The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-02-06
DUTY OF APPoRTIoNING.

K
Referring to the matter of appor.
tioning the State into Senate and Rep
resentative districts for The l.egis!a-
turc, we note something of a seuti-
ment in the present Legislature TO the
effect that the Legislature Of 1911 hnv-
ing failed TO apportion the State into
Senate and Representative districts, as
the State Constitution requires, the
present Legislature would have no au'
thority so to do. The Constitution
(see Article Q, Section 81 requires the
session next following the enumeration
made by authority Of the United States,
to revise and adjust the apportionment
for Senators and Representatives on the
basis of such enumeration, according TO
ratios TO be fixed by law. But can 1t
seriously be urged that when duty
imposed upon q Legislature and that
Legislature neglects such duty. sue
ceeding Legislature Is barred from per.
forming the duty that ought to be
doneq Not so. Such is not the genius
of American institutions, and such is
not the law.
Tho duty of apportioning tho State
after census is clear, 1t is also clear
that while at first the question was not
entirely settled, whether in case the
first Legislature failed of its duty
succeeding Legislature might perform
il, this has been settled by usage.
Thus, the Cyclopedia of Political
Science, Political Economy and United
States History says on page los, after
discussing pretty freely the questions
Of apportionmeut, noting that a num-
Der Of the States have been irregular
about their practice, that successive
Legislatures have changed apportion-
ments as made by. previous Legisla-
lures, concludes. ga like practice,
more or loss frequent, has established
in most States the precedent that an
apportionment can be made by any
Legislature. and in some cases where
apportionment has already been made
(lndiana State apportionment 1880,
Ohio 1S7S-1sS0 in redistrlctiug and
Congressional district and Louisiana
1879 a second and third distribution
Of representation has been made by
successive Legislatures -
This practice has been INDUCED in
to considerable extent since the quo
tation cited, go that it may fairly be
considered, first, that where a Legisla-
ture has failed TO do its duty in reap
portioning the State, q succeeding
Legislature can take up that duty and
fulfill it, the duty Of apportioning
after a census being continuing one;
second, that since no Legislature has
power TO bind a succeeding Legisla.
ture, that succeeding Legislature can
change, amend, or repeal any enactment
of the Legislature that has gone before
To this, apportionment is no exception.
There is no bar put up with respect TO
an act OF apportionment that would
prevent any succeeding Legislature tax.
ing down that bar and changing what
has been done by a former Legislature,
any more than in the matter Of any
other legislation enacted by that
previous Legislature. There is nothing
sacred or exclusive about an spportion
ment. II is made the duty Of the Legs
lature 10 apportion the State. This
duty primarily rests upon the Legisa-
ture which has its session Immediate
" after the census, but if that Legisla.
turc fails Of its duty. or if it makes
an apportionment which is unsatisfac.
tory 10 succeeding Legislature. that
succeeding Legislature can mako the
original apportionment or can change
the apportionment as made. Precedents
have established this point beyond any
question.
We conclude therefore. that there is
no validity IN any suggestion that the
Legislature Of 1911 having failed in its
duty, the Legislature OF 1918 cannot
step in and perform that duty, On the
contrary, it is the bounden duty Of the
present Legislature to enact on this
matter, or on any other matter where
the Legislature of 1911 failed in its
duty.