The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-31

Each county. and each district consisting
OF two or more counties. and being the
the numerical unit for representation in the
General Assembly, is entitled absolutely to
one member in the Legislature. Ib. See
s a,so Parker VS. state supra It Is there ere
tricts, formed by the act of 1895, although
any one Of the three counties so Joined did
ratio for member in the General Assem-
bly,, yet that any two Of such counties, be-
ing adjacent and having together such suf-
ncient population: were quite as much en-
titled TO their Senator or Representative
as any single county with such population
would be. The Constitution protected them
with such population from being overwhelm-
ed by the unfriendly population of another
county.
1T may be urged that cases might arise
when double districts would be necessary,
In order to secure approximate equality in
proportionate representation. 1t is certain.
however. as we are satisfied, that other
methods less obnoxious to the requirement
or the Constitution can be 'resorted to in
such extreme and exceptional cases, should
they arise. In case of counties having a
less voting population than the ratio of rep
resentation, and also in case of fractions
of population left after giving the county
the representation to which it is itself en-
titled, great discretion must of course be
left to the Legislature in grouping such
counties for representation. But in no case
can a county having less than the ratio be
so grouped with other counties as to have
member of the General Assembly, whenever
1t is possible to avoid it. And in disposng
of such counties with population less than
the ratio, and also in disposng of the frac-
tons of excess of population over the ratio
or ratios in other counties. as said by Chief
Justice Morse, in Board VS.. Blacker, supra,
There can be no legislative discretion, under
the Constitution. to give a county of less
population than another greater repre-
sentation.' AS In the apportionment for men,
bers of Congress- when the several counties
q DIV ha 10 70 b;ot,
they are severally entitled by reason Of
their full ratios; then the largest excuses
over such ratios should receive first consid-
GRAFTON. These are salutary rules, to be
applied in every case where it is practically
possible to do so.
But. it may be said. when the Legisla-
and discretion, has formed the several
counties into single senatorial and repre-
sentative districts, there may still remain
large excuses of population over the ra-
tics, unrepresented. To this ii may be an
swered, as said in Parker VS.. State:
When it is found that exact equality cam
not be attained, where the integrity of the
county is preserved. approximation be-
comes a rule as binding upon the General
Assembly as any other rule fixed by the
quires that the State shall be apportioned
every six years according to the male in
habitants over the age of twenty-one years
nation of districts, each embracing, as
nearly possible. an equal number of
electors of the State. But the rule re-
quiring an approximation to equality for
bids the formation of districts containing
large fractions unrepreSented, when ii is
possible to avoid it, while other districts
are largely overrepresented.
RULE OF APPROXIMATION.
This rule of approximation, thus promi-
nently set out in Parker VS.. State, as it is
also repeated and insisted upon in this
case, must, of course, be understood as
ton to apportionment. AS said by Web
ster, when the exact requirement of the
Constitution cannot be observed. then the
obligation of observing such requirement
as nearly as possible becomes itself of
binding force under the Constitution. 1t is
further urged against the apportion-
1 ment s law of 1895 that it, vic,
Article 4. of the Constitution, by placing
in districts having hold over Senators
certain counties which under former APP
portlonment voted four years previously
for Senator'S, and should vote at the next
election for successors to such Senator's:
but which, under this apportionment, could
not vote until two years later for Senators;
thus depriving the electors of such trans
ferred counties from voting for Senators
oftener than once in six years. whereas.
they are entitled, under the Constitution,
to vote for Senators every four years.
There can be little doubt that the transfer
of counties from districts which would
have elected Senators at the next election
thereafter to districts which would not
elect until two years thereafter, might be-
come a source of great abuse of legislative
discretion: and, If ii appeared that such
abuse of discretion were gross or wanton,
or INDUCED in merely to disfranchise vot-
ers of certain counties, allowing them to
VOTE Ior =, ,b Du omEe IN ss years
mitted to vote for Senators once in two
years, the apportionment thus made might
be declared invalid.
while it cannot be said. as an abstract
proposition, that such transfer of counties
into 'hold-over senatorial districts is in it
self unconstitutional. because. If 1t were SO
held, Ii might be quite difficult or even i'm
possible, with due observance of other
provisions of the Constitution, ever to re-
arrange the senatorial districts In any six
year period; yet, on the assumption that
such an outrageous act of injustice had
been attempted and carried out in an APP
portionment, merely to give to the people of
one set OF counties an undue advantage
over the people of other counties, We could
find no words too strong to express our
condemnation of such an abuse of legisa-
tive discretion, and for this reason alone
would not hesitate to declare such a law in
valid. But, having found 1t necessary to
pronounce the act before us unconstitu-
tional for reasons that admit of no uncer-
tainty or doubt, we deem 1t unnecessary to
further consider the abuse here suggested.
Some further unfair features OF the act OF
1895 are quite noticeable. For example. the
county of Marshall, with voting popula-
ton of 6l50 or GAO over the ratio, is given
but one Representative, while the counties
of Noble Gibson, DavieSS and Hamilton,
each with a population less than that of
Marshall, Is yet given not only one Repre-
sentative, but also a voice in the election or
another, thus violating the principle that
county of less population than another
should not be given a greater represents
ton. 1t need hardly be added that such
favoritism and injustice should be avoided
wherever possible.
I'm the case of Daviess county, the add-
tional Representative was secured at the
sacrifice of at least two other elements of
fair apportionment. The small excess in
contiguous and so control the vote of Knox
and Dubois counties. Yet Dubois alone had
nearly enough population to be entitled to a
Representative and with the excess i'm Knox
had more than enough to give the two
counties such Representative The placing
of Daviess with those two counties, beins
itself already assigned one Representative.
and throwing Ii between those counties In
a forced union, so as to control the election
of a second Representative. has in ii no e1e-
ment of justice or fairness, provided only
such result could possibly be avoided. a
like wrong is done in tbrusting Gibson be-
tween Pike and Vanderburg, which could be
justified only on the plea OF absolute neces-
sity. Other instances may be found, not so
Objectionable, perhaps, but which would be
absent from perfectly fair apportionment:
Thus 1t may be noted that the county or
Tippeconoe had one full ratio. for which Ii
was given a Representative, with an excess
of 1870 for which 1T was given another
Representative, while the county of Upton,
with 1886 voting inhabitants, was refused
separate Representative.
1895 ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1.-THE unconstitutionality of the apportion-
ment act of 1895 being therefore evident