Arizona weekly citizen., 1891-03-21
! THE VETO.
Gov. Irwin tsndf for Ari-
zona's Interest
AND VET0ES BALDWIN'S
Gerrymander-A Strong State
ment of Reason why the
AaUy
AND VETOES BALDWINiS
Bill is "Un-Democratic, Unjust, Un-
Precedented and In-Defensi-
ble."
TERRITORY OF ARIZONA,

TERRITORY OF ARIZONA,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
PHOENIX, March %, 1917
To THE HONORABLE; THE COUNCIL OF
THE 10TH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF ARIZONA.
l return Council Bill No. AZ without
approval.
It is a bill that if approved, the Exc
cutive could not defend on any ground
| whatever.
The upper house in all American Leg
islative bodies is supposed TO be a repre-
sentation Of the political subdivisions
of our system. Thus Rhode Islam has
the same number Of senator Is New
York, Delaware the same as Pennsyl-
vania; the representation of the senate
or upper house having reference only
to the state-the political subdivision
and not to population OF voting power.
This bill practically, though not nomi-
nally, deprives the less populous coun-
ties Of the territory of any representa-
ton in the council For instance the
county of Maricopa will practically die
tate to the counties of Yuma and Mohave
their members of the council. 1t is al
so doubtful whether or not this bill is
not uncUns' itutional, in that the vote Of
one county elects a member of the coun-
Gil for another county. At any rate the
doubt is sufficient to raise the question,
and thus lead to costly contests and end
less litigation.
AS to the representation of the lower
house permitted by this bill, | have to
say that 1t is unprecedented in American
history. 1t is based on neither the popr-
lation nor the voting power OF the diGe.
ent counties.
American legislative representation in
all the lower or popular bodies is based
everywhere upon population. 1t is not
the purpose nor the spirit OF our insti-
tutions to represent the voter alone, our
Lower house in Congress and in the
state Legislature represent the entire
population, men, women and children.
This bill tablishes hap hazard re-
presentation; for instance the county of
ella, with a total population of 2,02l,
has Two representatives under this bill,
while the county of PInal, with a total
population of 4,251, has but one. The
population Of Maricopa county is 1886,
yet it is given four representatives while
the county of Pima, with population of
l2,673, is only given four. Graham, with
a population of 500, has two represen-
tatives, while ella with only a popula
tion of 2.02l has also two
Apache, with population of 4,2Sl, has
only the same representation as CHA
with population of less than one half.
That is: In effect the bill says that a
fraction of four fifths in aricopa cOun-
ty equals one in Teprese1 tative poS in
Pima county, and thu one-half in Gila
county equals one In Prpai; and that
one-third in ella county equals one ID
Graham, and that about 1900 people in |
Cochise equals IN power $3.50 in Pima; |
and 200 people in Marlcopa, equals in |
power, ), 150 III Pima; and 1905 people |
in ella equals in power ever 1000 in |
Apache. These instances above cited are |
only the most glarIng Inconsistencies of |
the bill.
For the above reasons, and that it is |
prccedentcd, uE Gano- |
cratic, unjust aud indefensible, and that |
Il IS denial OF represent action 10 the |
counties, il line first place, and to the |
people in the second, / decline to approve |
the bill
JOHN n. IRWIN,
Governor.