Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-09-25

notices of such ele elton. the prescribed
form Of which with other matters, re-
luires that the names of the Offices to be
filled shall be set out therein. (Com.
Laws, Sec. 1885,
The jurisdiction Of this court to de-
clare, in a proper case, An apPortionment
act invalid and unconstitutional is not
questioned by the intervenors, and is, as
we believe, So well established as not to
require discussion or citations of author
tiles to support it. The relator rests his
as to the invalidity Of the act
of 1923 upon the declaration Of section
thirteen, Article l Of the constitution
that Representation shall be apportion-
ed according to population" and upon
the. further provision Of section Ii, Arti-
cle XIV Of the same instrument, which
requires that the enumeration Of the in
habitants of the State shall be taken
under the direction OF the legislature if
deemed necessary in 1865, 1867, and 1875,
and every ten years thereafter, and these
enulneratiOns, together with the census
that may be taken under the direction of
and every subsequent ten years. snail
serve as the basis Of representation i'll
both houses OF the legislature. These
provisions Of our organic law were in
tended to secure to the citizen AN equal
representation in making the laws Of the
State-one Of the most sacred rights of
| citizenship-a right to he enjoyed equally
| by all of the citizens of the State.
1t is fundamental that every law passed
| by the legislature and approved by the
Governor is presumed to be cOnstitu-
tional; every amendment is in it's favor
and it should he sustained unless there
are specific constitutional restrictions
upon the power of the legislature, and
the law is shown to be within those re-
| strictions.
| The relatOr urges that under the pro
visions of our constitution above cited
making the population ascertainad by
the census of 1890 mo census having
the legislature for that purpose tn.
basis of representation in making ap
portion1nents. and that, under the ruiz
announced by the courts of other States
with constitutional provisions similar t
those found in our constitution, holdin,
that in making representative apportion
ments numerical equality of population
so far as practicable, is imposed by thes
provisions upon the legislature, and if il
making representative apportionment
under these provisions there should b
such wide and bold departure from thi
rule that it could not be justified by tn
exercise of any judgment or discretion
and that shows an intehtion on the pal
J, of the legislature to ignore and disr,
, gard the rule in order to promote som
! ether object than constitutional appol
: tiOnment, then it becomes our duty !,
declare the act making such apportiol
ments unconstitutional and void.
The following cases are cited in SUI
: port Of this contention: Giddings
Blacker, SO Mich. !; State v. Cunning
ham, 53 n. w. wis., As; State V. Cul
Il ningham, 81 Wis. 40; State VS.. Thom1
y son, l55 Ill. 45l.
: If our Investigations were limited
u these proceedings to ascertaining wheth
" said act of 1899 is constitutional or M
st then it might become necessary to So
N how far and to what extent the rule i