Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-03-31
The Wisconsin Supreme Court De-
clares the Apportionment Act
Null and Void.
County Lines, 1t says, Cannot be
Divided in Forming Assembly
Districts.
There Must, it is Also Held, be Sub
stantial Equality of Rep
resentatiOn.

In the case of the state of Wisconsin
upon the relation of Adams county and s.
W. Pierce, district attorney thereof, and
an ejector therein, plaintiff, versus Thos.
J. Cunningham, secretary of state, de-
PENDANT, the Wisconsin supreme court
Tuesday gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
In popular language this is the famous
gerrymander suit which was brought for
the purpose of having the apportionment
act of 1891 declared unconstitutional. By
suggestion of the supreme court the action
was brought by Attorney General James
l.. OConnor IN the name of the
state, and technically speaking was
for the purpose of enj dining the secretary
of state from publishing notices of cleo
ton of members of the legislature in GER.
tain districts created by the law of 1891.
1t was brought upon the theory that chap
ter 492 is unconstitutional and furnishes
no warrant for describing Legislative dis
trlcts as created thereby. The particulars
in which it was asserted by the relator
that the statute violates the constitution
were:
|. 1t violates the requirement of the
constitution that the apportionment and
redistricting of members Of the legisla .ure
must be according to the number of in
habitaDts, excluding Indians not taxed
and soldiers and officers of the United
States army and navy
2. 1t violates the requirement that as
semhly districts are $50 be bounded by
county or town or ward lines to consist of
contiguous territory and be in as compact
form as practicable
3. 1t violates the provisions requiring
senate districts to be composed of econ
Venient contiguous territory, and no as
sembly district shall be divided in the
formation of senate district.
The respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint for these reasons:
l. The complaint states no facts show
ing the relator to have any interest in The
subject matter thereof which entities him
to standing IN court to petition for re-
lief from grievances, real or supposed.
2. 1t appears upon the face of the COM
plant that the court has no jurisdiction of
the subject matter thereof, and that its re-
e1tal states no wrongs. real or supposed,
cognlzable In court of law or equity.
3. That the complaint fails to show any
violation of the constitution of Wisconsin
IN the act apportioning the members of
the Legislature upon the federal enumera-
ton of population of 1890.
The court, composed of three demo-
Gratis and two republicans, was unanimous
in its ruling. Two concurrent opinions
were handed down-one by Chief Justice
Lyon, who especially devoted himself to
the violence done the constitution by the
act in the matter Of the division of county
lines in the formation of assembly dis
tricts, and the other by Justice orion, who
traversed the whole question at issue.
A third opinion, also concurrent,
is soon to be filed by Justice
Pinney. 1t will cover the jurisdictional
phase. The opinions are very sweeping
and will create interest throughout the
entire union. There is no appeal from
them, and one of two things is
certain-either the governor will call an
extra session of the legislature for the pur-
pose of enacting another apportionment
law on the lines laid down by the supreme
court or the fall election for members of
the Legislature will be held under the ap-
portionment act of 1887 which was repealed
by the act of 1891, now declared void. An
extra session is certainty, and it will
probably be called within a month or six
weeks, before the busy spring season
opens.