The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1907-01-11
UNEQUAL DIVISION
How the People of Kentucky Are Dis
franchised, and How the People
Can Right This Wrong.

To the People of Kentucky: At the
last regular session of the General
Assembly an act was passed dividing
the State into 100 Representative dis
tricts. which has been approved by
the Governor and clothed with all the
outer habiliments or forms of law.
The Constitution of Kentucky pro-
vides. among other things, that:
The First General Assembly after
the adoption of this Constitution shall
divide the State into thirty-eight SEN
etorial districts, and one hundred Rep
resentative districts, as nearly equal
In population as may be without d.
viding any county except where a
county may include more than one
district, which districts shall consti-
tute the Senatorial and Representa-
tive districts for ten years. Not more
than two counties shall be Joined to-
gether to form a Representative dis
trict: Provided, in doing so the prin-
ciple requiring every district to be as
nearly equal in population as may be
shall not be violated. II, in
making said districts, inequality OF
population shall be unavoidable, any
advantage resulting therefrom shall
be given to districts having the larg-
est territory. No part of a county
shall be added to another county TO
make a district, and the counties
forming a district shall be contigu-
GUS"
The General Assembly was directed
every ten years thereafter to redis-
trict the State according to this rule.
Conceiving that the act in question
was a gross violation of both the let
ter and spirit of the fundamental law
OF the State, and that it deprived
large number of our people of the
right of self-government. the under
signed were selected, by the unani-
nous voice of the Republican men,
bers of the Legislature, to take steps
to assert the rights of the people OF
the State against this unjust, iniqui.
tous and unconstitutional act of the
Legislature.
The right Of a citizen to proper
tionate representation in the Legisla-
ture, so far as it can be practically
carried into effect by the instrument
talities of human government, is rec
ognized and protected by the Consti-
tuition" 155 H., 452.
BY the act in question it appears
that more than quarter of a million
of our people in twenty-four districts,
or rather in twelve of them, have been
denied and excluded from representa-
ton in the Legislature to all intents
and purposes.
The committee having occasion TO
also consider the acts of the Legisla-
ture of May 8, and June rs, 1898, d.
viding the State into Senatorial and
Representative districts, and also the
act of March II, 1898, dividing the
State into Congressional districts,
found that they were each and all
grossly unfair and violative of the
State or Federal law governing the
subject.
AS evidence that we are not mis-.
taken in our views on this matter we
attach hereto tables showing a num-
Der of Senatorial and Representative
districts taken from the various acts
as well as all the Congressional dis
tricts under the act of 1898.
These figures taken from the acts
and the census of the State speak
more elcquently and strongly than
your committee can say on
the subject. and need but little COM
ment at our hands.
That we have remedy against the
violation of the supreme law Of the
State and the United States manif St
ed in these various acts OF the Leris
lature seems 10 be too clear for dis
pute or argument.
The courts OF the country have not
regarded apportionment acts as excep-
tons TO the rule that Legislatures are /
bound by constitutional limitations in
the enactment of laws, and that il
they disregard them it is the function
Of the courts - GO declare: McPher'
son VS.. Blacker, 146 L. S. /; Prowty /
VS.. Sover, II Kansas 235; State VS.
Van Duyn, 81 Neb. $50; State VS..
As Ohio 435; State VS.. Muir
ply, q Florida 29 People VS.. Thonp .
son. 155 Illinois AL; Parker VS.. State,
1873 Indiana IFS; State VS.. Cunning
ham, 81 Wisconsin l; Giddings VS..
90 Michigan /; Norris VS..
SO New Jersey Law, 1885, .
People VS. Rice, 1876 New York. Az; .
People VS.. Van BokKelen. 70 North .
Carolina 19S.
The courts Of New York, New Jer-
sey, Indiana. Michigan, Wisconsin and
North Carolina have set aside and de-
clared void apportionment acts, and in
all the States that have so far had
occasion to pass upon the validity OF
such laws, the courts have not failed
TO assert their right and power to de
eide them valid or invalid as the facts
In the particular case required the
court to determine.
We have found in none OF the acts
that have been contested and held in
valid in our sister States anything
more grossly unfair and violative OF