The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-07-29
BLOW TOTHE GERRYMANDER
Michigan Supreme Court Declares the
ReapportiOnment Unconstitutional.
stalted in TO Rsvolutienize Electoral
SELECTIONS, squarely Reversed.

LANSING. Mich. July 2S-The Supreme
Court has handed down opinions declaring
unconstitutional the two acts of the last
Legislature respportioning the representa-
tive and senatorial districts in the State.
The mandsmus asked for Is granted IN
each case and the Secretary is ordered TO
issue notices of election in accordance
with the redistricting acts OF 1881. the
acts of 1856 being held to be equally defect
i've with that of 1881. The court is unani-
nous on both acts. The decision In the sena-
torial case was written by Justice, Grant,
Chief-justice Morse and Mr.. McGraih
filing opinions in which the same conclu-
sion is reached through q different course
OF argument The decision in tho repre-
sentative bill was written by Justice
Long, the Chiei-justice ming separate
opinion.
The Secretary of State Is instructed to
follow any new redistrictlng scheme which
may be enacted should the Legislature 6s
called In special session by the Governor.
Governor Winans. when asked IL he
wonld call an extra session of the Legis-
lature, said: Il cannot now state definitely
whether or not will call au extra session.
i Will first examine the matter thoroughly.
and unless L find glaring inequalities IN
the app0rti0nmrnt OF 1881 l Will not call
III cNtTa SESSION.. he must 10
serious to induce me TO convene the Legls-
lature"
Justice Grant. in his opinion declaring
the senatorial gerrymander act OF 1901 in-
valid. saws: The apportionDent acts or
1881 and leS5 are unconstitutional and VOID.
The Secretary of State is restrained from
issuing notices under the act of 1891, but not
under that of 1851. unless the Governor
shall call o special session.
The act Is held unconstitutional upon
A.
county. 10 have two Senators. must have a
ratio and a moiety of population Unless
1T be held that the question of the constl-
tuti0nality OF the act OF 1885 has been re-
moved by its being acQulesced In at three
elections 1t 10 affected with the same COLI
stltuti0nal intirmity as the act OF ISL 10
is my opinion that notices should be given
under act of 1855. as lt has been acquicsced
In; but 1 agree TO the opinlon of nv breth-
rem Who think 1t should he under the act
OF 1881. which has not been brought In ques-
tIon.'
Chief-justice Morse agrees with the opin-
ion OF Justic Grant. In granting q man
damus in the case of the Super visors OF
Houghton County VS.. the Secretary or
State, which declares the Representative
apportionment act OF 1891 void. Justice
Grant sayr: 1T Is not intended by the
CONSTITUTION that county should be di-
vld1d IN forming Representative districts.
unless 10 be entitled TO more than OH KEEP
reseDtative, aud then the division shall
De made Of the OOaru Oh SUPERVISORS III II
clear that the constitutional PROVISIONS
were violated and ignored. LII one county
can be disinembered all can. Under tho
moiety plan OF apportlonment Houghton,
Menoninee, Montcalm, Sarilac. Tuscoia
and Macon ID coun titles would each be en-
titled 10 TWO Represent atises. OF these SIX
counties if three should be left out. &c
should be the three last named. as they
have the least population, but the Legs-
lature reversed the constitutional order or
preferences and gave two SENATORS to the
lasf-named three counties and but ono
each TO the first three. The act of 1891 ~
void because II attempted tn dismember
Houghton county and violated the Consti-
tuition in giving the counties two Repre-
sentatiycs that had less population than
the counties accorded but one. An exam
Inatlon of the ae; OF 1881 shows It To have
been within tie constitutional discretion
OF the Legislature, and the notices must be-
given under it unless the Legisiature mako
new aud valid superintendent IN special
session.
Tho court arrives at q unanimous con-
cluslon from practically the same stand
points. although the phraseology in the
opinions of Chief-jusuce Morse and OF
Justice McGrath, is not the same.