The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-05-12
HIGH COURT HOLDS ACT
OF 1903 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Decision Affirms Former Findings
in the Apportionment
Cases.
OTHER LAW NOT NOTICED
Districting Act of 1907, 1t Is I'm
derstood, Will Apply by
Inference.

The Supreme Court yesterday declared
against the apportionment act of 1903 In
affirming the decision of the Ripley county
court in one of the three famous "appor-
tionment cases involving the constitu-
tionality of the act providing for the ap-
portonment of the State into districts for
the election of state senators and repre-
sentatives. No reference was made to the
act of 1897, under which the Democrats are
insisting that the elections be held. but 1t
is understood that this act will apply by
inference The court further directs that
the elections be carried out under this act
in order to avoid there being no consttu-
tionaI act under which to hold them.
The full purport of this decision is that
the politicians who figured on the election
being carried out under the act of 1903 will
have to make new plans.
The opinion handed down by the court
is to the effect that any system of gerry
Wandering is unconstitutional, and that
there is an inequality in the apportionment
of senators and representatives in the act
of 1903 which compels the court to pro-
nounce the act void.
The opinion further sets out that the
districting of the State for the apportion-
proceed upon the basis of the number of
male inhabitants over twenty-one years of
age. and that this districting should be- so
arranged as to give every voter an equal
opportunity with every other voter.
In part the opinion reads
while it is true that exact equality
among the voters of the State cannot be
secured, ii can be approximated and the
Constitution requires that 1t shall be ap-
proximate in every instance as nearly as
practicable The General Assembly has
much discretion in the disposition of the
factions of the unit representation, but
that discretion must be exercised within
is abused and the validity of an appor-
tionment act is brought into dispute the
question becomes a judicial one
Further on the opinion condemns politi-
cal unfairness in the following language:
IAN apportionment which gives and is
intended to give to one political party or
another a decided or unfair political ad-
vantage In the election of members OF the
General Assembly. where such disparity
can be avoided, must for that reason be
condemned. In the consideration of such
statutes the law can regard with no favor
a law which designedly disfranchises any
portion of the male inhabitants of the
State over the age of twenty-one de-
prives them OF that fair proportion of rep
resentation which the Constitution declares
they shall have"
AL TINS point specific instances of dispor-
tionment are cited.
THE number of male inhabitants of the
counties OF Switzerland. Dearborn, Ohio
and Franklin, over the age of twenty-one
as shown Dy the enumeration of 1901 was
| 1862, being l,l66 more than the senatorial
| unit of 1856. The act of 1903 Nd not appor-
| tion a senator to these counties, but added
the county of Union to make a senatorial
| district which then contained 1859 in ex-
| cess of the senatorial unit.
| After citing one or more similar dispor.
! tionments the opinion ends in the follow.
/ ing language:
1T is not necessary that we should &C
| further. The inequalities in the apportion
| ment which we have mentioned cannot bs
| explained on the ground that they were
| inevitable or defended ON the ground thai
| they were approximately just. These in
| stances are sufficient to compel this cour
TO declare that the act does not conform tC
the requirements of the Constitution ane
/ that il is void"