Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/215/169/1621413/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 04:03:03
Document Index: 131615551

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8601', '§ 4111', '§ 1701', '§ 1801', '§ 1521', '§ 329', '§ 1903', '§ 2001', '§ 2101', '§ 503', '§ 2401', '§ 2601', '§ 610', '§ 9101', '§ 9502', '§ 9603', 'art, 207']

Sincock v. Duffy, 215 F. Supp. 169 (D. Del. 1963) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Delaware › District of Delaware › 1963 › Sincock v. Duffy
Sincock v. Duffy, 215 F. Supp. 169 (D. Del. 1963)
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware - 215 F. Supp. 169 (D. Del. 1963)
215 F. Supp. 169 (1963)
William DUFFY, Jr., et al., Defendants.
*170 *171 Vincent A. Theisen and Victor F. Battaglia, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.
This is a Three-Judge Court constituted pursuant to Section 2284 of Title 28, U.S.C., and our jurisdiction lies in the first instance in the provisions of Sections 2281 and 1343, Title 28, U.S.C., and in Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.C.A., the Civil Rights Acts. We are called upon to restrain enforcement of a provision of the Constitution of Delaware and for other relief as set out hereinafter. Section 2281 states in pertinent part: "An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title." We, of course, in the case at bar are passing on provisions of the Constitution of Delaware, as hereinafter set out, and are not adjudicating the validity of a "statute". But, as the Supreme Court has stated, it would be incongruous to hold that a single judge "while prohibited from enjoining action under an act of the state legislature, would be free to act if the *172 state constitution alone were involved." See American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U.S. 582, 592-593, 66 S. Ct. 761, 766, 90 L. Ed. 873 (1946).
Our jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case has been stated by us in one of our previous opinions as follows: "In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a court such as this had the jurisdiction to and must determine whether or not the apportioning of members of a state general assembly or legislature by geographical units offends the constitutional rights of the electors of the state under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States because of an alleged debasement of their voting rights." See D.C., 207 F.Supp. at p. 205.
The suit at bar is a class action brought by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. Some of the prior history of this case is set out in our opinions in 207 F. Supp. 205, in 210 F. Supp. 395, and in id. 396 (sub nom. Sincock v. Terry). As will be gathered from the preceding paragraph, the fundamental issue presented for our adjudication is whether or not the apportioning of members of the General Assembly of the State of Delaware offends the electors of the State because of an alleged debasement of their voting rights. We have before us not only the provisions of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution of Delaware of 1897 as originally framed, Del.C.Ann., but also the Amendment to Section 2 of Article II as agreed to by the 122nd General Assembly this year. See id., supra, (1962 Supp.) This is so because the new Section 2 of Article II, promulgated and effective in January 1963, is designated an "Amendment", and if it should fail for constitutional infirmities old Section 2 of Article II might conceivably be deemed to be reinstated. We shall not rule on this issue. Rather than deal with the intricacies of law relating to survival or revival of constitutional provisions, it seems simpler to adjudicate the constitutionality of both old and new Section 2 of Article II, and we shall do so.
The relief sought by the plaintiffs in substance is an adjudication that Section 2 of Article II as it was prior to the 1963 Amendment and as it is now is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs also seek a decree of this court reapportioning the representation of both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the General Assembly of Delaware in accordance with Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution of Delaware, and have submitted a plan on which an extensive hearing was had pursuant to the pretrial order. The plaintiffs assert that this plan would, if decreed by this court, grant them and other citizens of Delaware the relief sought. The plaintiffs also desire an injunction to restrain the defendants[1] from applying the apportionment provided by the Constitution of Delaware, as it was and as it is, at the next general election or thereafter.
The case was pretried extensively. A statement of agreed facts is set out in the pretrial order. Affidavits have been filed and depositions taken. The court also has had the advantage of the evidence of three political scientists whom the court deemed to be well qualified in that field. The qualifications of these gentlemen are set out in the testimony *173 and need not be repeated here. They were Dr. Paul Dolan of the University of Delaware and Associate Professor Royce Hanson of American University, who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Dr. James R. Pollock, Murfin Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, who gave evidence on behalf of the defendants. We also have had the benefit of the testimony of Mr. Leon de Valinger, State Archivist of Delaware, who has specialized in the history of the government of this State, and of Houston Wilson, Esquire, a member of the Delaware Bar, Chairman of a Subcommittee of the Bi-Partisan Reapportionment Committee, the parent committee appointed by the Governor of Delaware and which made a report to him.
The composition of the House and Senate of the General Assembly is established by the provisions of Section 2, Article II of the Constitution of the State of Delaware of 1897. This section, as it existed prior to the 1963 Amendment, divided Delaware into 35 geographical representative districts and provided that the qualified electors of each district should elect one representative. It also divided Delaware into 17 geographical senatorial districts from each of which a Senator was chosen by the qualified electors thereof. The section created 15 representative districts, numbered one to 15 inclusive, in New Castle County; 10 representative districts, numbered one to ten inclusive, in Kent County; and 10 representative districts, numbered from one to ten inclusive, in Sussex County. It also established 7 senatorial districts, numbered 1 to 7 inclusive, in New Castle County; 5 senatorial districts, numbered 1 to 5 inclusive, in Kent County; and 5 senatorial districts, numbered 1 to 5 inclusive, in Sussex County.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1897 the population of Delaware was approximately 180,000. About 105,000 persons resided in New Castle County, 70,000 of whom resided in the City of Wilmington,[2] and 35,000 resided in rural New Castle County. Kent County had a population of 32,000 and Sussex County a population of 38,000.[3]
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1897 the inhabitants of rural New Castle County, Kent County, and Sussex County were considered to be *174 identical insofar as their occupations and vocations were concerned and the populations of the respective counties were substantially equal. Accordingly each county was apportioned to the then existing population so that each rural area had 10 representatives in the House of Representatives and 5 senators in the Senate of the General Assembly. The City of Wilmington with a population of 70,000 was accorded special consideration and was allotted 5 representatives in the House of Representatives and 2 senators in the Senate.[4]
By April 1, 1930, according to the 15th Decennial Census[5] of the United States, the population of the State of Delaware had increased to 238,380 which represented an increase of 15,374 or 6.9% as compared with the population on January 1, 1920. In 1930 New Castle County had grown to 161,032 inhabitants of which 106,597 resided in the City of Wilmington and 54,435 resided in rural New Castle County, while Kent County had a population of 31,841 and Sussex County had a population of 45,507.[6]
By 1960 the total population of Delaware had increased to 446,292 of which 307,446 resided in New Castle County. Of these, 95,827 resided in the City of Wilmington and 211,619 resided in rural New Castle County. In the same year 65,651 persons resided in Kent County and 73,195 persons inhabited Sussex County.[7] It is apparent from the foregoing that New Castle County in general and rural New Castle County in particular have grown in population out of proportion to the growths in Kent and Sussex Counties. Using the 1897 and the 1960 figures as a basis the percentagewise growth of the three Counties has been approximately as follows: In 1897 rural New Castle County had approximately 20% of the population, Kent County had approximately 18%, and Sussex County had approximately 21%. In 1960 rural New Castle County had approximately 47% of the population, Kent County had approximately 14%, and Sussex County had approximately 16%.
DISTRICT         1890     1900      1910      1920      1930      1940      1950     1960
1                                                     11,513    12,262    11,515    7,814
2                                                     31,299    35,082    35,762   33,772
3                                                     21,222    22,843    41,417   18,359
4                                                      9,352     9,877     9,078    5,394
5                                                     31,446    32,440    32,584   30,488
_______   _______   _______   ______
Total           61,431   76,508    87,411   110,168  106,597   112,504   110,356   95,827
6                3,994    3,899     4,440     6,451    10,917    14,426    24,039    58,228
7                6,144    4,736     6,038     6,298    14,317    18,696    32,224    47,509
8                3,786    3,728     3,886     4,052     4,453     5,662     7,677    23,428
9                2,870    3,061     3,587     3,921     5,476     6,398     9,057    20,040
10                5,980    5,407     5,406     6,386     8,261    10,245    21,824    40,293
11                2,126    1,999     1,797     1,692     1,881     1,970     2,599     9,325
12                2,216    2,425     2,693     2,351     2,635     2,771     3,053     3,401
13                4,785    4,455     4,237     3,596     3,457     3,685     4,554     5,218
14                2,336    2,141     2,257     2,099     1,939     2,035     2,175     2,534
15                1,514    1,338     1,436     1,225     1,099     1,170     1,321     1,643
_____   ______    ______    ______    ______   _______   _______    _______
Total                                                   54,435    67,058   108,523    211,619
NCC              97,182  109,697   123,188   148,239   161,032   179,562   218,879    307,446
DISTRICT     1890    1900     1910     1920     1930     1940     1950     1960
1           4,372    4,228    3,627    3,521    3,229    3,506    4,422    6,084
2                             3,046    2,623    3,133    3,530    4,248   17,806
3           2,885    3,144    3,032    2,831    2,586    2,527    2,671    3,361
4                             2,709    2,439    2,292    2,502    2,555    3,716
5                             3,771    3,927    4,363    5,169    6,052    9,125
6                    1,242    2,941    2,500    2,352    2,274    2,168    2,626
7                             3,252    3,229    3,393    3,745    3,838    7,880
8                             3,331    3,000    3,040    3,200    3,269    5,168
9                             3,945    3,920    4,043    4,288    4,418    4,956
10          3,364    3,118    3,067    3,033    3,410    3,700    4,229    4,929
_____    _____   ______   ______   ______   ______   ______   ______
Total:                       32,721   31,023   31,841   34,441   37,870   65,651
1           3,913    4,117    5,060    5,079    5,276    5,936    7,254    9,641
2           2,793    3,456    5,329    4,589    4,329    5,315    5,849    6,439
3           3,223    3,779    5,174    5,346    5,182    6,350    7,815    9,437
4           3,074    3,132    3,352    2,761    2,955    3,448    4,446    5,318
5           4,511    5,112    5,980    6,362    6,319    6,804    7,139    8,140
6           3,495    3,575    4,979    4,513    4,836    5,779    6,470    8,010
7                             4,770    4,016    4,755    5,415    6,195    6,623
8                             1,884    1,821    1,803    1,864    2,536    2,957
9           2,436    2,874    3,028    3,071    3,062    3,456    3,563    4,271
10          2,997    3,959    6,857    6,183    6,990    8,135   10,069   12,359
Total:                       46,413   43,741   45,507   52,502   61,336   73,195[8]
As a result of the change in population the representative districts range in size from 1,643 inhabitants of New Castle County's 15th Representative District of Blackbird Hundred[9] to 58,228 inhabitants of New Castle County's 6th Representative District of Brandywine Hundred. At the time of the 1962 general election a vote in the 15th Representative District was equal to one vote in the 6th Representative District of New Castle County, although the population of the latter district is approximately 35 times greater than that of the former.
We take judicial notice of the fact that in the State of Delaware, as in the other States of the United States, there is a direct and reliable relationship between the number of inhabitants in a given area and the number of electors therein and that the ratio of electors to *176 inhabitants is relatively stable. We find, therefore, that the number of inhabitants of a given area in the State of Delaware reflects with relative accuracy the number of electors in that area, and for the purpose of adjudicating the issues in this case that it is the fact that the number of inhabitants is a relatively accurate indicator of the number of electors entitled to be represented in the General Assembly from the area given if representation is to be measured on a population-area basis. No party to this case takes a view in respect to this matter different from that which we have just expressed.
We point out that 18 representative districts with the least population and containing only approximately 18½% of the State's population may elect a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. The inhabitants of the 18 least populated representative districts are less in number than those of the two districts having the heaviest concentration of population; nonetheless, the former elect 18 representatives in the House of Representatives, while the latter elect 2 representatives in the House of Representatives of the Delaware General Assembly. The 1960 Census shows that more than one-half of the entire population of the State of Delaware, 233,718 persons, lives in six representative districts, yet the representatives of those districts have the same voting power in the General Assembly as the representatives of but 16,552 persons residing in the 6 least populous representative districts of the State of Delaware.
POPULATION                                   % CHANGE
COUNTY   Dist.    1930     1940     1950     1960   1940/1930   1950/1940    1960/1950
New        1     52,521   57,925   57,089   52,131     +10          -1        -9
Castle     2     54,076   54,579   53,177   43,696     + 1          -3       -18
3     12,778   16,856   28,228   64,345     +32         +67      +128
4     16,909   21,928   35,712   64,820     +30         +63       +81
5     16,372   19,414   33,934   63,734     +19         +75       +88
6      5,338    5,655    7,153   14,543     + 6         +26      +103
7      3,038    3,205    3,496    4,177     + 5         + 9       +19
Kent       1      6,362    7,036    8,670   23,890     +11         +23      +176
2      4,878    5,029    5,226    7,077     + 3         + 4       +35
3      7,756    8,914    9,890   17,005     +15         +11       +72
4      6,395    6,562    6,586    7,582     + 3           -       +15
5      6,450    6,900    7,498   10,097     + 7         + 9       +35
Sussex     1      9,605   11,251   13,103   16,080     +17         +16       +23
2      8,137    9,798   12,261   14,755     +20         +25       +20
3     11,155   12,583   13,609   16,150     +13         + 8       +19
4      6,558    7,279    8,731    9,580     +11         +20       +10
5     10,052   11,591   13,632   16,630     +15         +18       +22[10]
*177 The 17 senatorial districts, as established by Section 2, Article II of the Constitution of 1897 prior to the 1963 Amendment, varied in 1960 from approximately 65,000 to approximately 3,000 inhabitants. The vote in the General Assembly of the smallest senatorial district was equal to that of the largest senatorial district which exceeded it in numbers of population by more than 21 times. The apportionment established by the Constitution with respect to the Senate permitted 22% of the voters of the State of Delaware to elect a controlling majority in the Delaware Senate.
The uneven growth of the different areas of the State created a condition because of which the numbers of inhabitants in representative and senatorial districts differed not only on an intercounty basis but also on an intra-county basis. Differences also manifested themselves in the representative districts within the City of Wilmington. For example the 4th Representative District of Wilmington, having 5,394 inhabitants, had the same representation in the House of Representatives of Delaware as the 2nd Representative District with 33,772 inhabitants and the 5th Representative District with 30,488 inhabitants.
*178 "Section 4. The following words are added immediately following the words added by Section 3 above:
"Any qualified voter may apply to the Superior Court to compel the Governor, by mandamus or otherwise, to perform the redistricting and reapportioning duties or to correct any error in redistricting and reapportioning. Application to compel the Governor to perform the redistricting and *179 reapportioning duties must be filed within thirty days of the expiration of the 120 days allotted to the Commission to file its plan, if such plan is not timely filed. Application to compel correction of any error in redistricting and reapportioning must be filed within thirty days following the proclamation. Original jurisdiction in these matters is hereby vested in the Superior Court. On appeal, the cause shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon the law and the facts.
The only effect of the Amendment on the apportionment of the Senate is to create two additional senatorial districts in Kent and Sussex Counties increasing the total number of senatorial districts throughout the state from 17 to 21, which would give 7 senators to each of the 3 Counties. The Amendment's effect on the House of Representatives is to create 20 additional representative districts by dividing the existing more populous districts and by providing for additional representation for each increment of 15,000 population residing therein, or any major fraction thereof.
EFFECT OF             AVERAGE POPULATION
DISTRICT      POPULATION             AMENDMENT             PER REPRESENTATIVE
1         7,814)               Unchanged                      7,814
2        33,772)      City     Add 1 Representative          16,886
3        18,359)       of      Unchanged                     18,359
4         5,394)    Wilmington Unchanged                      5,394
5        30,448)               Add 1 Representative          15,244
6        58,228                Add 3 Representatives         14,557
7        47,509                Add 2 Representatives         15,836
8        23,428                Add 1 Representative          11,714
9        20,040                Unchanged                     20,040
10        40,293                Add 2 Representatives         13,431
11         9,325                Unchanged                      9,325
12         3,401                Unchanged                      3,401
13         5,218                Unchanged                      5,218
14         2,534                Unchanged                      2,534
15         1,643                Unchanged                      1,643
Ratio to 15th Representative
New Castle County                         District of
Districts       Population         New Castle County
1              7,814                4-1
2A            16,886               10-1
2B            16,886               10-1
3             18,359               11-1
4              5,394                3-1
5A            15,244                9-1
5B            15,244                9-1
6A            14,557                8-1
6B            14,557                8-1
6C            14,557                8-1
6D            14,557                8-1
7A            15,836                9-1
7B            15,836                9-1
7C            15,836                9-1
8A            11,714                7-1
8B            11,714                7-1
9             20,040               12-1
10A            13,431                8-1
10B            13,431                8-1
10C            13,431                8-1
11              9,325                5-1
12              3,401                2-1
13              5,218                3-1
14              2,534                1-1/2-1
15              1,643
Kent County Districts   Population              Ratio
1              6,084                3-1/2-1
2             17,806               10-1/2-1
3              3,361                2-1
4              3,716                2-1
5              9,125                5-1/2-1
6              2,626                1-1/2-1
7              7,880                4-1/2-1
8              5,168                3-1
9              4,956                3-1
10              4,929                3-1
Sussex County Districts   Population              Ratio
1              9,641                5-1/2-1
2              6,439                4-1
3              9,437                5-1/2-1
4              5,318                3-1
5              8,140                5-1
6              8,010                4-1/2-1
7              6,623                4-1
8              2,957                1-1/2-1
9              4,271                2-1/2-1
10             12,359               11-1/2-1
Effect of     Average Population
District, New Castle County         Amendment   per Senatorial District
1                  52,131           Unchanged
2                  43,696           Unchanged
3                  64,345           Unchanged
4                  64,820           Unchanged           43,921
5                  63,734           Unchanged
6                  14,543           Unchanged
7                   4,177           Unchanged
Total        307,446
1                  23,890           Unchanged
2                   7,077           Unchanged
3                  17,005           Unchanged
4                   7,582           Unchanged            9,378
5                  10,097           Unchanged
6                          46,063
7                          19,584
Total         65,651
District, Sussex County
1                  16,080           Unchanged
2                  14,755           Unchanged
3                  16,150           Unchanged
4                   9,580           Unchanged           10,456
5                  16,630           Unchanged
6                          38,975
7                          34,220
Total         73,195
Under the Amendment the population disparities in New Castle County in the 7 senatorial districts would range from 4,177 in the 7th Senatorial District to 64,820 inhabitants in the 4th Senatorial District, or a ratio of more than 15 to 1. In Kent County the population disparities between districts range from 7,077 inhabitants in the 2nd Senatorial District to 46,063 in the 6th Senatorial District, or a ratio of approximately 6½ to 1, and in Sussex County the population disparities between districts range from 9,580 in the 4th Senatorial District to 38,000 in the 6th Senatorial District, or a ratio of more than 4½ to 1. The average population for each senatorial district in the three Counties ranges from 43,921 in New Castle County for each senator elected to 9,378 in Kent County, or a ratio of more than 4½ to 1 between the counties.
The election of 7 senators in each county irrespective of population creates a situation whereby Kent County with about 14½% of the total population of Delaware will elect 1/3 of the Senate, and Sussex County with about 16½% of the total State population will elect 1/3 of the Senate. New Castle County with about 69% of the total State population will elect 1/3 of the Senate.
The Amendment adds two at-large senatorial districts in both Kent and Sussex Counties superimposed on existing senatorial districts. By reason of this, each resident[11] of New Castle County is entitled to vote for and elect 1 senator in the General Assembly of Delaware while each inhabitant of Kent and Sussex Counties will elect 2 senators to represent him in the General Assembly.
The Amendment also provides that in the event a Constitutional Convention be *182 called, as provided in Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution of 1897, the number of delegates and the method of electing them shall not be affected by the addition of representatives or representative districts created by the Amendment and that for the purpose of any future Constitutional Convention, the representative districts shall elect delegates to the Convention on the basis of apportionment provided by Section 2 of Article II as it existed prior to the 1963 Amendment.[12]
We find further that in the decade 1952 through 1961 the State Tax Commission has collected a total of $239,000,000, of which $166,900,000 represented personal income taxes, $23,500,000 represented inheritance and estate taxes, $10,800,000 represented license fees and $16,190,000 represented cigarette and cigar tax collections.[13] The State Tax Commission Reports indicate that in excess of 92% of the total taxes have been collected in New Castle County in that period, that 3% were collected in Kent County and 5% were collected in Sussex County. Of the $166,900,000 collected for personal income taxes, approximately 92% were collected in New Castle County, 3% in Kent County and 5% in Sussex County. Of the $23,500,000 collected for inheritance and estate taxes, approximately 94% were collected in New Castle County, 2% in Kent County and 4% in Sussex County. Of the $10,800,000 collected for licenses, approximately 70% were collected in New Castle County, 12% in Kent County and 18% in Sussex County. Of the $16,190,000 collected by the Commission for cigarette and cigar taxes in the decade, approximately 74.3% were collected in New Castle County, 12.4% were collected in Kent County and 13.3% were collected in Sussex County.
Collections made by the State Tax Commission in the same decade, broken down to illustrate the amount of taxes collected in each of the three Counties in accordance with their respective Representatives in the General Assembly, show that, excluding franchise and corporation taxes, the amounts collected averaged approximately $13,000,000 per representative in New Castle County, less than $1,000,000 for each representative elected in Kent County, and approximately $1,000,000 for each representative in Sussex County. In the same period New Castle County collected approximately $10,500,000 in personal income taxes for each representative, while Kent County collected less than $500,000 for each representative, and Sussex County collected approximately $800,000 per representative.[14], [15] The effect of the Amendment is to give to Kent and Sussex Counties with 31% of the total State population the ability to control measures requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate including revenue measures and appointments by the Governor. The combined voting strength of Kent and Sussex Counties in the Senate will be able to override the executive veto.[16]
Representation strictly according to population is a comparatively new historical concept. In many bodies somewhat similar to state legislatures, there is representation according to factors other than population; for example, the Congress of the United States, the General Assembly of the United Nations, and the House of Lords in England. One of *183 the traditional concepts of state government in the United States is political area representation. Political area representation is used as a means of apportioning representation in legislative groups on an international and national basis, a state basis and a city basis. Most of the States have representation in one of their houses, usually the senate, on a county or political area basis. The formation of representative districts in state government is normally the function of the legislative branch. The prevailing theory of government in the United States is a bicameral system. As to the unicameral system, that of Nebraska was adopted in 1937 and although there have been attempts in approximately 50% of the states since 1937 to set up similar systems no other state has done so.
Pursuant to state statutes, the counties, qua county, exercise the following legislative functions or rights: (a) to assess and levy, collect and receive taxes, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 8601, et seq.; (b) to appropriate and borrow money, 9 Del.C. Ann. §§ 4111, 4131, 4133, 1522, 1561, 1563, 6111, 6131, 6132, 6205; (c) to establish pension plans for employees, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 1701, et seq.; (d) to appropriate money for the indigent sick, 9 Del.C.Ann. §§ 1801, 4201, 6205; (e) to appropriate money for welfare purposes, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 1521 and 31 Del.C. Ann. §§ 329 and 513; (f) in New Castle County to designate firemen and policemen, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 1903; (g) to provide an ambulance and rescue service, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 2001; (h) to supervise street and highway lighting if the taxable people within the area petition it, in which event the Levy Court acts as a holding company to make the proper contract, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 2101; (i) general supervision over sidewalks, fire hydrants, water mains, sanitary and drainage sewers, when fifty per cent or more of the taxable people in a certain area petition that this be done, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 503; (j) to control garbage and refuse collection and disposal thereof, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 2401; (k) as to New Castle County, jurisdiction with respect to planning and zoning, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 2601; (l) certain jurisdictional authority with respect to parks and recreation, 9 Del.C.Ann. §§ 610 and 616; and (m) the Register of *184 Wills, Prothonotary, Sheriff, Coroner and Recorder of Deeds carry out the general state laws under the respective county governments, 9 Del.C.Ann. § 9101 et seq., § 9502 et seq., § 9603 et seq.
In respect to the apportionment of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly under Section 2 of Article II as it existed prior to the 1963 Amendment finding one disparity approximately as large as 35 to 1 in one instance and very gross in many others, the representatives of the six least populous representative districts containing only 16,552 inhabitants having equal voting power with the six most populous representative districts, containing 233,718 persons, and the vagaries existing in representative districts even contiguous to each other, both in rural areas and in the City of Wilmington and the other facts as we have found them under heading "I", we state that we can find no rational basis for the apportionment. In respect to the apportionment of the House of Representatives under the 1963 Amendment which reflects one disparity as high as 12 to 1, several at 11 to 1, 10 to 1 and 9 to 1, many at 8 to 1, the lowest at 1½ to 1, and the vagaries existing in representative districts even contiguous to each other both in rural areas and in the City of Wilmington, for example, 28% of the population of Delaware able to elect a majority in the House of Representatives, and the other facts as we have found them, we state that we can find no rational *185 basis for the apportionment. An examination of the record will show that not one of the experts on political science, including Doctor Pollock called by the defendants, suggested that a House of Representatives apportioned on considerations other than those reflecting population to geographical areas with reasonable exactitude could find support in reason. Putting the matter plainly the apportionment of Section 2 of Article II, new or old, is capricious, arbitrary, and invidiously discriminatory when viewed in the year 1963. In apportioning the House of Representatives the basis must be one of population. "One vote, One person" must be the aim. Gray v. Sanders, 83 S. Ct. 801 (1963).
As to the apportionment of the Senate under the 1963 Amendment, the population disparities in New Castle County in the seven senatorial districts range from approximately 4,000 persons in the 7th Senatorial District to approximately 64,000 in the 4th Senatorial District, a ratio, as we have seen, of more than 15 to 1 for each senator elected. In Kent County the apportionment created by the Amendment is equally arbitrary for the population disparities range from about 7,000 inhabitants in the 2nd Senatorial District to approximately 46,000 persons in the 6th Senatorial District, or a ratio of approximately 6½ to 1 for each senator elected. Viewed overall, the range in each senatorial district in the three Counties is from approximately 44,000 inhabitants in New Castle County for each senator elected to approximately 9,000 persons in Kent County or a ratio of more than 4½ to 1. It is also apparent, as we have already stated, that New Castle County with 69% of the State's population, will elect 1/3 of the Senate, whereas the two lower Counties with approximately 31% of the total population will elect 2/3 of the Senate.
*186 The defendants contend that the Federal principle can be rationally employed at least for the apportionment of the Delaware Senate on a county basis as if the respective Counties possessed some degree of sovereignty. This contention is perhaps the one most relied on by the defendants. We therefore consider it first. The Federal principle is based upon the Connecticut Compromise and the origin and nature of the Compromise can be stated briefly as follows. In the 1787 Convention, which framed the Constitution of the United States, the larger States supported the so-called Virginia plan to create a bicameral legislature in which the rights of suffrage ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contributions or to the number of free inhabitants of the respective States. The more populous States, since they thought that they would have to bear a greater burden taxwise and in other respects, sought a proportionally larger share of control of the central government, and the smaller States, such as Delaware, understandably did not desire to be controlled by their larger sisters. The Constitutional Convention was deadlocked when Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed as a compromise one of the great political inventions of all time.[17] The problem was one of balance of power in a federation of States differing greatly in size, wealth and population. Sherman suggested that there should be two Houses, one with equal and the other with proportional representation. This was not quite acceptable to either the large state group or the small state group but the Sherman proposal was amended to link direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives and these amendments were adopted and the Sherman proposal, so amended, was approved. It is generally believed by historians to be a fact that without the adoption of the Connecticut Compromise, the Federal principle, our Constitution could not or at least would not have been created when it was. But the fact that the Compromise in effect created Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States does not make the Federal principle, or as we would prefer to call it, under the circumstances of the instant case, the "County principle", logically applicable for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment in apportioning a state general assembly.
We find it difficult to relate the Federal principle in any very significant way to the defendants' contentions supporting the apportionment of the Senate of the General Assembly of Delaware under Section 2 of Article II, either old or new. The creation and application of the Federal principle were forced by the sovereignties of the 13 original Colonies or States and there never was much and there is now no sovereignty in the Counties of Delaware, though like counties of almost every State, our Counties possess and exercise some local governmental functions. The governmental functions of the three Counties of Delaware have decreased steadily since 1787[18] and have declined notably even within the memories of the members of this court. For example, we take judicial notice of the diminution of powers of the respective Levy Courts of the three Counties, the creation of the State Highway Department to service the effective system of roads which has pulled the State together and made the inhabitants of the three Counties easily and quickly accessible to one another, the rise of central educational governance, and the creation of State taxing agencies. To create a Senate on a purely county sovereignty principle, under the circumstances at bar, would seem to be quite unrealistic insofar as history and the Federal principle are concerned. But there have always been three Counties in Delaware and the culture and mores of our people to some degree have been formed upon these *187 county units. Under these circumstances history must be deemed to deserve a little more courtesy than a mere distant bow, albeit no submissive genuflexion.
In apportioning the Senate we think that economic factors must be treated as "Area" factors. Large parts of the three Counties of Delaware are devoted to agriculture. There is a good industrial development in the State. While a somewhat larger percentage of this lies in New Castle County, Kent and Sussex Counties are developing industrially very rapidly. Wilmington is of course the metropolis of Delaware with some density of population, but what is legally the City of Wilmington is surrounded by suburban and semi-suburban areas interspersed rather chaotically with industrial development and suburban and semi-suburban areas. The City of Dover, the Capital of Delaware, and the larger cities in Sussex County, such as Seaford, are similarly expanding industrially. Wilmington does possess a good large port but port facilities for large industrial interests presently exist down the Delaware River on the Delaware side well south of Wilmington, while Lewes, in Sussex County, possesses the potentiality of a great port. Industry is moving steadily down the State as part of a tremendous development that within the lifetime of many who may read this opinion will result in an industrial area stretching from the New York City-Newark-Hoboken-Jersey City locale through the Delaware Valley in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to a point well below the National Capital. Although population density, extent of agricultural *188 and industrial development and expanding city and suburban and semi-suburban areas are deemed to be cogent factors in considering apportionment, no very persuasive factor justifying any very special treatment in the apportionment of the Senate of the General Assembly can fairly be said to lie in any purely geographical factor.
But other factors remain to be considered. Custom is a powerful force in any community whether it be large or small. The Constitution of the United States, with its bicameral Houses in which political recognition is afforded to the smaller Sovereignties such as Delaware and Rhode Island, has exercised a most potent force on the formation of the Constitutions of the States and we entertain no doubt that the States which have adopted the Federal principle of quite unequal Senatorial representation, albeit with comparatively small logic, have looked to the Federal Constitution as a guide. Reapportionment is disruptive and whether it be applied willingly as it should be through the medium of a State legislature or reluctantly by a court, it should be brought into play as gently as the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution will permit. Therefore the General Assembly should make no very broad application of the Federal principle, or as we would prefer to call it the "County principle", to the reapportionment of the Senate of the Delaware Assembly. Cf. Sobel v. Adams, 208 F. Supp. 316 (D.Fla.1962); Sims v. Frink, id. 431 (D.Ala.1962); Toombs v. Fortson, 205 F. Supp. 248 (D.C.1962); and Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 228 Md. 412, 180 A.2d 656 (1962). We note parenthetically that the principle of apportionment of the senate of the bicameral state legislature is presently before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case last cited and in others. Of course, in a matter of this sort, the Supreme Court of the United States has the last word.
As to the 2 additional senators allotted to Kent and Sussex Counties superimposed on existing senatorial districts, viz., Districts 6 and 7 in Kent and Sussex Counties, so that voters in Kent and Sussex Counties will elect two senators while the voters of New Castle County will continue to vote for but one senator, this seems to involve a hidden gerrymander that cannot be countenanced and if the reapportionment created by the 1963 Amendment met the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause in all other respects, though it does not, this feature alone, in the absence of any substantial possibility of severability,[19]*189 would require us to adjudge the whole Amendment unconstitutional.
We reach the reluctant conclusion that not only is old Section 2 of Article II unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause but that the 1963 Amendment falls equally within the proscription of the Federal Constitution. In our opinion the 1963 Amendment and Section 2 of Article II as it existed prior thereto represent gross and invidious discrimination in respect to the value of the legislative votes of the plaintiffs and those situated like unto them. The apportionment effected by either of them is not reasonable or rational. Baker v. Carr, 206 F. Supp. 341 (D.Tenn.1960), after remand. Moss v. Burkhart, 207 F. Supp. 885 (D.Okla.1962); Sims v. Frink, supra; Sanders v. Gray, 203 F. Supp. 158 (D.Ga.1962); Toombs v. Fortson, supra. We have no recourse, therefore, but to declare both constitutional provisions, new and old, to be unconstitutional. In so stating we are aware that there is a strong presumption that every State Constitution is constitutional when measured by the Constitution of the United States. Sobel v. Adams, supra. The presumption has been overpowered in the case at bar. A judgment will be entered to that effect.
But a further opportunity must be given to the General Assembly of Delaware to work out the problem of reapportionment. We acknowledge the difficult problem faced by the General Assembly of Delaware in attempting to frame a reapportionment statute that will meet the guarantee of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, we believe it to be within the permissive bounds of propriety for a court laboring in this field to state what it considers to be the minimal constitutional requirements under Baker v. Carr and the adjudications which have grown out of it. We have endeavored to do this to some extent under heading "II" of this opinion but we think we should go further in our attempt to lay down guidelines for the General Assembly. At least one House of the General Assembly of Delaware (the House of Representatives) must be apportioned on an equal population basis as nearly as this can be accomplished in order to meet the requirement of rationality and, further, to avoid any taint of invidious discrimination, the population in any given representative district must not vary from the population quotient used, whatever it may be, to a degree that would be obviously unfair. As we have said, "One vote, One person" must be the aim. Gray v. Sanders, supra. The ideal quotient, of course, would be supplied by dividing, for example, the number of representatives, say 35, by the number of inhabitants in the State. The number "35" is, of course, not a magic number or one of art. We are of the opinion that the existing election districts may be employed as a measurement to effect this end but this does not mean *190 that if the General Assembly should choose to reconstitute geographical areas to create new and quite different election districts it would not be within its power to do so. This court would not look upon such a result with lack of favor.
Such affirmative action must be rendered possible and, as we have already indicated, an apportionment should not be permitted that would allow a blockage of major legislation desired by the great majority of electors of Delaware to come to pass in the Senate. Effecting the will of the majority of the people of a State must be deemed to be the foundation of any apportionment plan. Applying this principle, it seems clear that the House of Representatives must be apportioned on a strict population basis. However, other cogent and relevant factors, *191 as indicated in this opinion, may be accorded some weight in apportioning the Senate of the General Assembly of Delaware: provided, nonetheless, as we have said, that in apportioning senatorial districts vis-a-vis each other within the three Counties the aim must be "One vote, One person". To give effect to such factors, indicated herein to be of cogency, relevancy, and of some weight, in apportioning the Senate of the General Assembly of Delaware as a whole, should not be thought of as necessarily destroying the foundation principle of majority rule, or effecting invidious discrimination or irrationality in apportionment. We state again, however, at the risk of needless repetition, that giving effect to the factors referred to must not be allowed to govern to such an extent that an area containing a substantial portion of the population of Delaware, vide ante New Castle County containing 69% of the population of Delaware, could be put in such an inferior position in respect to the Senate that legislation needed for the good of the whole State might be blocked. What we have said is, of course, precatory and not absolute. We cannot foresee what the General Assembly in its wisdom may see fit to effect.[20]
The State of Delaware, the General Assembly, and this court all seem to be trapped in a kind of box of time. The exigencies of the calendar and the oncoming *192 general election of 1964 confront us. We will allow a reasonable period for the General Assembly to proceed to try its hand again at the problem of reapportionment. We cannot withhold the entry of our judgment on this phase of the case, however, for if we did so the General Assembly would be without power to act except by way of a further attempt to create a valid constitutional amendment. This would require action again by two successive General Assemblies under Section 1 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Delaware, or by a Constitutional Convention under Section 2 of Article XVI. The latter would itself present a grave danger of an unconstitutional result by reason of a possible denial of equal protection of the laws because of the convention-delegate apportionment set up by Section 2 of Article XVI, Del. C.Ann. A third possibility would be a Constitutional Convention, called by the Governor or by proper citizenry action under the doctrine of the inherent right of the citizens of a State to create or revise their Constitution. Cf. Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. 39 (1874). Such a gross predicament, a miscarriage of the power inherent in the people of this State, cannot be avoided by assuming that de facto powers would inhere in the members of the 122nd General Assembly of Delaware past the terms prescribed for them by Section 2 of Article II of the Delaware Constitution for there could not be two valid successive General Assemblies to effect a valid revision of Section 2 of Article II unless by virtue of an election system established by the decree of this court. The action to be taken by the 122nd General Assembly upon the entry of our judgment cannot be anemic in its nature.
SOME OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING THE PLAINTIFFS' MINIMUM PLAN
The plaintiffs' plan is premised on the concept that population is the substantial and vital factor in apportionment. Using the representative districts set out in Article II, Section 2 of the Delaware Constitution as the basic unit, the following four rules were used by the plaintiffs to arrive at new representative districts: *193 (1) the small districts are consolidated and extra representatives allocated to large districts so as to minimize the disparity in population per representative; (2) only contiguous districts are consolidated and a consolidated district cannot cross county or City-of-Wilmington lines; (3) districts are compact; and (4) no district larger than the ideal size, 12,751,[1] is consolidated. By applying these rules to the formulation of representative districts the plaintiffs establish an apportionment which apparently, with few exceptions, does not have more than a 50% population deviation per representative per district. Of the 35 representatives, 7 are allocated to the City of Wilmington, 17 to rural New Castle County, 5 to Kent County and 6 to Sussex County. These districts were presented on maps.[2] A chart compilation of the maps showed:
Rep. Dist.           Pop.    No. of Reps.
1 & 4            13,208        1
2                33,772        3
3                18,359        1
5                30.488        2
_______       __
Total            95,827        7
Rural N.C.:
6                58,228        4
7                47,509        4
8                23,428        2
9                20,040        2
10                40,293        3
11                 9,325        1
12, 13, 14, 15    12,796        1
_______     ____
Total            211,619       17
Total N.C.       307.446       24
1, 3, 4          13,161        1
2                17,806        1
5                 9,125        1
6, 9, 10         12,511        1
7, 8             13.048        1
Total             65,651        5
1                 9,641        1
2, 3             15,876        1
4, 5             13,458        1
6, 9             12,281        1
7, 8              9,580        1
10               12,359        1
Total             73.195        6
Total State      446.292       35
In presenting the plan in the first instance, the plaintiffs did not divulge whether those districts which were to have more than one representative were to elect these at-large or whether further line-drawing was required. Had this point been overlooked and had this court adopted the plan as originally proposed, it would not have been possible for the election boards to conduct an orderly election without making allocations which could not be found to be in fact or in law within their spheres of responsibility. On cross-examination *194 this deficiency appeared and thereafter counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to present further evidence concerning subdivision of the districts with more than one representative.
The plan as first presented was supplemented as follows: Proposed representative districts entitled to more than one representative were broken into smaller ones by allocation of the existing election districts within the proposed representative district.[3] The population of these new representative districts was computed by determining which census enumeration districts they encompassed.[4] Upon analysis of the plaintiffs' submissions the court has found a number of errors that illustrate vividly the extreme difficulty of apportioning a State in a mathematically correct and workable fashion.
These problems of arriving at the correct population figures for the new representative districts would not arise if elections were conducted at-large within the hundreds. This follows from the fact that neither election districts nor enumeration districts cross hundred lines. For example, three enumeration districts in part are erroneously included in the proposed First Election District in New Castle Hundred. The effect of such a mistake could be corrected by an election atlarge within that Hundred. The Representative *195 District would be the whole rather than a part of New Castle Hundred, and since those and all other enumeration districts within New Castle Hundred do not cross the hundred lines, the population of the Hundred can be correctly estimated.
I join my Brothers BIGGS and LAYTON in holding: (1) Article II, Section 2 is invidiously discriminatory and unconstitutional because of its gross population disparities that cause debasement of voting rights; (2) Article II, Section 2 as amended is invidiously discriminatory and unconstitutional because of its gross population disparities that cause debasement of voting rights; and (3) the House of the General Assembly must be based strictly on population. One voteone person is the aim.
While concurring in the result reached by the majority, I am unable to agree with certain conclusions, both of law and fact,[1] concerning the Delaware Senate. My views will be briefly stated.
We have just concluded that not only the House of Representatives created by Article 2 Sec. 2 of our Constitution but also the House created by the 1963 Amendment are both invalid because offensive to the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. In this I believe we are on firm ground. True, the Federal Supreme Court has not said in so many words that at least one of the branches of a state legislature must be composed of representatives elected strictly on a population basis. Yet the gleanings from certain of the concurring opinions in Baker v. Carr, as well as the expressions of most of the lower courts which have since spoken upon the subject,[2] point implacably in that direction.
But, having declared both the old and the new Lower Houses to be invalidly created under federal constitutional standards, I think it unnecessary to proceed further and declare the State Senate to be invalidly constituted. This is so because the 1963 Amendment to Article 2 Sec. 2 of the Delaware Constitution contains no severability clause and the great weight of authority is to the effect that, in such event, the entire Act must fall. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 *196 U.S. 238, 316, 56 S. Ct. 855, 80 L. Ed. 1160; 2 Southerland Statutory Construction, Sec. 2403.[3]
Moreover, it is a settled principle of judicial approach that a Court should avoid passing on the constitutionality of an Act unless such adjudication is unavoidable. Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 67 S. Ct. 231, 91 L. Ed. 128. Here, because the whole Act falls due to the lack of a severability clause, it becomes unnecessary to go further and consider the validity of the State Senate upon constitutional grounds and, in my judgment, we should avoid doing so. However, because of the unusual nature of these proceedings some broad, general guide lines might be laid down by way of dictum.
Nor can I agree with the conclusions of the majority that the State Senate is invalidly created because (1) the members are elected upon the basis of an equal number from each county rather than substantially upon a population basis, and (2) of the so-called supersenator device whereby voters in the Lower Counties are casting a vote for two senators while those in New Castle are voting for only one.
With deference, I can find nothing constitutionally wrong in the make up of a State Legislature composed of a Lower House whose members are elected upon a strict population basis and an Upper House whose members are elected in equal numbers from each County.[4] This is the way our Federal Congress is constituted. True, the analogy between a State Legislature and the Federal Congress is not exact. For one thing, the states are sovereign while the counties are not. More importantly, under the 1963 amendment, an invidious discrimination could well be found to exist on an intra-county basis in the composition of the Senate which would necessitate a redistricting. For instance, the 4th Senatorial District of New Castle County with a population of 64,000 has one senator, while the 7th Senatorial District of the same county has 4,000. Nevertheless, while not exact, the broad analogy is clear and to my mind it is incongruous to hold that a state legislature patterned upon lines precisely similar to those of the federal system is unconstitutional because offensive to the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution.
My recollection of the record is that there are seven states whose legislatures are patterned exactly on the federal system. So far as I am aware, until recently no one has seriously challenged their validity. The Supreme Court of the United States has never expressed any view on the subject, nor, as far as I have found, have any legal text writers. Nothing in Baker v. Carr suggests that the expression "invidious discrimination" was aimed at a State Senate composed of equal numbers from each county where there also existed a Lower House whose membership was elected on a strict population basis. Rather, I think it should be assumed that these words were directed at situations akin to our 6th *197 Representative District of Brandywine Hundred, having a population of over 58,000, vis-a-vis the 15th Representative District of Blackbird Hundred, in which the population is about 1,600, with the result that a vote for a State Representative in the 6th District of Brandywine is worth about one-thirtieth of a vote in the 15th District of Blackbird Hundred. As a practical matter, no more glaring example of "invidious discrimination" can be found than in general elections where a voter in Nevada, having a population of approximately 285,000, casts a vote for a United States Senator while at the same time a voter in the State of New York, having a population of 16,750,000, casts his vote for a United States Senator.
The majority has also found unconstitutional the 1963 Amendment in so far as it concerns the creation of 2 so-called super senators from each of the two Lower Counties in order to equalize the number of senators from each County at 7. This was a most unfortunate business. Speaking as an individual I would agree with the majority that the result is sheer gerrymandering, but speaking as a judge I am unable to find such an action invalid because, in my view, a Senate composed of an equal number of senators from each county is not an unconstitutionally created body providing the membership of the Lower House is elected on a strict population basis. And simply because the Legislature chose a dubious path by which to arrive at a valid result is not grounds for judicial interference.[5]
[1] When we use the term "defendants" we desire to point out as we did in one of our earlier opinions in this case, sub nom. Sincock v. Terry, 210 F.Supp. at p. 399, note 1 cited to the text, that the Chancellor of Delaware and the Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, all members of the Board of Canvass, state in their answers that as judicial officers serving in ministerial capacities they deem it inappropriate to take a position on the merits of this lawsuit but aver that as Chancellor of Delaware or as Judges of the Superior Court they will continue to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the Constitution of the State of Delaware unless restrained by a lawful order of this Court. The Chancellor and the Judges have not, of course, asserted any position in respect to the matters dealt with in this opinion.
[2] The official title of the City of Wilmington is "The Mayor and Council of Wilmington". We point out that the City of Wilmington is located in New Castle County and also to those readers unfamiliar with Delaware mores that that portion of New Castle County outside the boundaries of the City of Wilmington is and was referred to customarily in the record, the briefs and oral arguments in this case and in this opinion, on occasion, as "rural New Castle County". (Emphasis added.) The term "rural" so used does not necessarily mean the countryside for there are other municipalities or their factual equivalents situated in New Castle County other than the City of Wilmington. "Rural New Castle County" as that word is interpreted in Delaware by Delawareans, means all that part of New Castle County which is not Wilmington.
[3] See Population of Delaware, Table 1, Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 3 to the Deposition of Doctor Paul Dolan. The reader will observe, if the bald figures set out in this paragraph are added up, there is a deficiency of about 5,000. If the official census figures be examined, however, and the Dolan Deposition be read, it will appear that the figure "180,000" represents an estimate between the figures of the 1890 Decennial Census and those of the 1900 Decennial Census.
[4] Vol. 3: Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Delaware; pp. 2008-2112, 2029-2031.
[5] 15th Decennial Census of the United States: 1930, published by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The term "Decennial Census" and the term "Census" are used from time to time throughout this opinion as in the pretrial order. The reference is always to a Decennial Census as published by the Department. Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4 to the Deposition of Doctor Dolan.
[6] 15th Decennial Census of the United States at pp. 4-5. Note 4, supra.
[7] United States Census of Population, 1960, published by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2 of the Deposition of Doctor Dolan.
[8] Table 5 Population of States and Territories by Minor Civil Divisions; 1890 and 1900, Delaware (Form 12 Census of the United States, Population, Volume 1); 15th Census of the United States: 1930, Population Bulletin, First series Delaware, Number and Distribution of Inhabitants; 1960 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants, Delaware, Final Report P.C. (1)9APlaintiffs' Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 of the Dolan Deposition.
[9] "Hundred" is used in Delaware in the same sense, we believe, as it was originally employed in English law to signify "A division of a county, which some make to have originally consisted of 100 hides of land, others of 10 tithings or 100 free families." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Rev. Bouvier also states, "In Delaware the subdivisions of a county are called hundreds. They correspond to towns in New England, townships in Pennsylvania, parishes in Louisiana, and the like." See also Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
[10] Liberman and Rosbrow, "The Delaware Citizen," Welfare Council, "Population of Minor Civil Divisions (Representative Districts) in the Counties of Delaware, 1950 and 1960."
[11] The term "resident" is used in the statement of facts stipulated in this part of the pretrial order.
[12] The provisions of Section 2B have been quoted at an earlier point in this opinion.
[14] See plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 3.
[15] In the six-year period prior to the filing of the suit at bar, the General Assembly received approximately seven bills having as their object the reapportionment of Delaware either by a constitutional convention or by constitutional amendment. Prior to the inception of the suit at bar each of these bills, with the exception of one which was introduced by Senator Elwood M. Melson, failed to emerge from committee. The Melson bill providing for reapportionment was voted out of the Senate Committee but was defeated.
[16] See Section 18, Article III, Constitution of 1897 as amended. Del.C.Ann. (1962 Supp.).
[17] An English wit, whose name escapes us, has remarked that the Connecticut Compromise was the only great political invention since the queue.
[18] It will be borne in mind that Delaware, the first State to ratify the Constitution of the United States, did so on December 7, 1787.
[19] See Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3 ed. Horack, Vol. 2, pp. 174-198, Sections 2401-2419 (1943).
[20] In considering these standards we noted that in Delaware there is no provision for apportionment by popular referendum. Apportionment is locked in the breast of the General Assembly of Delaware which itself was elected contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. We recognize, adhere to, and believe relevant to the standards articulated the principle that both form and power of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Were this principle operative in Delaware, i. e., provision for the General Assembly to be determined by popular concensus, a different problem might be presented. See McCloskey, The Reapportionment Case, 76 Harv.L.R. 54 (1963).
[1] This is the figure arrived at by dividing the total population of Delaware by 35, the number of representative districts.
[2] The maps did not show the precise bounds of the representative districts. To the extent that the plan is based on Section 2, Article II, representative districts and their exact metes and bounds can be ascertained from the Delaware Code.
[3] An example will clarify this principle. The 6th Representative District, Brandywine Hundred, had allocated to it 4 representatives under the proposed plan. This Representative District was broken down Hundred was comprised of 11 election into 4 representative districts by allocation of existing election districts. The 1st Representative District of Brandywine districts, 1, 5, 7, 8, 18, 23, 25, 26, 34, 37 and 47, all necessarily in that Hundred. The other 3 representative districts include all other election districts in Brandywine Hundred.
[4] Census enumeration districts are the official unit of the United States Bureau of Census. They are disclosed on maps of public record. Where election district and census enumeration district lines did not coincide, estimates of population apparently were made by the plaintiffs' experts.
[1] My disagreement with certain facts found by the majority plays no important part in this concurring opinion. If the time should arrive when these factual considerations should become relevant, I will cover the subject in a very short memorandum opinion.
[2] For instance see Toombs v. Fortson, 205 F. Supp. 248 (U.S.D.C.N.D.Ga.1962).
[3] The rationale underlying the authorities above cited is that a Legislature would never have intended the passage of an Act had it realized that one part was unconstitutional. Certainly it is difficult to imagine that the Delaware Legislature would have passed the 1963 Amendment had it known that the important portion thereof constituting the House of Repreentatives was invalid.
[4] By this I mean that the so-called federal system should be regarded as setting minimum standards. No valid reason exists why a county having a very large population should not have more senators than a much smaller county.
[5] The majority laid emphasis on the fact that the voters in the two Lower Counties will now vote for two state senators while in New Castle County they can vote for only one. This reasoning is not without merit but since the end result is the election of seven senators from each County and because, in my view, the value of a vote for a state senator varies throughout the state because of population differences, I am not persuaded that the result offends the Equal Protection Clause.