-representation required by of that action 80.26% Court; or this but even Board with the three Senators county people district will 33,014 Pulaski have the who represented proportions. in mathematical not are Believ- purpose earnestly that the do, of ing, Amendment we as inequalities such as exist in the Thir- to correct 23 was degrees, in other districts lesser and we district, tieth concluded, meeting practical of means that the most have Mississippi, Craighead, merge difficulty to the is assign to it a new district and counties into Poinsett persons represent from 57,433 Each will three Senators. point and even then the under- view; a of theoretical representation will'be 5.28%. present digression in
The next unreasonable the county’s Twenty-third setup where, is Jefferson population shown, 76,075. as has been the Unitization assignment of Lincoln and Jefferson and the of two population to the combined Senators of reduces under-representation of from Jefferson 39.44% over-representation for the new district. 14.63% past Lincoln has been with Desha form the Twenty-fifth population old district with a of 42,234. topheavy
The next district is the Fourteenth —Gar- land and Saline. The enumeration of 70,918 results under-representation improved An status is 29.99%. combining by Spring Clark and Hot achieved with Gar- four-county land and unit Saline. assigned With two now 116,097. Senators the under-
representation is 6.40%. districts where
Other factor is such necessity adjustments is shown statistical measurably data alone have been mentioned. In cor- recting conspicuous population these factors that show representation single over or under the shift of a may require realignment affecting large areas. One paper plan gave hopeful worked on for hours indications provided sought-for that it County group- solvent. ings desirable, were number of districts was not far existing population percentages 34, below the were acceptable; readily unfortunately, recapitulation but, against but 34 Senators as showed re- Amendment’s quirement exploratory that there be 35. drawings, Other *5 computations, groupings, and considerations of conven- for one reason or were, ience plan another, discarded until the accompanying shown chart passing found majority judges. with a of the favor It leaves intact ten having existing their same unchanged four districts, of the first identifying other six of the numbers. assigned without have been ten, new district numbers other alterations. Twenty- greatest percentage factor in the new is
first the com- district —Drew Desha counties—where over-representation bined is and the is eight per- but This, however, is tenths of one 20.97%. cent greater deficiency than the of the old Thir- 20.17% (Pulaski county) teenth district after a third Senator inferentially departure added, such was sanc- tioned in our of December 3d where the mandate that at least one additional Senator should be al- 196,685. lotted to the reapportionment It therefore directed be ac- cording following plan: to the *7 preceding “pct’g variant” list, under repre- letter listing. “u” or “o” follows each The “o” over-representation, under-repre- sents and the “u” sentation.
A chart is attached for convenient reference. *8 The Clerk of this Court directed to transmit to the Secretary copy judg- State, at once, certified of this apportionment ment, to become a substitute for the made by the Board 4th, December 1951. (concurring). Justice My dissent Ed. F. McFaddin, Apportionment, in v. Smith Board 219 Ark. S. W. 2d 755, is matter of I record. dissented in that (1) case overruling because: this Court, the work of Apportionment, the allowing population Board of be the Redistricting; sole factor in (2) Senatorial Supreme refusing accomplish redistrieting Court was in the case. opinion Apportionment in Smith v. Board of day, delivered on December 3, 1951. The next Apportionment
Board of the met; and, accordance with apportionment of this Court, made an which gave County (3) Pulaski three Senators. But, in so doing, the Board created some Senatorial Districts com- posed antagonistic of Counties that had commercial or agricultural interests; and in some instances, Senatorial composed Districts were of Counties that were without adequate transportation accessibility. against It was apportionment present December 4th that the suit was petitioners filed; and in it, have offered several other plans grouping for of Counties into Senatorial Districts.
Finally, present opinion, this Court made *9 apportionment just as I insisted that this Court should Apportionment. have done v. Smith Board present opinion, result of this Court’s action is the which the I Court—as see it—has considered the six my dissenting opinion which I factors mentioned in the Smith case.
At all I events, believe that the Senatorial Districts up by present set are as can fair as certainly any plan devised, and are better than that has places filing been heretofore offered. The time for gladly in the new Senatorial Districts is I limited; so present majority opinion, concur with the in order to uncertainty settle the that has existed.