Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1962/367-mich-176-2.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-03 23:51:11
Document Index: 151337180

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 30', '§ 3', 'art 4', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 475', 'art 4', '§ 4']

Scholle v. Secretary of State :: 1962 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Michigan Case Law › Michigan Supreme Court Decisions › 1962 › Scholle v. Secretary of State
367 Mich. 176 (1962)
116 N.W.2d 350
SCHOLLE v. SECRETARY OF STATE.
As we approach determination of the merits, following vacation by the supreme court (Scholle v. Secretary of State, 369 US 429 [82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1]), of the judgment entered here June 6, 1960 (360 Mich 1), each unmanageable member of the Court faces an arrogant and amply headlined threat of impeachment "if the senate districts are declared illegal."[1] This threat should neither hasten nor slow the judicial process.[2] It does call into play Marshall's grim words (quoted in O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 532 [53 S Ct 740, 77 L ed 1356]):
Is it not true that this Court of last resort of a State, when it is called upon to determine the merits of a duly presented and manifestly decisive Federal question, sits for the required time as an inferior court of the United States? And is it not true that, for solution of the presented question, we are obliged to hold that the Constitution of the United States is controlling where, as found here, one of its provisions stands in conflict with provisions of a State Constitution? For answer see Testa v. Katt, 330 US 386, 390, 391 (67 S Ct 810, 91 L ed 967, 172 ALR 225), wherein Claflin v. Houseman, 93 US 130 (23 L ed 833),[3] was unanimously characterized as follows:
Lest someone might suggest that we are not speaking in this context of State constitutional provisions and State statutes alike, we would refer them to the rule of Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 US 571, 577 (39 S Ct 380, 63 L ed 780):
"For the protection of the Federal Constitution applies, whatever the form in which the legislative power of the State is exerted; that is, whether it be by a constitution, an act of the legislature, or an act of any subordinate instrumentality of the State exercising delegated legislative authority, like an ordinance of a municipality or an order of a commission. Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 238 US 340 (35 S Ct 753, 57 L ed 1337); Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 US 278, 286-288 (33 S Ct 312, 57 L ed 510); State of Washington, ex rel. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co., v. Fairchild, 224 US 510 (32 S Ct 535, 56 L ed 863); Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 221 US 400, 403 (31 S Ct 537, 55 L ed 786)."
The decision of the supreme court, reversing our majority decision and remanding the case for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663), was handed down April 23, 1962. Accordingly, and at the beginning *184 of the present term, the following order for resubmission was entered (June 5, 1962):
Now that 2 years have intervened since the decision of this Court in the case of Scholle v. Secretary of State, 360 Mich 1, we ask ourselves; Are there any intervening facts, judicially noticeable or otherwise, that would change the former finding that the present senatorial districts of Michigan lack a rational, reasonable, uniform, or even ascertainable nondiscriminatory legislative purpose?
The absence of any semblance of design or plan in the present senatorial districts was recently acknowledged by D. Hale Brake, a Michigan lawyer and former State treasurer from 1943 through 1954, now a constitutional convention delegate, in an article entitled, "The Old and the New Constitutions a Comparison and Appraisal" dated May 16, 1962, signed by Mr. Brake, Director, Education Division, Michigan Association of Supervisors, 319 W. Lenawee, Lansing 33, Michigan, and sent to the members of the association. Mr. Brake concluded with appropriate accuracy:
*186 Having duly considered the additional briefs submitted, the oral arguments made by the parties and for the reasons set forth in detail in my opinion recorded in Scholle v. Secretary of State, 360 Mich 1, we hold plaintiff has been and is being deprived of the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by the provisions of article 5 of the Michigan Constitution of 1908, as amended in 1952, by which plaintiff's vote for the office of State senator is invidiously unequal to the votes cast for State senator by other citizens of the State, the classification of citizens in the senatorial districts being arbitrary, discriminatory, and without reasonable or just relation or relevance to the electoral process. Sections 2 and 4 of article 5 of the Michigan Constitution of 1908, as amended in 1952, are therefore declared a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and are void.
We turn then to a consideration of the provisions of article 5, sections 2 and 4 of the 1908 Constitution without the 1952 amendment,[6] to test the present senate apportionment in the light of adjudicated cases of the Michigan Supreme Court and the application thereto of the Fourteenth Amendment. We *187 find our Court in Giddings v. Secretary of State, 93 Mich 1 (16 LRA 402), considering a similar action by citizens to declare statutory rearranging of the senate districts unconstitutional and void, where Justice GRANT, speaking for the Court, said (p 7):
Fourteen years later, in the June term of 1906, this Court again had before it similar reapportionment acts according to which certain senatorial districts had more than double the population of others. The Court again ruled in accordance with Giddings, that such a disparity between districts made the acts unconstitutional. See Williams v. Secretary of State, 145 Mich 447.
It is to be noted that Justices Douglas, Black, and Murphy, dissenting in MacDougall v. Green, 335 US 281, 288 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3), stated:
(4) For the purpose of ensuring validity of all legislation which, being otherwise valid, may have been enacted into statute by the legislature prior to the date of this judgment; and for the further purpose of ensuring validity of legislation and joint resolutions (for submission of any proposed constitutional amendment) as may hereafter be enacted into statute or adopted by the legislature during the remainder of the year 1962; and for the further purpose of providing means for the enactment of valid new legislation during the present legislative session, comporting with original sections 2 and 4 of said article 5, and for the further purpose of providing means by which this judgment may receive prompt performance and due execution, it is adjudged that the presently constituted senate shall, from this date and until December 31, 1962, but not thereafter, function as a de facto body and that the *192 members of the senate elected as such for the current term shall, from this date and until December 31, 1962, but not thereafter, function as de facto officers for all valid purposes. Reference is pertinently made to the general rule that where the law creating a public office is declared void the acts of an officer continuing to function thereunder will, until he is legally succeeded, be upheld as the acts of a de facto officer. See People v. Buckley, 302 Mich 12; People v. Russell, 347 Mich 193; Greyhound Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 360 Mich 578.[10]
When the controversy first came before this Court in 1960 a majority of the justices concluded that under prior decisions of the United States supreme court, including Colegrove v. Green, 328 US 549 (66 S Ct 1198, 90 L ed 1432), and other decisions of like import cited by Mr. Justice EDWARDS in his opinion, the nature of the issue did not bring it within the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court, and that such issue was not a justiciable one. Accordingly, plaintiff's petition was denied (360 Mich 1), and his subsequent application for rehearing was also denied. Thereupon plaintiff sought to appeal to the supreme court of the United States.
Thereafter the case of Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663), was submitted to the Supreme Court for determination. The case was an appeal from the decision of a Federal district court rejecting an attack on legislative apportionment statutes of Tennessee. In that case the State constitution required reapportionment at regular intervals, but the legislature had not taken action since 1901. In other words, there was no compliance by the State legislature with the mandate of constitutional provisions by which it was bound. The supreme court, Justices Frankfurter and Harlan dissenting, concluded that a justiciable question was involved and remanded for further consideration of the controversy on its merits. In taking such action attention was called (p 193) to the fact that the fundamental law of Tennessee did not provide for the exercise *197 of the power of the initiative or the referendum on the part of the electors of the State. It was suggested that under said circumstances no remedy was available other than by appeal to the court. Obviously such is not the situation in Michigan. Here the power to initiate, by petition, legislation and constitutional amendments (as well as the referendum) is reserved to the people by the express language of our Constitution.
In MacDougall v. Green, 335 US 281 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3), the court refused to hold invalid an Illinois statute relating to the nomination of candidates for a new political party, it being contended, as in the case before us, that the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. Commenting on the issue involved and the arguments advanced, it was said (pp 283, 284):
"To assume that political power is a function exclusively of numbers is to disregard the practicalities of government. Thus, the Constitution protects the interests of the smaller against the greater by giving in the senate entirely unequal representation to populations. It would be strange indeed, and doctrinaire, for this court, applying such broad constitutional *198 concepts as due process and equal protection of the laws, to deny a State the power to assure a proper diffusion of political initiative as between its thinly populated counties and those having concentrated masses, in view of the fact that the latter have practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls not available to the former. The Constitution a practical instrument of government makes no such demands on the States. Colegrove v. Green, 328 US 549 (66 S Ct 1198, 90 L ed 1432), and Colegrove v. Barrett, 330 US 804 (67 S Ct 973, 91 L ed 1262)."
"In MacDougall v. Green, 335 US 281 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3), the court held that the equal protection clause does not `deny a State the power to assure a proper diffusion of political initiative as between its thinly populated counties and those having concentrated masses, in view of the fact that the latter have practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls not available to the former.' 335 US, at 284. In case after case arising under the equal protection clause the court has said what it said again only last term that `the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others.' McGowan v. Maryland, 366 US 420, 425 (81 S Ct 1101, 1153, 1218, 6 L ed 2d 393). In case after case arising under that clause we have also said that `the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statute rests on him who assails it.' Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 US 580, 584 (55 S Ct 538, 79 L ed 1070).
If a majority of the members of this Court grant the relief sought in plaintiff's petition and hold invalid the 1952 amendment to article 5, § 2, of our Constitution, an unfortunate situation will result. It must be borne in mind that the attack here is not on the right of the present members of the State senate *200 to hold their offices but, rather, goes to the right of existence of those offices themselves as established under the amendment. The people by their action in 1952 created additional senatorial districts, and the new districts created were not in many instances identical with those fixed under the prior apportionment statute. If the amendment is adjudged invalid, the senatorial districts created thereby become nonexistent, and for obvious reasons the members of the Senate elected from said districts cannot be deemed de facto officers for any purpose. There cannot be a de facto officer unless there is a de jure office. The law in this respect was rather succinctly stated as follows in the opinion of the supreme court of the United States in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 441, 442 (6 S Ct 1121, 30 L ed 178):
In accord with the holding above quoted are: Carleton v. People, 10 Mich 250; People v. Payment, 109 Mich 553; Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn 273 (292 SW 2d 40).[1] If this Court enters judgment in accordance with plaintiff's demand that article 5, § 2, of the State Constitution is and has been from its inception a nullity, then the State of Michigan will necessarily be left without a State senate and, hence, without a legislature that can function under the Constitution. Striking from the fundamental law of Michigan the provision for designated senatorial districts will obviously terminate the existence of such districts. This Court is without power to give to those previously elected therefrom the status of de facto incumbents of offices that no longer exist.
The decision of the supreme court of the United States in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (6 *208 S Ct 1121, 30 L ed 178), above cited, declares the general rule of law on the issue with reference to the status of a prior incumbent of an office previously existing under a statute adjudged unconstitutional. Decisions involving the status of one assuming to perform the duties of an existing office obviously are not in point. Mr. Justice SOURIS directs attention to Attorney General, ex rel. Dingeman, v. Lacy, 180 Mich 329, in support of the claim that an adjudication that an act creating a particular office is invalid does not prevent the incumbent from continuing to act with a de facto status. The Court did not so hold in that decision. Involved was an act of the State legislature undertaking to create a domestic relations court in counties having a population of more than 250,000. It applied to Wayne county only and was adjudged invalid because in conflict with article 5, § 30, of the State Constitution (1908) forbidding local acts if a general act can be made applicable and further requiring the approval of all local acts by electors of the district to be affected. It was also held that the provisions of the State Constitution relating to the jurisdiction of circuit and probate courts were violated. The purpose of the act was to relieve the circuit court of Wayne county of a portion of its burden. The domestic relations court had functioned for some time prior to adjudication, and the Court declined to hold invalid prior judicial acts within the scope of the circuit court jurisdiction. The gist of the decision in this respect is indicated (p 342) in the following statement:
There is no question here involved as to any violation of the Constitution of the State of Michigan. Justices KAVANAGH and SOURIS have cited Giddings v. Secretary of State, 93 Mich 1 (16 LRA 402); and Williams v. Secretary of State, 145 Mich 447. Each of said cases involved a statute, enacted by the legislature, found to be in conflict with the State Constitution. In neither case was any question raised as to the denial of the equal protection of the law.
Even a dissenting opinion may, now and then, give rise to an interesting question or thought worthy of pursuit. Can it be, to paraphrase Mr. Justice *213 Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663), that plaintiff's real or underlying complaint is that present apportionment of the senate deprives him of what he conceives to be his "proportionate share of political influence"? Concerning this, Justice Frankfurter went on to write (p 299): "This, of course, is the practical effect of any allocation of power within the institutions of government." To put the question another way, is it contended that if plaintiff's district were cut in two, with 1 senator apportioned to each half, this would serve to enhance his protection of the laws? He still could vote for but 1 senator, and but 1 would represent his district. Assuming, however, that an elector might say with accuracy that senate reapportionment on a strictly population basis, as distinguished from that now required by State Constitution, would result in transforming the present senate minority of adherents to his political faith and party into a senate majority, would it be denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the laws to deny that elector such senate transformation? To pose the question is to highlight the ludicrousness of an affirmative answer. But if the mentioned senate transformation were accomplished by the proposed reapportionment, what, then, of the equal protection of the laws for electors of the opposite political faith or party? It is no answer for one to say that those of my political party are entitled to more protection of the laws because we are in the majority. It was precisely that which the Fourteenth Amendment protection of minorities was designed to prevent. It is obvious, then, that an equal protection of the laws question is not involved in this contemplation. In a republican form of government, guaranteed to every State by the Federal Constitution,[1] it is in the nature of things that with *214 2 major parties occupying the field, exclusively, unless their strength be equal, one must, for the nonce, be the majority and the other the minority party in legislative halls. No constitutional rights of party members or other groups are thereby infringed upon nor are they thus denied the equal protection of the laws.
In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (74 S Ct 686, 98 L ed 873, 38 ALR2d 1180), the supreme court of the United States held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from maintaining racially segregated schools. On that same day it decided Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 (74 S Ct 693, 98 L ed 884), holding that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It was the court's view that action which would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when perpetrated by a State could scarcely be squared with requirements of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as relates to action by the Federal government. While the court did say that "equal protection of the laws" and "due process of law" are not always interchangeable phrases, it, *215 nevertheless, discerned such close relationship between the 2 concepts and similarity in effect and consequences as to cause the 2 to compel the same result with respect to the 2 like factual situations in the 2 noted cases. Cited as authority therefor was Hurd v. Hodge, 334 US 24 (68 S Ct 847, 92 L ed 1187). Can it be assumed, then, with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the Federal government, apparently seeming to the founding fathers to be left unoffended by the express provision of article 1, § 3, of that same Constitution for selection of 2 senators from each State, that, at a time when the United States senate continued, as now, to be so composed, it was intended by the adoption of the related equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to State governments, to thereby prohibit apportionment to the State senates on a similar basis, not keyed strictly to the population levels of the several senatorial districts? Sound reasoning forbids such conclusion. To give the Fourteenth Amendment such effect today is to recognize some subsequent amendment thereof accomplished by means other than those prescribed by the Constitution itself for its amendment.
That the United States supreme court has not deemed such to be the meaning and intent of the equal protection clause is evident enough from its unanimous opinion and decision in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall (88 US) 162 (22 L ed 627). There, the court held that the rights or privileges of suffrage were not within the meaning of the equal protection clause, pointing out (p 175) that, if they were guaranteed thereby, there would have been no occasion for adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment providing that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be abridged. The same may be said of the Nineteenth Amendment, providing for women's *216 suffrage. The fact of the adoption of these latter amendments reveals the national thinking that the Fourteenth had no such purpose or effect. See, also, the many Federal decisions cited in Mr. Justice EDWARDS' opinion in 1960, when this case made its previous appearance before us, to the effect that the apportionment here under attack is not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. That it is and always has been part and parcel of the plan for republican government in vogue not only in the government of the United States, but in most of the States, may also be observed from the facts and statistics and recital of the history of the subject set forth in that opinion. This is indicative of the national concept, throughout the decades, of republican government and the absence of involvements under the equal protection clause and of the concurrence therein of the United States supreme court. Baker v. Carr, supra, and Scholle v. Secretary of State, 369 US 429 (82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1), are not holdings to the contrary on the merits. The mandate to this Court in Scholle was simply to reconsider this case in the light of Baker v. Carr, supra. In the latter, the court was careful to point out that it was not passing on the merits, but only on questions of jurisdiction, justiciability, and standing of appellants as proper parties. (See opinions of Justices Brennan, Douglas, and Stewart.) In fact, particular reference is made in Justice Stewart's opinion to MacDougall v. Green, 335 US 281 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3), relied upon and quoted by Mr. Chief Justice CARR herein, and, as noted by him, Mr. Justice Stewart wrote (p 266) that the court's decision in Baker v. Carr does not turn its back on MacDougall and like settled precedents. That must inescapably include the statement in MacDougall to the effect that political power is not a function exclusively of numbers and that the court would not deny to a State the power to *217 assure a proper diffusion of political initiative as between its thinly populated areas and those having concentrated masses, inasmuch as the latter carry a political weight at the polls not available to the former.
Mention is made of Giddings v. Secretary of State, 93 Mich 1 (16 LRA 402), and Williams v. Secretary of State, 145 Mich 447. They held invalid apportionments made which were not in conformity with the requirements of the State Constitution in effect at that time for apportionment on a population basis. They are not determinative of the question of the validity of the relevant provision of the State Constitution now in effect.
Interestingly enough, the present constitutional provision does not, as sometimes thought, provide for an apportionment and election of senators on merely an area basis. Area is a factor, but representation in the senate is very considerably weighted toward the population concept. It is not under rural control. Out of the total of 34 senators, *221 20 represent urban areas containing urban communities of 100,000 or more persons. Sixty-four per cent of the senators represent approximately 1/3 of the area that is, the more populous area of the State. The senate apportionment is manifestly a combination of the population and area considerations, with compromise and adjustment to insure a check and balance system for the protection of all sections of the State and, as well, of all people within it. The Constitution of the United States was and is a compromise. The Constitution of the State of Michigan is a compromise. The history of representative government in this country and elsewhere is a history of compromise. It is under despotism that the necessity for compromise ceases. Unlimited monarchs, dictators and other absolute rulers often have felt no need to bother with compromise. The same might be true under a system styled by Jefferson as an "elective despotism", where majority rule is unfettered by constitutional restraints. Not so here where constitutional guaranties and the checks and balances of governmental structures are expressly designed to protect minorities and individuals against unrestrained majorities.
"(3) The equal protection of the laws provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not violated, since
*224 "(4) The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not violated as
"(5) To forbid area representation would require the elimination of similar representative methods throughout our democratic system such as representation on
"We fervently pray for immediate relief, as above and earlier discussed that a writ of mandamus issue, commanding the defendant not to issue 1962 election notices for State senators * * * pending an opportunity for enactment of timely, valid reapportionment legislation by the 1962 Michigan legislature, in failure of which the defendant further be directed to declare and conduct the 1962 elections for State senators on an at-large basis."
Endeavoring to sustain his contention that the majority opinion (360 Mich 1) did not decide "on the merits," plaintiff states: (1) "In short, that Justice EDWARDS did not express a majority judgment on the merits of this cause that the districts were valid under the tests of the Fourteenth Amendment"; and (2) "If Justice EDWARDS' remarks are now taken to have been on the merits, they obviously express erroneous conclusions."
"As a prerequisite to such entry, the US Const, art 4, § 3, requires congressional approval. Historically, congress has required States applying for admission to submit their proposed constitution. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 US 559 (31 S Ct 688, 55 L ed 853). Typical of the form of approval is the statute by which the constitution of the proposed State of Hawaii was approved and Hawaii was admitted. * * *
"The recent congressionally approved constitutions of the new States of Alaska and Hawaii contain State senatorial provisions which call for specific districts described largely on a geographic basis, with a resulting substantial inequality of popular representation. In Alaska, the newly elected State senator from the Anchorage-Palmer district represents 87,748 constituents, as compared with the senator from Barrow-Kobuk who represents only 5,705 a ratio of 15:1. * * *
"`Equal protection does not require identity of treatment. It only requires that classification rest on real and not feigned differences, that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatments be not so disparate, relative to the difference in classification, as to be wholly arbitrary. Cf. Dominion Hotel, Inc., v. Arizona, 249 US 265 (39 S Ct 273, 63 L ed 597); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 US 412 (57 S Ct 772, 81 L ed 1193, 112 ALR 293); New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 US 573 (58 S Ct 721, 82 L ed 1024); Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 US 535 (62 S Ct 1110, 86 L ed 1655).' Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 US 231, 237 (74 S Ct 505, 98 L ed 660).
"In MacDougall, 335 US 281 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3), the court said (p 284):
Repeated references have been made to Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663). Plaintiff asks the question whether Michigan can be distinguished from Tennessee, and states: "Justice Harlan, for example, would have distinguished Scholle from Baker on several counts."
The Tennessee plaintiff had much greater reason to complain than our present Michigan plaintiff and yet, the Federal judges in the Tennessee case of Baker v. Carr refused to do what plaintiff is asking this Court to do, as is ably set forth in Chief Justice CARR'S opinion.
The facts may be found in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice KAVANAGH, reported at 360 Mich 1, on the occasion of our first consideration of this case. The principal issue presented for our determination then and now is whether the 1952 amendments to sections 2 and 4 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1908 offend the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By the 1952 amendments Michigan's senatorial districts were territorially described, each district to be represented by a single senator, and with no provision for subsequent rearrangement of the designated districts. Plaintiff claims that the senatorial districts thus constitutionally established in 1952 were and are unconstitutionally discriminatory against him in violation of the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the reason that the arrangement of districts was palpably irrational and arbitrary, indeed that it was deliberately designed to accomplish the discriminatory result achieved, to-wit, constitutional permanence of pre-existing grossly disproportionate senatorial representation of residents of some areas, in one of which plaintiff resides, in favor of residents of other areas.
Our prior opinions having created some confusion on appeal to the United States supreme court (see opinions on remand in Scholle v. Secretary of State, 369 US 429 [82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1]), a brief summary of them may be of some value. On our first consideration of this case, only 3 of the members[1] of this Court held, in dissent, that the 1952 constitutional amendments invidiously discriminated *233 against plaintiff and other residents of the State in violation of the equality clause and that the Court had the power and the duty to act. A fourth member of the Court agreed that there was unconstitutional discrimination, but he concluded that there was no judicial power to right that wrong. The remaining 4 Justices concluded that prior Federal cases[2] had considered similar claims of unconstitutional discrimination and rejected them, thereby compelling their holding that the senatorial district arrangement here involved was not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment as they conceived the United States supreme court to have construed it to that date. 360 Mich 106 and 124.[3] Five Justices of this Court having held either that the Court lacked the power to grant relief or that, under prior United States supreme court decisions, plaintiff was not entitled to relief, the petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed to the United States supreme court and now, on remand by mandate *234 of supreme authority, 369 US 429 (82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1), we again consider, but this time in the light of Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663), plaintiff's claim that the 1952 amendments violate his Federal constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
No Federal bar to relief now exists, if it ever did, assuming a majority of this Court finds, as I think we must, the existence of invidious discrimination against plaintiff. Baker v. Carr, supra. Nor does any State policy bar relief, for in this State the Court has been quick to strike down invidious discrimination in suffrage cases such as this where violations of our State Constitution have been proved. Board of Supervisors of Houghton County v. Secretary of State, 92 Mich 638 (16 LRA 432); Giddings v. Secretary of State, 93 Mich 1 (16 LRA 402); and Williams v. Secretary of State, 145 Mich 447. We must be at least as quick when contempt for supreme law permeates any aspect of our electoral process such as has been proved convincingly to be the case here.
Too much already has been written concerning the details of the 1952 amendments and their effect upon the rights of our citizens to equality in the chambers of the State's senate. For these details, reference must be made to the earlier dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice KAVANAGH and Mr. Justice TALBOT SMITH, 360 Mich 1-84. In both opinions the "well developed and familiar"[5] judicial standards under the equality clause were applied and were found violated by the 1952 amendments. In 1960 Justices KAVANAGH and SMITH sought, but did not find, any rational basis for the arrangement of senatorial districts made by the 1952 amendments. Nor could they conceive of any recognizable basis upon which the classification could be justified. Mr. Justice SMITH put it this way:
*236 "We have sought in vain to find some formula or formulae, even roughly approximate, competent to explain the groupings of counties and parts of counties into senatorial districts. It is impossible. The system, if such it is, defies explanation. Even the defendants in their briefs and appendices offer no more than the iteration and reiteration that this is representation by geographical area. But representation by geographical area, without more, is not enough. If it were, any gerrymander would be valid because the gerrymander always represents some geographical area, however grotesque." 360 Mich 1, at p 56.
"There is no recognizable unit employed in the classifications made. We have no more than an arbitrary division of the State into areas. At the best it is wholly capricious. At the worst, it is deliberate. In either event it is wholly indefensible." 360 Mich 1, at p 75.
In short, Mr. Justice KAVANAGH and Mr. Justice TALBOT SMITH, with whom I concurred, on original decision of this case before Baker v. Carr and its Federal and State progeny (see footnote 2), applied the "well developed and familiar" judicial standards of the equality clause to the facts of the case and found the 1952 amendments to §§ 2 and 4 of article 5 of Michigan's Constitution invidiously discriminatory *238 and void. But even after Baker v. Carr pointed the way to decision in this case on remand, briefs and opinions have been written which seem to deny the happening of judicial events since March 26, 1962. Indeed, in the teeth of the United States supreme court's remand of this case "for further consideration in the light of Baker v. Carr" (among the holdings in which is that plaintiffs' complaint stated a cause of action under the equality clause upon which they would be entitled to appropriate relief if the proofs sustain their allegations, allegations similar to those found here if the United States supreme court's statement of Baker's Case may be accepted as accurate), in the teeth of such remand, 1 member of this Court begins his opinion by denial that there is presented here an equal protection of the laws problem.[6] The point is that meaningful application of the equality clause to the facts of this case requires discussion of the basis of the classification, its uniformity in application, its relevance to the objective of classification, and the limits of permissible discrimination. This the prior dissenting opinions did, and did well, even before Baker v. Carr, but no answers to their conclusions have yet been made or even attempted. That the standards applied in those dissents were the proper ones is clearly evident from the opinions in Baker v. Carr.
Mr. Justice Brennan established the standards for the majority of the court at 369 US 186, p 226:
Mr. Justice Douglas, in his concurring opinion, at pp 244, 245, applied the "traditional test under the equal protection clause", citing Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 US 535, 541 (62 S Ct 1110, 86 L ed 1655), and quoting from Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 US 483, 489 (75 S Ct 461, 99 L ed 563), to the effect that "the prohibition of the equal protection clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination."
Mr. Justice Clark, at p 253, likewise cited Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., supra, as well as McGowan v. Maryland, 366 US 420, 426 (81 S Ct 1101, 6 L ed 2d 393), in recognizing that all inequities of suffrage may not constitute invidious discrimination "if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it." At p 260 of his opinion, Mr. Justice Clark stated that "there is no requirement that any plan have mathematical exactness in its application. Only where, as here, the total picture reveals incommensurables of both magnitude and frequency can it be said that there is present an invidious discrimination." Later, on the next page, he pointed out that "the majority appears to hold, at least sub silentio, that an invidious discrimination is present, but it remands to the 3-judge court for it to make what is certain to be that formal determination."
*240 The whole tenor of Mr. Justice Stewart's concurring opinion is based upon the applicability, to ultimate factual decision in the case of Baker v. Carr, of the traditional equality clause tests. See particularly his reference to MacDougall v. Green, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, supra; and Metropolitan Casually Insurance Co. v. Brownell, 294 US 580, 584 (55 S Ct 538, 79 L ed 1070), all of which are found at pp 265, 266, of Mr. Justice Stewart's concurring opinion.
What we have, then, from Baker v. Carr is confirmation that the "well developed and familiar" judicial standards under the equality clause are to be applied in cases such as this to determine the existence or nonexistence of invidious discrimination. Mr. Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion on original hearing, 360 Mich 1, beginning at p 26, refers to many Federal and State court cases applying such standards to a variety of invidious discrimination claims. It is not necessary to repeat his references here; we can, however, take the law from them. The lesson those cases teach us is that the Fourteenth Amendment requires substantial equality between citizens except where there exist differences justifying the classification of citizens, in which event there must be equality within the classes. Quoting from Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 US 150, 155 (17 S Ct 255, 41 L ed 666), the United States supreme court in Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Co. v. Harrison, 301 US 459, 462 (57 S Ct 838, 81 L ed 1223), said:
As Mr. Justice TALBOT SMITH pointed out in his opinion on original hearing of this case, 360 Mich 1, at p 52, the classification must be rooted in reason, the distinctions made between classes must have "some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made", quoting from Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 US 231, 237 (74 S Ct 505, 98 L ed 660). See, also, McGowan v. Maryland, supra, 425.
Perhaps the most difficult problems will arise in attempting to determine what is the object of the classification and whether it is a legitimate objective within a permissible policy of the State. See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 US 483 (75 S Ct 461, 99 L ed 563). Prudence requires that we remind ourselves that we are still speaking only of the requirements of the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are not at this point (because the facts of our case do not require it) addressing ourselves to the constitutional guarantee to every State of a republican form of government. Article 4, § 4, United States Constitution. See Baker v. Carr: New Light on the Constitutional *242 Guarantee of Republican Government, Arthur Earl Bonfield, 50 Cal L Rev 245.
As yet unresolved is the question whether a State may, as a matter of State policy, have as its objective in classifying its people into electoral districts, the dilution of the voting strength of some in favor of others. That, it would seem from the public controversy which followed announcement of the decision in Baker v. Carr, is the significant question. And that was precisely the objective of the 1952 amendments to our Constitution, an objective not difficult to perceive. See Mr. Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion at 360 Mich 1, 40, and Mr. Justice TALBOT SMITH'S at 360 Mich 1, 57. Whether or not the objective was permissible, a decision which need not be reached here although it is assumed to be permissible in the current opinions for dismissal, the arrangement of the districts was made without any *243 discernible or conceivable basis, let alone upon any rational basis, and for that reason cannot withstand plaintiff's constitutional attack.
This brings me to the matter of relief. Mr. Justice KAVANAGH'S proposed judgment contemplates that the presently constituted senate may continue to function during the balance of the terms of its members, notwithstanding our declaration of invalidity of the constitutional provisions which arranged the districts within which its members were elected, on the theory that until succeeded by legally elected senators the present incumbents shall be entitled to *244 serve as de facto officers. He also contemplates that the incumbent senators properly may participate in the enactment of laws by means of which the judgment of this Court may be effectuated, in other words, that the senate districts be rearranged in accordance with the provisions of reinstated sections 2 and 4 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1908 and means provided for the nomination and election of senators therefrom for the ensuing legislative term.
The Chief Justice, relying upon Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (6 S Ct 1121, 30 L ed 178), and citing Carleton v. People, 10 Mich 250; People v. Payment, 109 Mich 553; and Kidd v. McCanless, 200 Tenn 273 (292 SW2d 40), asserts that by our ruling that the 1952 amendments are void, "the senatorial districts created thereby become nonexistent" and, consequently, he concludes that the incumbents cannot act as de facto officers in the absence of de jure offices. Presumably, it would follow from his conclusion, there being no de jure nor de facto State senators following our judgment today, either that the full legislative power of the State resides exclusively in the house of representatives which may alone legally enact the necessary laws to effectuate the Court's judgment, or that the whole legislative process is suspended for lack of a validly existing senate. The prospect of an unicameral legislature, even for only the time it may take to establish new senatorial seats pursuant to the Constitution, presents a heady temptation for judicial experimentation. The other prospect, which one of my Brothers earlier[7] characterized as an "argument in terrorem", is not a practical possibility so long as this Court exercises responsibly its authority. I know of no constitutionally responsible court in the land which *245 ever has, or would, countenance such a chaotic result, and, certainly, there is no compelling reason for us to lead the way.
The de facto doctrine is another of our legal fictions by which the law manages somehow to preserve orderly governmental procedures when by some legal defect invalidating one's title to public office, his otherwise valid acts will be upheld by the courts. Otherwise, all who have business to transact with public officials would be compelled to ascertain their status as de jure officials at pain of invalidity of acts done under color of title to office. The doctrine has a salutary effect, thus broadly stated, but its obvious beneficial effect has been limited by some courts which have said that the doctrine does not apply where there is no de jure office. Norton v. Shelby County, supra, relied upon by the Chief Justice, is such a case but, like others so limiting the doctrine, it involved a situation where an office was attempted to be created, by act subsequently declared invalid, to perform duties constitutionally delegated to another office. Limitation of the doctrine in such cases settles what is fundamentally a dispute between 2 contenders for public power one a de jure and the other a de facto officer. In the absence of such conflict, where the only question is whether validity is to be given to the acts of a de facto officer whose office is found to have been illegally created, there appears to be no reason in logic or law to so restrict or otherwise limit application of the legally convenient de facto doctrine.
Lest it be thought what is here said is a novel departure from the law, reference should be made to the opinions in Carleton v. People, 10 Mich 250, cited by the Chief Justice as has been noted above. There, county officers were recognized as officers de facto who had been elected to fill offices which had not yet been legally created, the act creating such offices *247 having been passed by the legislature without giving it immediate effect so as to become law before the election. In Attorney General, ex rel. Dingeman, v. Lacy, 180 Mich 329, the acts of a domestic relation's court judge of Wayne county were upheld by a unanimous court as the acts of a de facto officer after the legislative act creating the court was declared unconstitutional, the circuit court having been granted by the Constitution the jurisdiction attempted to be granted by the legislature to its newly created domestic relations court. Reference should also be made to the cases cited in 43 Am Jur, Public Officers, § 475, from which it appears that Norton v. Shelby County, supra, is not by any means universally followed by the various State courts. I see absolutely no reason in logic to follow it in this case, nor does our law, legislative or common, require that we do so.
At present writing 5 opinions of this case, aggregating 76 typewritten *248 sheets, have been submitted for consideration of other members of the Court. Surely, borrowing now from Mr. Justice Clark (Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186, at p 251 [82 S Ct 691, 7 L ed 2d 663]), what we write bursts with too many words that go through so much and say so little. I would get back on the Federal track, the better to ascertain where we are, and where we should and so must go.
First: Palatable or not, it must be acknowledged by all that the Supreme Court of Michigan does not have the final word for the case before us. We sit now, exclusively as an inferior court, by direction of the United States supreme court, "in order that such proceedings may be had in the said cause, in conformity with the judgment of this [United States supreme] court above stated, as accord with right and justice, and the Constitution and laws of the United States, the said appeal notwithstanding."[1] By such mandate we are told to determine the merits of a presented Federal question; not to decide whether we personally prefer or do not prefer the questioned amendments of our State's Constitution, and certainly not to determine whether the amount of the majority vote cast 10 years ago for such amendments is sufficient to overcome the Federal equality clause. No majority vote cast within a State, however overwhelming or even unanimous, can overcome such pre-eminent law. The reason:
*249 Second: With triumvirate backs turned upon what proceeds apace under Baker v. Carr in many of the States, a tuneful triphony is sung for preservation of what my Brother DETHMERS repeatedly refers to as "republican government."[2] The song is not ended. Judging by past dissertations, the political melody will linger on until all voices are stilled by that final judgment of this case which, sooner or later, will be entered upon Federal precepts. "Intervention" by the Federal supreme court seems to irritate the more, Baker v. Carr and Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion having applied fresh salt, as our former Chief Justice beholds what to him are the progressively lamentable doings of high court justices he has dubbed "judicial activists." (See U.S. News issue cited below, p 93.) Compare his stirring appeal today, for protection of "republican government" from the meddlement of activistic judicial officers, with what was said by him 3 years ago last December, in New York City:
What indeed has contributed in Michigan at least to this trend toward "centralization" which, at Pasadena, is said to have caused so much "consternation"? Is it not, in fulsome part, due to the steady failure of many-times-elected executive officers of this and other similarly situated States (some being presently consternated Brethren seated here) to press upon legislators as our Governor Groesbeck did with such force and effect in 1925 their sworn oath to rearrange and reapportion every 10 years? As said in Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion, the issue before us never could have traced its way to the Potomac had the legislature of Michigan, during the decades of the 1940's and 1950's, performed faithfully according to constitutional oath. Let us, then, have done with criticism of that to which all of us, in greater or lesser degree of course, have contributed as governors, attorneys general, judges and citizens. Instead, let us turn to duty directed by the supremacy clause, the National equality clause, and our own fully concordant pledge of the protection of equal laws. And let us not report back to our superior court that we have just discovered a technical way to evade determination of the merits; such as saying that the questioned amendments cannot be judged void without destroying the law de jure which is creative of the office of State senator. *251 As Justice SOURIS points out, the simple fact answer to Chief Justice CARR'S "let's do nothing" motion is that original section 1 of article 5, the standing creator of the office of State senator, lives on as before unaffected by and unquestioned in this litigation. Furthermore, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (6 S Ct 1121, 30 L ed 178), on which our Chief Justice presently relies, has since been confined most carefully in its proper area of fact by the United States supreme court. See Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 US 646, 658 (17 S Ct 957, 42 L ed 310), and Tulare Irrigation District v. Shepard, 185 US 1, 14 (22 S Ct 531, 46 L ed 773). Shapleigh, quoted in the margin,[4] is a fair example of such continued confinement, in the courts of the United States, of Norton's rule that where no law creates an office such an office cannot be occupied de facto.
Third: We are, I repeat, directed to consider and decide the merits of a Federal question the United States supreme court has sent back to us in the clothing of jurisdiction and justifiability. Is it not, then, exclusively due that we should look for judicial guidance to current Federal authority, and to such of our own cases as may accord therewith, rather than to the relevantly superseded scroll of the Federalists and other writings of the Colonial era? The Federalist Papers, ably conceived for times when all west of the Alleghanies was trackless and savage, were written more than 175 years ago by men who could not possibly have foreseen the Fourteenth *252 Amendment, the seeds from which the amendment grew, and its final mandate of equal protection. The equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is an order directed to each State. It has nothing to do with the political structure of the National government and, in the context of our current problem, is an understandable contradiction of that structure. The clause pointedly prohibits each State from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It does, under direction of our superior, put upon us a new task, that of inquiring into the merits of plaintiff's claim of denial by Michigan of Fourteenth Amendment equality of voting rights; an inquiry 3 of us resolved affirmatively in Scholle v. Secretary of State, 360 Mich 1.
Nothing done within the borders of Michigan, whether by constitutional provision, statute, executive proclamation, ordinance, or administrative order, may impede the execution of that task. The supremacy clause so dictates. So do the authorities cited in Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion, to which I would add Bute v. Illinois, 333 US 640 (68 S Ct 763, 92 L ed 986);[5] also the adjuration which, in 1899 and again in 1901, was declared and repeated in the 2 Blythe Cases (Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 US 501, 508 [19 S Ct 497, 43 L ed 783]; 180 US 333, 338 [21 S Ct 390, 45 L ed 557]).[6] Hence my disagreement with Justice DETHMERS' repetitions and apparently serious postulate that "An equal protection of the laws problem is not presented." That postulate I now *253 examine, admittedly with distrust as well as curiosity.
If what our majority does means "haste" to my veteran Brothers, so be it. They are the ones who cried "haste" when I formally moved shortly after the opinions of Scholle v. Secretary of State were released April 23, 1962 that a date be set for resubmission during our June session, preferably June 11th (an available date which stayed available). That was not done, as the order quoted in Justice KAVANAGH'S opinion fully discloses, and there we find the real reason why this Court is in position where it may allot 33 days only for the enactment of that constitutional legislation original and now reinstated sections 2 and 4 do require.
[4] Scholle v. Secretary of State, 369 US 429 (82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1). REPORTER.
[8] "The equality of rights protected by our Constitution is the same as that preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In re Fox's Estate, 154 Mich 5." (Quotation from Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich 216, 222 [74 ALR 1189, 30 NCCA 179]; followed in Cook Coffee Co. v. Village of Flushing, 267 Mich 131.)
[1] Appeal dismissed, 352 US 920 (77 S Ct 223, 1 L ed 2d 157). REPORTER.
[1] See US Const, art 4, § 4. REPORTER.
[2] Colegrove v. Green, 328 US 549 (66 S Ct 1198, 90 L ed 1432); Cook v. Fortson, 329 US 675 (67 S Ct 21, 91 L ed 596); MacDougall v. Green, 335 US 281 (69 S Ct 1, 93 L ed 3); South v. Peters, 339 US 276 (70 S Ct 641, 94 L ed 834); Remmey v. Smith, 342 US 916 (72 S Ct 368, 96 L ed 685); Anderson v. Jordan, 343 US 912 (72 S Ct 648, 96 L ed 1328); Kidd v. McCanless, 352 US 920 (77 S Ct 223, 1 L ed 2d 157); Radford v. Gary (WD Okla), 145 F Supp 541, affirmed 352 US 991 (77 S Ct 559, 1 L ed 2d 540); Hartsfield v. Sloan, 357 US 916 (78 S Ct 1363, 2 L ed 2d 1363); Matthews v. Handley (ND Ind), 179 F Supp 470, affirmed 361 US 127 (80 S Ct 256, 4 L ed 2d 180).
[3] If there be confusion in Washington concerning our prior opinions, candor compels our admission that it exists as well in Lansing. Our Chief Justice says today that the prior controlling opinion, with which he specially concurred, held only that the Court lacked jurisdiction and the issue raised was not justiciable. See pp 196, 197. supra. Mr. Justice Harlan read that opinion as I do, saying that it "did not so much as mention questions pertaining to the `jurisdiction' of the court, the `standing' of the appellant, or the `justiciability' of his claim." Scholle v. Secretary of State. 369 US 429, 432. He concluded, as do I, that the controlling opinion, and those who concurred in it, decided against plaintiff on the merits in accordance with their then current views of the United States, supreme court's prior construction of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[4] Caesar v. Williams (April 3, 1962), 84 Idaho ___ (371 P2d 241); Sims v. Frink (DC Ala, April 14, 1962), 205 F Supp 245; Scholle v. Secretary of State (April 23, 1962), 369 US 429 (82 S Ct 910, 8 L ed 2d 1); Maryland Commission v. Tawes (April 25, 1962), 228 Md 412 (180 A2d 656); Sanders v. Gray (DC Ga, April 28, 1962), 203 F Supp 158, appeal granted June 18, 1962, but motion to advance denied, 370 US 921 (82 S Ct 1564, 8 L ed 2d 502); Wisconsin v. Zimmerman (Wis, May 23, 1962), 205 F Supp 673; Maryland Commission v. Tawes (May 24, 1962) Anne Arundel county circuit court, Maryland; Toombs v. Fortson (ND Ga, May 25, 1962), 205 F Supp 248; W.M.C.A., Inc., v. Simon (June 11, 1962), 370 US 190 (appeal from NY DC SD, 202 F Supp 741) (82 S Ct 1234, 8 L ed 2d 430); Moss v. Burkhart (Okla, June 19, 1962), 207 F Supp 885; Baker v. Carr (MD Tenn, June 22, 1962), on remand from 369 US 186, 206 F Supp 341.
[5] Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186, at p 226.
"In the face of this history and this precedent, we find no way by which we can say that the classification we are concerned with herein is `wholly arbitrary,' and hence repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as the United States supreme court has construed it to this date." 360 Mich 1, at p 106.
[7] Mr. Justice BLACK, Scholle v. Secretary of State, 360 Mich 1, 120.
[1] Mandate of supreme court of the United States. REPORTER.
[2] Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting in Baker v. Carr, declared (p 324) what regrettably seems to be, that "Apportionment battles are overwhelmingly party or intraparty contests." By appended footnote the justice calls attention to "an instance of a court torn, in fact or fancy, over the political issues involved in reapportionment," citing State, ex rel. Lashly, v. Becker, 290 Mo 560 (235 SW 1017).
[4] "Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425, is not to the contrary. There certain persons who undertook to act as county commissioners were adjudged to be usurpers as against others who were lawful officers, and it was held that, as the acts of the legislature which created the board of commissioners was unconstitutional, there were no de jure offices, and, therefore, no de jure officers. But the general rule was recognized that `where an office exists under the law, it matters not how the appointment of the incumbent is made, so far as the validity of his acts are concerned. It is enough that he is clothed with the insignia of the office, and exercises its powers and functions.'"
[6] "The State courts had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts of the United States, to pass on the Federal questions thus intimated for the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the laws of every State as its own local laws and constitution, and if the State courts erred in judgment it was mere error, and not to be corrected through the medium of bills such as those under consideration." (180 US 338.)
[8] Joseph Ignatius Constantine Clarke, The Fighting Race. REPORTER.