Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/207/885/2262999/
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 08:23:51
Document Index: 244208954

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 207', 'art, 207', '§ 45', '§ 1343', '§ 2284', '§ 2281', '§ 1343', '§ 2284', '§ 2281']

Moss v. Burkhart, 207 F. Supp. 885 (W.D. Okla. 1962) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Oklahoma › Western District of Oklahoma › 1962 › Moss v. Burkhart
Moss v. Burkhart, 207 F. Supp. 885 (W.D. Okla. 1962)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - 207 F. Supp. 885 (W.D. Okla. 1962)
207 F. Supp. 885 (1962)
Harry R. MOSS, Plaintiff,
William A. BURKHART, State Treasurer; Andy Anderson, State Auditor; and J. D. Dunn, Lawton Leininger and Mike Conners, composing the Oklahoma Tax Commission of the State of Oklahoma; Clee Fitzgerald, Chairman, Herbert F. Hewett, Vice-Chairman, and Louie R. Geiser, Secretary, Members of the State Election Board of the State of Oklahoma; J. Howard Edmondson, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants,
M. A. Price, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes, Directors of Oklahomans For Local Government, an unincorporated association, et al., Intervenors.
On Motion August 3, 1962.
Dissenting Opinion August 8, 1962.
*886 Sid White, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff, Harry R. Moss.
Delmer Stagner, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant William A. Burkhart, State Treasurer.
Fred Hanson, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert D. Lynn, E. J. Armstrong, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants Andy *887 Anderson, State Auditor, and, J. D. Dunn, Lawton Leininger and Mike Conners, composing the Oklahoma Tax Commission of the State of Oklahoma.
John Wagner, Oklahoma City, Okl., and Robert Blackstock, Bristow, Okl., for defendants Clee Fitzgerald, Chairman, Herbert F. Hewett, Vice-Chairman, and Louie R. Geiser, Secretary, Members of the State Election Board of the State of Oklahoma.
Norman Reynolds, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant J. Howard Edmondson, Governor of the State of Oklahoma.
Leon S. Hirsh, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Intervenors M. A. Price, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes, Directors of Oklahomans For Local Government, an unincorporated association.
J. A. Rinehart, El Reno, Okl., for intervenor M. A. Price.
G. D. Spradlin, Oklahoma City, Okl., for intervenor Council of Democratic Neighborhood Clubs.
Otjen, Carter, Huddleston & Otjen, Enid, Okl., for intervenor Oklahoma Farm Bureau.
V. P. Crowe, Oklahoma City, Okl., for intervenor League of Women Voters.
Further Statement of Facts and Law on the Merits and Interlocutory Decree June 19, 1962.
On Motion to Alter or Amend Decree August 3, 1962.
The plaintiff subsequently moved to make the Members of the State Election *888 Board additional parties defendant, and amended his complaint to reiterate the deprivation of his franchise by the diminution or destruction of his vote, by reason of the refusal of the Legislature to reapportion itself, as commanded by the Constitution. Plaintiff specifically alleged that the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma had, on the 13th day of February, 1962, granted a writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary of the State Election Board, or his successor, to receive filings for the office of State Representative pursuant to the existing election laws, and to comply with any ministerial or other functions required by such laws. (House Bill 1033 of the Twenty-eighth Legislature, 14 O.S.A. §§ 45.1 et seq., 71 et seq., 97-101.)
After the case was submitted and set for final disposition on Monday, April 23, 1962, M. A. Price, John M. Rasberry, J. R. Hutchens and Roy Grimes, Directors of Oklahomans For Local Government, an unincorporated association, were permitted to intervene as necessary or proper parties to the suit. In their answer, it was alleged that the State Election Board had performed all ministerial and other functions required by it for the conduct of the forthcoming primary; that all further acts in relation to the pending primary election must be done and performed by the several County Election Boards of the State; and, that such Boards are, therefore, indispensible parties to the relief sought and the suit must, therefore, be dismissed. Further answering, the Intervenors deny the justiciability of the relief sought, as political in nature. They specifically deny that the present apportionment of the Oklahoma Legislature operates to deny the plaintiff and his class the equal protection of the laws, but if so, allege that ample provision is made by the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma for constitutional reapportionment; that within the past two years, the people of the State had, at freely held elections, expressly rejected suggested revisions of their apportionment laws; and, that at the last session of the Legislature, the House of Representatives, by legislative action, did reapportion itself and that such action was approved by the Governor of the State. It is further alleged that a reapportionment, as provided by the Oklahoma Constitution and effected by virtue of shifting and changing population of the State since the adoption of the Constitution, would result in an invidious discrimination against many citizens of the State, and deprive them of the equal protection of the laws. Finally, it is alleged that reapportionment under the Constitution of Oklahoma is vested exclusively in the Legislature; that the Governor of the State is vested solely with the power of convocation; and, that the Legislature is wholly impotent to reapportion, redistrict or reallocate its representation until January, 1963, unless the Governor is required by this Court to call the Legislature into extraordinary session.
Federal Court jurisdiction rests upon claimed redress for the deprivation, under color of State law, of a right or privilege secured by the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This Court is constituted and convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, to hear and determine the suit, based upon the allegation of the unconstitutionality of the Oklahoma apportionment statutes and the prayer for interlocutory *889 and permanent injunction, restraining the enforcement or operation of such statutes.
Speaking through his attorney of record, the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, represented to the Court that he was elected Governor on a program to reapportion the Legislature; that he had recommended reapportionment in compliance with the constitutional mandate to each legislative session during his administration; that he sponsored an Initiative Petition, aimed at constitutional compliance, on which the requisite signatures were obtained, but which was defeated at the polls on September 20, 1960; that as a defendant in Ludlow v. State Election Board, supra, and as amicus curiae in the other recent actions, i. e., Jones v. Winters, supra, Brown v. State Election Board, supra, and Reed v. State Election Board, supra, he made suggestions concerning relief, which in his judgment were within the jurisdictional reach of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; that in his pleas to the Supreme Court, he had offered to convoke a special session of the Legislature, if that Court would assume jurisdiction and indicate its disposition to afford relief, in the event the Legislature failed to act.
The Governor also calls our attention to the pendency of another Initiative Petition to amend the Constitution, to transfer the enforcement of the constitutional apportionment formula from the Legislature to a Constitutional Apportionment Commission. We are told that the petition was filed in December 1961, bearing approximately 219,000 signatures; that a protest has been filed and is now pending before a Referee of the State Supreme Court; that in the last *890 sixteen years, no Initiative Petition has received the required vote of the people and that, in any event, the pending petition cannot be voted upon in sufficient time to provide the basis for election of members to the Legislature for the 1963 session.
Based upon this experience, the Governor expressed the view that further attempts at reapportionment by legislative or initiative action would be vain and futile; that if the plaintiff and his class are to be afforded the equal protection of the laws, vouchsafed to them by the Constitution, they must find it here that this Court is the only effective source of relief. Based upon this conviction, the Governor has willingly entered his appearance as a defendant in this case and now offers to convoke the Legislature in extraordinary session, under Article 6, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution, for the specific purpose of enacting a system of election laws in consonance with constitutional requirements, or call a special election under Article 5, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 26 O.S., Section 541, for the purpose of filling any vacancies resulting for failure of the forth-coming primary on May 1, 1962. It is suggested that the cost of any special election may be paid from appropriations from the Governor's contingency fund, and such funds are pledged for that purpose as the occasion arises.
The Election Board, responding through its attorney of record, represents that it is being required under mandamus of the Oklahoma Supreme Court to accept filings and conduct elections for the offices of both branches of the Legislature, in disobedience to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States all in violation of their respective oaths of office. We are urged by the Election Board to grant the relief sought, as the only available and effective remedy.
A majority of the Court in Radford v. Gary, supra, denied relief in the face of a confessed deprivation of constitutional rights, under color of State law, because of the positive admonition to refuse to exercise our "equity powers in cases posing political issues arising from a state's geographical distribution of electoral strength among its political subdivisions." South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276, 277, 70 S. Ct. 641, 94 L. Ed. 834. Our decision was influenced by what seemed to be the prevailing view in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 90 L. Ed. 1432, and we were affirmed per curiam on authority of that case and Kid v. McCandless, 352 U.S. 920, 77 S. Ct. 223, 1 L. Ed. 2d 157. Now, however, all such jurisdiction and justiciable doubts have been resolved by Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663. Jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit and to grant appropriate relief is no longer doubtful. Not only is our jurisdiction clear, but we are, indeed, importuned by all the parties, other than the Intervenors, in this suit to grant the longsought *891 and often denied relief, by some appropriate remedy.
The plaintiff and his class seek to protect or vindicate an interest of their own "a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their vote," not merely a citizen's interest in good government. See Baker v. Carr, 82 S.Ct. p. 705. Having jurisdiction of a justiciable controversy, this Court is empowered to secure equitable or other relief for the denial of a constitutionally protected right.
As a prerequisite to any relief, it is, of course, incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the unconstitutionality of the Oklahoma Apportionment Statutes, and plaintiff cannot sustain that burden by merely showing a disparity in the voting strength of the various electoral districts. Numerical inequality of voting strength does not necessarily prove a case for the deprivation of voting rights. An actionable deprivation results only from an invidious discrimination a disparity without rationality. MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S. 281, 69 S. Ct. 1, 93 L. Ed. 3; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393; Baker v. Carr, supra. It seems fair to say, however, that a disparity of ten to one in the voting strength between electoral districts makes out a prima facie case for invidious discrimination, and calls for strict justification.
Moreover, there is some question concerning the effectiveness of an injunctive decree, in view of the fact that candidates for the legislative offices have already been certified to the County Election Boards for the conduct of the election and the canvassing of the votes. Indeed, we are told that some of the candidates for the offices involved are unopposed, either in the forth-coming primary or the general election, and are, therefore, presently entitled to a certificate of election. In order to give uniformity of relief, it would thus be necessary to in some way void these certificates of election, *892 and declare these offices vacant. The result would likely be confusion and chaos, and provocative of interminable litigation.
Additionally, we have no assurance that the present Legislature, even if convened in extraordinary session, would enact a constitutionally acceptable system of apportionment and election laws for the nomination and election of its successors, prior to the 1963 session. In which event, under the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the present members of the Legislature would continue to hold their offices until their successors were elected and qualified presumably in 1965. See Article 23, Section 10, of the Oklahoma Constitution. It would be an awkward and clumsy thing for this Court to undertake to reapportion and redistrict the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma, in accordance with some judicially devised formula, and even more difficult to attempt to supervise special nominations and elections to the reapportioned Legislature. Certainly, we should undertake this essentially legislative function only as a last resort.
This does not mean, however, that the task is insurmountable or that we will not undertake it, if the circumstances ultimately compel it, nor does the denial of immediate relief herein mean that the present Legislature should not be afforded an opportunity to enact prospective reapportionment laws, in accordance with the supreme law of the land, as announced in Baker v. Carr, supra, and to which we all owe allegiance and are amenable. The Legislatures of other states have taken appropriate action to comply with the constitutional requirements, when faced with the inescapable duty of doing so. See Asbury Park Press v. Woolley, 33 N.J. 1, 161 A.2d 705; Application of Lamb, 67 N.J.Super. 39, 169 A.2d 822; Magraw v. Donovan, D.C., 159 F. Supp. 901, D.C., 163 F. Supp. 184, D.C., 177 F. Supp. 803. See also Sims et al. v. Frink, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al. (D.C.1962) 205 F. Supp. 245. Meanwhile, this case will proceed to issue and determination on its merits, with all deliberate speed.
When this case came on for hearing on motion for temporary relief, we held the complaint sufficient to state a justiciable controversy, cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, of which this three-judge Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281. We expressed the view that a numerical disparity of as much as ten to one in legislative electoral districts, raised a serious question of malapportionment, which may very well constitute a prima facie case for invidious discrimination.
The application of the 1960 Federal Census in Oklahoma to existing legislative *893 apportionment, graphically demonstrates the present numerical disparity in the relative weight of the votes cast for respective members of the Legislature. By reference to this census, as applied to the present legislative apportionment, one vote for legislative Representative in Cimarron County is equal to fourteen votes for the same office in Oklahoma County, and eleven votes in Tulsa County. The numerical disparity existing in the Senatorial Districts is even greater. For instance, one vote in Senatorial District No. 26, comprising Love and Marshall Counties, equals 26.4 votes in District No. 31, comprising Tulsa County. The facts reveal that 61 members of the House of Representatives, constituting a majority, represent 26% of the total population of the State. The other 60 members of that House represent 74% of the population, or an average of 28,642 persons per Representative. Reduced to its simplist terms, this means that a majority of the Legislature is responsible to only 26% of the population and that the remaining Representatives represent 74% of the people.
While mere numerical disparity in voting strength is not, per se, invidiously discriminatory, it is, to be sure, cogent evidence of it and, as we have seen, may be sufficiently disproportionate to constitute a prima facie showing. This is so, we think, because under our democratic institutions and republican form of government, the suffrage right of the individual is, and must be, the keystone the common denominator, of self-government. Indeed, the framers of the Oklahoma Constitution recognized this inalienable principle by providing that population should be the primary basis for electoral diffusion. See: Article 5, Sections 9 and 10, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. Under the Oklahoma Constitution, the principle of numerical equality is the rule, and any deviation is the exception. Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 146 P.2d 564. We think this principle should also be our guideline in determining whether the equal protection of the laws has been honored in the State electoral processes. There may be relevant counter-vailing factors, such as geography, economics, mass media and functional or group voting strength. But none of these factors, whether considered separately or collectively, can overcome the basic principle underlying the right of an individual to cast an effective vote. See: Excerpts from testimony of Dr. Joseph Pray, attached hereto as Appendix.
Before this case came on for hearing, Intervenors moved for a continuance, and renewed the motion on the hearing date, in order to obtain sufficient time to correllate and evaluate what they considered competent data, justifying the existing apportionment. Particularly, *894 they set forth eight (8) separately numbered categories of statistical data and information, allegedly requiring additional time for compilation. An examination of each of these categories reveals that all of the suggested data or information is, and has been, at all times readily available in the form of public records to the Intervenors or, for that matter, to any interested person. Moreover, it may be that the suggested factors are a product of, rather than a rational basis for, the existing discrimination. Surely, one may not acquire a constitutional right to a status, which is created by the persistent disregard of constitutional precepts. In short, the Intervenors may not pull themselves up by their own unconstitutional bootstraps. Additionally, it should be noted that more than fifty days have elapsed since the denial of temporary relief and the case was ordered to trial on its merits. Even so, we cannot believe that Intervenors have been prejudiced in any manner by the unavailability of any information which they say is pertinent. We are thus brought to the conclusion that if the Intervenors have a defense, based upon the rationality of the present apportionment, they have not diligently pursued it. The continuance was consequently denied.
*895 If and when, in the course of this litigation, it becomes necessary to bring about constitutional reapportionment by direct judicial action, it will be time enough to hear and consider any countervailing factors, which may enter into the equation of reapportionment, based essentially upon population. Until that day, the judicial hand is stayed.
"Q. (By MURRAH, C. J.) Doctor, may I ask you a question which, in my judgment, goes to the heart of this lawsuit. You understand that the plaintiffs in this case, who are qualified electors in a populous County in the State, are here complaining that the present apportionment laws of the State of Oklahoma operate to invidiously discriminate against them in the exercise of their voting rights. You also understand this Court is empowered to hear and determine that complaint, and what we are now seeking to determine is whether or not the present apportionment laws of this State infringe the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it invidiously discriminates against these plaintiffs. You understand that?
"A. This is a fundamental question. * * * It goes very much to the heart of the whole issue, and I am thinking of Baker versus Carr and the majority and minority opinions, and the various views expressed there. * * * We are going to come back to this problem many, many times in the next five years, but I did refer to this, it seems to me, possibly anticipating this question, when I talked about the necessity to start at some place when it comes to the diffusion of political power. This is the key to politics. * * * To start at some place where the common denominator is the individual. We are talking about human society. The study of politics, particularly in recent years, has been very much interested in not who has suffrage, but who is influential in the legislative arena, the subject *896 of pressure groups for instance, how influential they are, and how does a person go about getting enough campaign funds or how to run an effective campaign. It goes into the question of mass communication. It refers to whether the plaintiffs, being in an urban area, don't have counter-vailing facilities at their disposal. The metropolitan press has been a matter of great contention in a State like ours. It is hard to tell whether it helps you or hurts you. It has been a question of whether this large group was more significant than this little person, who may or may not be their representative. Take the majority position in Baker versus Carr, in terms of when you should presumably strike down an apportionment scheme, if there is no rational basis.
"A. * * * And to the extent you have one to 26, you have a diffusion of suffrage power which is as bad as if the vote was not counted because of fraud or some other reason it would also violate it, or if the discrimination on suffrage grounds was based on race, let us say, the white primary cases are especially, as long as you look at it in terms of whether or not this vote is being made effective, and you appreciate that our National constitution, for various reasons, calls for our votes being made effective. This sort of thing, and this sort of analogy, which, I think, is a very good analogy, when it takes into consideration there are people being affected because their votes this sort of thing wouldn't condone much interference with the basis of numbers.
"A. One doesn't exercise its right
"A. I don't think so. I will make one little modification in a minute but the experience with functional representation where it has been tried in *897 Europe as part of their legislative process. * * * This is a thing Germany tried for years * * * on the assumption (of) * * * working out a system of representation which is mostly more vital because some of the dynamic aspects of political decisions go off on organized efforts rather than the efforts of individuals; when you try functional representation. * * *
2. The Court is of the opinion that the existing statutes of the State of Oklahoma, *898 relating to apportionment for the nomination and election of the members of both houses of the Oklahoma Legislature are invidiously discriminatory against the Plaintiff and his class; hence, null and void.
The above matter came on for hearing pursuant to assignment on the 31st day of July, 1962, on the Motion to Alter or Amend Decree, filed by the Intervenors M. A. Price, et al., Directors of Oklahomans For Local Government, an unincorporated association, and for a consideration of the various remedies for reapportionment suitable for implementation in view of the previous Interlocutory Decree entered by this Court on June 19, 1962.
The said Motion to Alter or Amend Decree is overruled, except by way of clarification it is the order of the Court that the scheduled general election, to be held on November 6, 1962, is not affected by the order of this Court entered on June 19, 1962 to the effect that the laws under which the present legislature of Oklahoma is apportioned are "prospectively null and void and inoperative for all future elections." The forthcoming November 6, 1962 election is not a "future election" within the meaning of said Interlocutory Decree, but is an election under way and in being at the time said order was entered, the same having started with the filing period in February, 1962, and having continued through primary and runoff elections with the said general election remaining to be held to complete the election process. See: Gragg v. Dudley, 143 Okl. 281, 289 P. 254. Moreover, by reapportionment being necessarily prospective in nature and being accomplished for future effect, said Interlocutory Decree applies to the elections of 1964 and future elections, including any election that may follow the 1962 election which is now in progress and has been since February, 1962.
The House of Representatives of the Oklahoma Legislature will be reapportioned in accordance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution relating to such House, except the Court finds and declares that the seven member ceiling established in Section 10(d), Article 5, Oklahoma Constitution for populous *899 Counties results in invidious discrimination against the Plaintiff and his class, therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and must be disregarded.
The Senate of the Oklahoma Legislature will be reapportioned in accordance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution relating thereto. In this connection, however, the Court is brought face to face with an irreconcilable incongruity in Section 9(a) of Article 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution, with respect to the formula for apportioning the Senate. This incongruity is caused by the "except" clause in Section 9(a), which creates a discrepancy between the total number of Districts and the total number of Senators. We resolve this incongruity in favor of equality of representation, which is mentioned three times in Sections 9(a) and 9(b), believing as we do that it is in consonance with the general principle of the Oklahoma Constitution, as construed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 146 P.2d 564, and more nearly conforms to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Applying this general principle of equality, the Oklahoma Senate will thus consist of 44 Districts and 44 Senators. Under the 1960 Federal Census, Oklahoma County is entitled to eight Senatorial Districts and Senators; Tulsa County, seven Senatorial Districts and Senators; and, Comanche County, two Senatorial Districts and Senators. Those Counties having multiple Senatorial Districts will be districted within themselves into the requisite number of Districts by legislative act, provided each such District shall contain as near as may be an equal number of inhabitants; shall be contiguous and compact as practicable.
"The case now comes on for trial on its merits, the parties appearing in person or by counsel * * *. From the stipulations, evidence and other facts of judicial *900 notice, we find there has been only token reapportionment by the State of Oklahoma of its legislative body since 1911. Both branches of the Legislature have consistently disregarded the provisions of the State Constitution, with respect to reapportionment, with no thought of affording the equal protection of the laws."
In an endeavor to overturn the earlier opinion of this Court, entered herein on *901 June 19th, the majority gives two legal reasons unsupported by authority. They say: (1) that the general election to be held in November, 1962 is not a future election; (2) that when we said in June that the statutes under which the legislature is apportioned are unconstitutional and void, they were just void in June and not in August and that we could control the operation of the Constitution.
The only authority cited by the majority in its decree in support of their finding that the general election in November, 1962 is not a future election is Gragg v. Dudley, 143 Okl. 281, 289 P. 254. This case itself is not in point since the interpretation therein that the election process includes registration, primary elections, the general election and the announcement of the election returns is pure dicta insofar as it related to the primaries. There a State Senator sought to run for the office of Lt. Governor. The question was raised that this violated Article 5, Section 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution. All that was necessary to that decision was the ruling that the November election was not complete until the votes were counted and the result made known.
As a practical matter the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Stafford v. State Election Board, 203 Okl. 132, 218 P.2d 617, did distinguish the cited case and said at page 620 the following:
In State ex rel. Williamson v. Carter, 177 Okl. 382, 59 P.2d 948, at 949, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said:
The majority in its haste to recede from our June 19th opinion has glossed over a very important question of law. That is to say, where a court, as we did in the June opinion, declares a statute creating public offices null and void, the statute is null and void ab initio. This principle of law is set out at length in the landmark case of Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 178. The Supreme Court of Tennessee had earlier declared a statute allowing a board of commissioners to subscribe to railroad stock unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. One of the parties argued that if there was not a de jure officer, that the officers were de *902 facto. The other party argued that if the statute was unconstitutional, there was no office existing and there could not be a de facto officer. Mr. Justice Field, in answering the question posed, said:
Our own Oklahoma Supreme Court followed the United States Supreme Court in the case of State ex rel. Tharel v. The Board of County Commissioners of Creek County, 188 Okl. 184, 107 P.2d 542, which says and I quote:
We are bound to give weight and validity to the Oklahoma authorities, and when the Oklahoma Court has said that courts have no power to say when a statute is or is not inoperative, after once declaring the statute void as being unconstitutional, it would certainly be presumptuous on our part to attempt to control the operation of the Constitution. Far be it from me to say that in a proper case that there is no question but what there is a place for the de facto doctrine, but ours is not such. This doctrine is founded upon consideration of policy and necessity for the protection of the public and individuals whose interests may be affected thereby. Offices are created for the benefit of the public, and private parties are not permitted to inquire into the titles of persons clothed with authority. For the good order and peace of society, their authority is to be respected until some mode is prescribed by law to determine their rights to serve. Such is not the case here. The offices of the legislature were determined null *903 and void. They no longer exist, and the decree of June 19th contemplated a sure and orderly correction of the situation. The majority has backed away from the strength of the earlier decree and is now taking a position where they sanction that which they condemned. It is an untenable position, and in my opinion it is the unqualified duty of the Court to apportion.
Intervenors produced only two witnesses. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who expressed a hope that the House could reapportion but refused to hazard an opinion as to the ability of the Senate to pass apportionment provisions, and I might say parenthetically, it is obvious that if there is only hope that the House might be able to pass such provisions, there can be no hope that the Senate can do so since it is far more malapportioned than the House. The other witness was a State Senator of many years' service, who would make no stronger statement than he was ready to assume his responsibilities to the people of the State. On cross-examination he admitted that he had always been ready to assume such responsibility, although he further admitted that he had voted against apportionment in accordance with the State Constitution during the previous session. He had served in each of the nine sessions since the State Supreme Court in Jones v. Freeman stated that the question of apportionment went to the "very vitals of democracy", and the Court in the Jones case had further solemnly *904 placed its faith in the State Legislature to uphold its constitutional oaths. This witness stated he would not comply with the order of this Court but only act after the law is clearly outlined by the United States Supreme Court in subsequent opinions, which may take the Lord only knows how long to convince this Senator and others like him.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that my brothers' statement is wholly without basis in the record, and the facts of history for almost half a century disclose that it is wholly without justification and can only lead to a hopelessly chaotic legislative session that can produce nothing more than the submission of a constitutional amendment which, if adopted, would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Even the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma in its most recent opinion, Brown v. State Election Board et al.; Okl., 369 P.2d 140 stated: