Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/103046/minnesota-state-senate-vs-beens
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 09:21:19
Document Index: 232305023

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 202', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 645', '§ 20302', '§ 25', '§ 202']

Minnesota State Senate Vs Beens - Citation 103046 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Minnesota State Senate Vs. Beens - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/103046
Case Number 406 U.S. 187
Appellant Minnesota State Senate
Respondent Beens
minnesota state senate v. beens - 406 u.s. 187 (1972) u.s. supreme court minnesota state senate v. beens, 406 u.s. 187 (1972) sixty-seventh minnesota state senate v. beens no. 71-1024 decided april 29, 1972 * 406 u.s. 187 appeal from the united states district court for the district of minnesota syllabus a three-judge district court found that the minnesota legislature was malapportioned, and reduced the number of legislative districts from 67, the number established in 1913, to 35, thereby reducing the number of senators by almost 50%, and the number of representatives by nearly 25%. the court declared the entire 1966 apportionment act unconstitutional, and enjoined state officials from conducting elections.....
Minnesota State Senate v. Beens - 406 U.S. 187 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U.S. 187 (1972)
Decided April 29, 1972 *
1. The appellant had the right to intervene, as the District Court's orders directly affected the senate, which is an appropriate legal entity for the purpose of intervention. Silver v. Jordan, 241 F.Supp. 576, aff'd, 381 U. S. 415 .
The Minnesota Bicameral Legislature was last effectively apportioned in 1966. Ex.Sess.Laws 1966, c. 1. [ Footnote 1 ]
Section 2.021 of Minn.Stat. (1969), the very first section of the 1966 Act, states that, "until a new apportionment shall have been made," the State's senate shall consist of 67 members and its house of representatives of 135 members. [ Footnote 2 ] Section 2.031, subd. 1, from the second section of the 1966 Act, prescribes 67 legislative districts for both the senate and the house. [ Footnote 3 ] Sections 2.041-2.711, inclusive, then delineate these 67 districts. [ Footnote 4 ] The State's Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, provides a legislator-population minimum ratio (one senator for every 5,000 inhabitants and one representative for every 2,000 inhabitants) and states,
this 1971 reapportionment endeavor failed to become law. [ Footnote 5 ] The Governor has not called the legislature to another extra session for more work on reapportionment, [ Footnote 6 ] and it is not scheduled to meet again in regular session until January, 1973. Minn.Const., Art. IV, § 1; Minn.Stat. § 3.01 (1969). The 1972 primary and general elections will take place in the interim. Minn.Stat. §§ 202.2 and 203.02 (1969). Thus, the 1966 statute remains as the State's last effective legislative apportionment.
402 U.S. at 402 U. S. 15 . The court stated that the legislature could not be apportioned into 67 senate districts and 135 house districts without violating either the Federal Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution; that the existing practice of dividing one senate district into three house districts and all others into two cannot be continued without violating the requirements of equal protection; that the greater the population of each district, the more closely
That the three-judge federal court possesses the power to reapportion the State's legislature when the applicable state statutes fall short of constitutional requirements is not questioned. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , 377 U. S. 586 -587 (1964). The 1966 Minnesota apportionment legislation, the court found, in the light of the 1970 census figures, no longer provided a constitutionally acceptable apportionment of either house. No one challenges that basic finding here, and we have no reason to rule otherwise. The 1971 legislature had endeavored to reapportion and, thus, to fulfill the requirement imposed upon it by Art. IV, § 23, of the State's Constitution. [ Footnote 7 ] See Magraw v. Donovan, 163 F.Supp. 184, 187-188 (Minn.1958), and Honsey v. Donovan, 236 F.Supp. 8 (Minn.1964). The legislature's efforts in that direction, however, were nullified by the Governor's veto of the Act it passed, an action the executive had the power to take. Duxbury v. Donovan, 272 Minn. 424, 138 N.W.2d 692 (1965). The net result was the continuing applicability of the 1966 act. Under these circumstances, judicial relief was appropriate.
We need not review at length the several pronouncements of this Court relating to state legislative reapportionment. The pertinent cases, particularly those of June 15, 1964, and the guidelines they provide, are well known. It suffices to note that, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , the Court stated that apportionment
377 U.S. at 377 U. S. 586 . [ Footnote 8 ] But we also stated,
377 U.S. at 377 U. S. 584 . And the Minnesota Constitution, Art. IV, § 23, vests the legislature with power to reapportion.
We note, in repetition, that the District Court invalidated the entire 1966 Act, §§ 2.021-2.712, despite the fact that the details of the legislative districts' configurations are included only in §§ 2.041-2.711. Section 2.021 merely specifies the number of senators and representatives; § 2.031 calls for the apportionment of those legislators throughout the State in 67 districts; and § 2.712 provided the effective date of the 1966 act, the efficacy of which, for the period prior to the 1970 census, is not at issue here. In the light of the State's policy of statutory severability, Minn.Stat. § 645.20 (1969), [ Footnote 9 ]
We know of no federal constitutional principle or requirement that authorizes a federal reapportioning court to go as far as the District Court did and, thus, to bypass the State's formal judgment as to the proper size of its legislative bodies. No case decided by this Court has gone that far, and we have found no district court decision that has employed such radical surgery in reapportionment. There are cases where judicial reapportionment has effectuated minor changes in a legislature's size. Nearly all those cases reflect an increase or decrease of only a few seats, [ Footnote 10 ] and most appear to have been justified
by a state constitutional demand, agreement of the parties, the observance of geographical boundaries, or mathematical convenience. We do not disapprove a court-imposed minor variation from a State's prescribed figure when that change is shown to be necessary to meet constitutional requirements. And we would not oppose the District Court's reducing, in this case, the number of representatives in the Minnesota house from 135 to 134, as the parties apparently have been willing to concede. That action would fit exactly the 67-district pattern. But to slash a state senate's size almost in half and a state house's size by nearly one-fourth is to make more than a mere minor variation. If a change of that extent were acceptable, so, too, would be a federal court's cutting or increasing size by 75% or 90% or, indeed, by prescribing a unicameral legislature for a State.that has always followed the bicameral precedent. We repeat what was said recently in another legislative apportionment case: "The remedial powers of an equity court must be adequate to the task, but they are not unlimited." Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 , 403 U. S. 161 (1971).
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 377 U. S. 581 n. 63. See also Connor v. Johnson, 330 F.Supp. 506, 507 (SD Miss.), order stayed on other grounds, 402 U. S. 690 , opinion on remand, 330 F.Supp. 521 (SD Miss.1971); Bannister v. Davis, 263 F.Supp. 202, 208 (ED La.1966); Dungan v. Sawyer, 250 F.Supp. 480, 489 (Nev.1965).
with this opinion. The District Court is instructed to give this matter priority, and to act promptly and forthwith so that the State's 1972 electoral process may get under way with assurance as soon as possible. It is already late in the day, but the maintenance of legislative districts long in effect provides a minimum of disruption even now. [ Footnote 11 ]
In the companion case of Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U. S. 656 , 377 U. S. 676 , the Court observed again that "primary responsibility for legislative apportionment rests with the legislature itself."
The 1972 general election in Minnesota will take place November 7. The primaries are scheduled for September 12. Candidates may file between July 5 and July 18. A legislative candidate must establish residence in his district by May 7. Minn.Stat. §§ 20302, 202.02, 202.04; Minn.Const., Art. IV, § 25. Inasmuch as the Minnesota Legislature is nonpartisan, Minn.Stat. § 202.03, subd. 1, the earlier dates for political party precinct caucuses and party conventions have no relevance in these cases. If time presses too seriously, the District Court has the power appropriately to extend the time limitations imposed by state law. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 , 402 U. S. 15 (1971).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 , 402 U. S. 15 . At the same time "[t]he remedial powers of an equity court . . . are not unlimited." Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 , 403 U. S. 161 . In the reapportionment context, it is the duty of a court seeking to remedy an unconstitutional apportionment to right the constitutional wrong while minimizing disturbance of legitimate state policies.
Faced with this perceived conflict among legitimate state policies, the three-judge court weighed those policies and decided that preservation of political jurisdictional boundaries should take precedence over preservation of the present size of the senate and the house. [ Footnote 2/1 ]
I have disagreed with the Court's Procrustean view of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive requirement of "one man, one vote." [ Footnote 2/2 ] But until and unless those established
See, e.g., Lucas v. Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 U. S. 713 , 377 U. S. 744 ; Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440 , 385 U. S. 447 . See also Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542 , 394 U. S. 549 .