Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-07-29
Representative Genymander.

Ia the representative redistrieting
case, the Board of supervisors OF the
eouaty OF Houghton We. Robert X.
81 aeker, secretary OF state, II Was
CLAIMED that the act was unconstitu-
tionai for the following reasons: First,
in dividing the county by putting two
of the townships into representative
district outside of IL; second, IN refus-
ing 10 give the county two representa-
tives, 1t having ratio aud fraction
over niolety.
In the main opinion, written by JUS
tice Long, the court holds that under
section ) of article o. the constitution,
ii Hougnton county - entitled 10 two
representatives, the power To so divide
is vested In the board OF suDervisors.
and not in the legislature, ana the act
90 far as 1t attempts " divide the
county into districts, 10 void. BY the
pain provision of this section 3. Il Is
manifest that the legislature should
take into consideration the fact
that certain counties had been or
ganized prior TO the adoption OF the
constitution, and such counties except
Mackinsw aud Chippewa would be en-
titled To one representative At least and
that where u county was tnerenfter
organized with such territory a. might
be attached thereto. IL should be Gu
titled to q seperate representative when
1t had attained 3 population equal to q
moiety of the ratio of representation
and that each county was to DO regard.
ed as unit. Ii not alone entitled 70
one representative. 1t must ~ y whole
be joined with other entire counties
q nd - A. h0t "a
legislature had the power to divide q
county 10 making representative dis
tricts until the present act was passed
and by no one of the eight apporton
ment acts passed since 1850 has il beer
attempted, but in every bill passed has
the county been regarded as unit
This has not arisen from accident, but
by tho various acts there is distinct
recollection OF the fact that the legisla
ture has no power to divide county
This doctrine the opinion holds to b
the only proper one.
1t was contended by the attorney
general that, though the legislature
may have made a mistake In dividing
Houghton county, yet if the act il
otherwise valid, 1t should not be de
clared unconstitutional. As to Thu
contention. the opinion says: at vii
be seen that If the provisions OF sector
22 of the schedule to the constitution
had been followed. Houghton county
having u ratio Of representation and .
fraction over equal to moiety would
be entitled to two representatives; st
that. when the act is declared invalid
Inasmuch ~ it attempts to divide thu
county and set off = portion into AN
other district, 1t also deprives 1t OF tina
representation to which il would en-
titled. This court has no power, .ow
ever, to make an appOrtiOnmeut anC
could in no case hold that two repre-
sentatives should be elected from
that county. The whole number OF
representatives cannot exceed 100. Tn,
| legislature, by the act, fixed the utmOs
limit of representation, and If 1t sbOult
now be held that Houghton county
| should have two representatives., II
would make the total number 10l, o.
one more than the constitution recOg
nizes. This would be the effect of suct
. holding, or it would deprive Kewee
nav and Isle Royale counties of al
! representation.
On the argument 10 was urged tina
the legislature was bound to unite he
weenaw and Isle Royale counties I,
| HoughtOn, for the reason that within
| the meaning of the constitution the,
| were not convenient" or contiguous
| territory to any other county. Th
court, however, holds that this clause o
the constitution will not bear the re
strlcted meaning contended for.
| Certainly" IT says, 80 far as tn
islands are concerned they must b
| considered contiguous, although separ
ated by wide reaches of navigable dee
water. Isle Roysle and other slandi
would go uurepresented if this wer
not so, and they may be as we'll de
clared convenient and contiguous ter
| r:tory" to Baraga, Ontonagon, Mar
| Guette, or other counties bordering OF
the deep waters OF the lake, - I,
! Houghton county.
The opinion holds that the legisla
ture had no constitutional power 4
divide Houghton county, and that n,
necessity existed for doing 90. 1t say
that many other glaring unconstitu
tlonal provisions of the act could b.
pointed out-provIsions applying 4
other counties, many Of which are de
prved OF tue number of represen
tstives TO which they are en-
titled and others gwen more thai
their share. Inasmuch 40 the la,
of 1885 is equally as bad at that of ls9
the court directed that notices O
election be sent out under the act o
1881, which was not called IN question
here. In his concurring opinion, Che
Justice Morse emphasizes the conclu
sions reached by Justice Long an,
points out the equally glsring inequali
ties existing in the act OF 1885.