Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-29
MICHIGAN IN A MIX.
The State Supreme Court Finds a
Gerrymander ALI Out of Shape.
HASN'T BEEN RIGHT SINCE 1881.
A Special Session of the Legislature
Needed to Right Matters.
A UNANIMOUS DECISION WAS FOUND

LANSING, MICH, July 28-The Su-
preme Court has handed down opinions
declaring unconstitutional the two acts Of
the last Legislature reapportioning the Rep
esentative and the Senatorial districts in
the State. The title of the case involving
the Senatorial gerrymander was 'Theron f.
Giddings versus Secretary of State" and
that involving the Representative redistrict-
ing, "supervisors of Houghton County
versus Secretary of State" The mandamus
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 act of 1885 being held to be
equally defective with that of 1891.
The court is unanimous on both acts. The
decision in the Senatorial case was written
by Justice Grant, Chief Justice Morse and
Mr.. McGrath filing opinions in which the
same conclusion is reached through diff
ferent course of argument The decision in
the Representative bill was written by
Justice Long, the Chief Justice filing a
separate opinion.
Special Session Could Fix 1t.
The Secretary of State Is instructed to
follow any new redistricting scheme which
may be enacted should the Legislature be
Governor Winans, when asked If he
would call an extra session of the Legisla-
ture, said: IT cannot now state definitely
whether or not I will call an extra session.
will first examine the matter thoroughly,
and unless I find inequalities in the appor-
tionment of 1881 will not call an extra
session. The situation must be serious to
induce me to convene the Legislature.
Justice Grant, in his opinion declaring
the Senatorial gerrymander act of 1891 in
valid, says: ''The apportionment acts of
1891 and 1885 are unconstitutional and void.
The Secretary of State is restrained from
issuing notices under the act Of 1891, but
not under that of 1881, unless the Governor
shall call a special session.
''The act is held unconstitutional upon the
inequality of apportionment. A county to
have two Senators must have ratio and
moiety of a ratio of population. Unless it
be held that the question of the consti-
tutionality of the act of 1885 has been re-
moved by its being acquiesced in at three
elections, it is affected with the same con-
stitutional infrmity as the act of 1891.
'It is my opinion that notices should be
given under act of 1885, as it has been
acquiesced In, but yield to the opinion of
my brethren, who think it should be under
the act of 1881, which has not been brought
in question"
The Chief Justices Opinion.
Chief Justice Morse agrees with the opin-
ion of Justice Grant In granting a manda-
mus in Supervisors of Houghton County vs.
Secretary OF State, which declares the Rep
resentative apportionment act of 1891 void.
Justice Grant says it is not intended by the
Constitution that a county should be divided
in forming Representative districts, unless
L. k1-I H.,
tive, and then the division shall be
made by the Board OF Supervisors. 1t
is clear that the constitutional pro-
visions were violated and ignored.
If one county can be dismembered,
all can. Under the moiety plan of appor-
tionment, Houghton, Menominee, Mont
calm, Sahilac, and McComb counties would
each be entitled to two Representatives. Of
these six counties, if three were left out, it
should be the three last named, as they
have the least population, but the Legisla-
tSre reversed the constitutional order of
preference, and gave two Senators to the
to the first three. The Act of 1891 is void,
because it attempted to dismember Hough-
ton county, and violated the Constitution
in giving the counties two Representatives
that had less population than the counties
accorded but one.
An examination of the act of 1881 shows
it to have been within the constitutional
discretion of the Legislature, and the no.
tices must be given under it, unless the
Legislature makes a new and valid appor-
tionment in special session.
The Court arrives at unanimous conclu-
sion from practically the same standpoints,
although the phraseology in the opinions of
Chief Justice Morse and of Justice Nc
Grath is not the same.