St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-07-29
AN UNEQUAL "DIVvY"
The Michigan Supreme Court
Knocks Out an Illegal
Gerrymander.
Two Acts Of the Last Legis-
1ature Declared Uncon-
stitutional.
Republicans Assured Of the
Next Senator by This
Decision.
Gov. WinanS Undecided as to
an Extra Session OF the
Legislature.

LANSING, Mich. July 2S.-The SUI
preme court has handed down opinions
declaring unconstitutional the two acts
OF the last legislature Reproducing
the representative and senatorial dis
trlcts of this state. The title of the
case Involving the senatorial gerryman-
der was Theron f. Gliding versus
Secretary Of State" and that involving
the representative distlicting, Super
vlsors of Houghton County versus Sec
rotary 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 re-
dIstricting act of 1881, the acts 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 Justice McGrath filing opin-
ions in which the same conclusion is
reached through different courses of ar
gument. The decision in the repre- emit
alive bill was written by Justice Long,
the chief justice filing a separate Opin-
ion. The secretary of state is instructed
to follow any new redistricting scheme
which may be enacted should the legis-
lature be called in special session by the
governor.
Grounds of Decision.
Justice Grant, in his opinion declaring
the senatorial gerrymander act of 1891
invalid, said:
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 the 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 cOnStitutionality of the
act of 1885 has been removed by its be-
ing acquiesced in at three elections, it
is affected with the same constitutional
infrmity as the act OF 1891.
1t is my opinion that notices should
be given under the act of 1855. as it has
been acquiesced in. but | yield to the
opinions of my brethren who think it
should be under the act of 1881, which
has not been brought in question.
Chief Justice Morse agrees with the
opinion of Justice Grant.
An Illegal Division.
In granting mandamus in Supervis-
OrS of HOughtOn County VS.. Secretary
State, which declares the representative
apportionment act of 1891 void, Justice
Grant says it is not intended by the
constitution that county should
be divided in forming representative
districts unless it be entitled
and then the division shall be smade by
the board of supervisors. 1t is clear
that the constitutional provisions were
violated and ignored. If one county
can be dismembered all can. Under
the moiety plan of apportionment.
HOughtoH, Menominee, MOntcalm. San
lilac, Tuscola and McComb counties
would be each entitled to two repre-
sentativeS.
Of these six counties. if three were
left out it should be the three last
named, as they have the least popula-
ton, but the Legislature reversed the
constitutional order of preference and
gave two senators to the last-named
first three. The act OF 1891 is void be-
cause it attempted to dismember Hough-
ton county. and violated the constitu-
ton In giving the counties two repre-
SentativeS that had less population than
the counties accorded but one.
An examination of the act of 1881
shows it to have been within the consti-
tutlonal discretion of the legislature and
the notices must be given under it I'M
less the legislature makes new and
valid apporti0nment in special session.
NUS for Republicans.
The effect of the decision will in any
event be to make it practically certain
that the Republicans will elect the next
United States senator. Although the
governor may call an extra session of
the legislature and new reappOrtiOn-
ment bill be passed, the Democrats have
lost enough members of the senate by
death and resignation TO throw that body
into the hands of the Republicans. and
as any bill unfavorable to the latter
would not pass it is likely the Democrats
will take their medicine and 20 into the
election under the law of 1881, which Is
more favorable than either laws of 1885
or 1891.
Removed from its covering of VERDI
age the decision is really based npon
only one point-that Of an unfair ap-
portiOnment. The Democrats in the
legislature of 1891 divided the state
into senatorial and legislative districts
which would give them almost a sure
thing in the legislature, no matter what
might be the issue. The rate OF popula-
ton cut small figure in it, and on this
the court declared the law unconstitu-
tional. The Democratic counties which
had but trifie over the requisite
population for one district were di-
vided into two, and Republican coun-
ties which had more than enough for a
district were made only fractional
part of one.
Gov. Winans, when asked if he would
call an extra session of the Legislature,
said:
u cannot now state definitely
whether or not will call an extra seS-
sion. | will first examine the matter
thoroughly, and unless | find glaring
Inequalities in the apportionment of
1881 / will not call an extra session.
The situation must be serious to in
duce me to convene the legislature"
FUSION IN COLORADO,