The Little River news., 1922-04-01
Discuss Reapportionment State Representatives

Little Rock March 29-Through these letters, attention has recently been called to the necessity of a re- |apportionment of the state for the Senate and House of Representatives Rank inequalities are apparent from even a casual analysis of the census returns from the various counties It is essentially unjust to the larger counties and gives undue advantage to the smaller counties when it Is possible for one county with a popu- lation of 17,000 to have two members in the Lower House, while another county with 45,0es population is en- titled to only one,
 And yet, some obstacles are pres ented when the provisions of the con- stitution are taken into consideration. Section 4, Article g. of the constitu- tion reads:
 ''The division of the state into Sen atorial districts and the apportion- ment of Representatives to the sever al counties shall be made by the General Assembly at the first regular session after which enumeration of the inhabitants of the state by the Federal or state government shall have been ascertained and at no other time"
 On the face of this provision, it would appear that reapportionment could have been made only by the legislature of 1921. A closer analy- sis, however, offers a way out of the difficulty. The last decennial census was made in 1920. This census had not "been ascertained" and was not available for the guidance of the legislature of 1921, which assembled in January. The census returns had not "been ascertained" until after the session of 1921, but they will be a. vailable for 1925 There is a very fine distinction here and it must be de- cided by legal authority, but to the lay mind, it appears simple enough. The legislature of 1921 could not pos sibly have acted upon census returns which were not available at that time. If it should be held that reap portionment could be made only at the regular session of the legislature immediately following the year upon which the census was taken, it would be practically impossible for a reap portionment to be made without a constitutional amendment being adop- ted.
 The last apportionment was made 30 years ago. In 1911 reapportion- ment bill was introduced in the House but was promptly tabled and no eff fort whatever was made toward a readjustment of representation by the legislature of 1921. It is admitted that the reapportionment will be a difficult matter. The counties that will lose will naturally not be great | ly interested in a change and those counties that will not be affected will be indifferent. It is a question that must be approached purely from the viewpoint of common justice toward all sections of the state, irrespective of local conditions or sectional bias. In the reapportionment several north eastern counties will profit most at the expense of western or northwest eYn counties where representation has become relatively unequal. In the event that reapportionment should be defeated on a technicality, in 1923, it is probable that the counties most concerned will undertake to initiate an amendment to the constitution (which will enable the legislature to take up the constitution which will enable the legislature to take up the question of reapportionment at any time following the taking of the de- cenn;al census by the Federal Gov crnment.