Case Name: William C. MARSHALL, Barney Hopkins, August Scholle, Alexander D. Fuller and Charles A. Rogers, Plaintiffs, v. James M. HARE, Secretary of State of State of Michigan, Defendant, and Frank D. Beadle, John W. Fitzgerald, and Paul C. Younger, Senators of the State of Michigan, and Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Intervening Defendants
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-03-16
Citations: 227 F. Supp. 989
Docket Number: Civ. No. 24013
Parties: William C. MARSHALL, Barney Hopkins, August Scholle, Alexander D. Fuller and Charles A. Rogers, Plaintiffs, v. James M. HARE, Secretary of State of State of Michigan, Defendant, and Frank D. Beadle, John W. Fitzgerald, and Paul C. Younger, Senators of the State of Michigan, and Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Intervening Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 227
Pages: 989–1011

Head Matter:
William C. MARSHALL, Barney Hopkins, August Scholle, Alexander D. Fuller and Charles A. Rogers, Plaintiffs, v. James M. HARE, Secretary of State of State of Michigan, Defendant, and Frank D. Beadle, John W. Fitzgerald, and Paul C. Younger, Senators of the State of Michigan, and Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Intervening Defendants.
Civ. No. 24013.
United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.
March 16, 1964.
Judgment Reversed June 22, 1984.
See 84 S.Ct. 1912.
Theodore Sachs, Rothe, Marston, Ma-zey, Sachs & O’Connell, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of State of Michigan, and Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen. of State of Michigan, Lansing, Mich., for defendant.
Edmund E. Shepherd, Foster, Campbell, Lindemer & McGurrin, Lansing, Mich., R. William Rogers, Patrick J. Ledwidge, and George B. Martin, Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, Detroit, Mich., for intervening defendants Beadle, Fitzgerald and Younger.
Stanton S. Faville, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of Michigan, James R. Ramsey and Russell A. Searl, Asst. Attys. Gen. of State of Michigan, Lansing, Mich., for intervening defendant Faville.

Opinion:
KAESS, District Judge.
On June 20, 1963, the Board of State Canvassers certified that the vote on the Constitution proposed by the Michigan Constitutional Convention was 810,860 to 803,436 in favor of adoption. On June 21, 1963, this suit was brought to declare the provisions relating to the apportionment of the legislature, Mich. Const.1963, Art. IV, § 2-6, invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs are Michigan citizens and qualified •electors residing in Wayne County, Oakland County, and Muskegon County. The allegations of the complaint are that the provisions of the Michigan Constitution are irrational, are invidiously and purposefully discriminatory, and grossly impair the right to vote of the plaintiffs and •other Michigan citizens similarly situated.
The plaintiffs have urged the invalidity •of any plan of apportionment adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Michigan Constitution. The defendant, the Michigan Secretary of State, has joined in the presentation of the plaintiffs' case, and left the defense of the Michigan Constitution to the intervening Senators and Chief Assistant Attorney General. The defendant has suggested, however, that it would be premature to consider the constitutional questions presented until a definite plan of apportionment has been adopted.
Various plans pi*oposed by members of the Commission on Legislative Apportionment have already been submitted to the Supreme Court of Michigan. The responsibility of determining which plan complies most accurately with the requirements of the Michigan Constitution now rests with that Court. Mich.Const.1963, Art. IV, § 6. While constitutional questions must be considered on the basis of specific facts and not abstractly, it is of grave concern to us that the processes of state government may be interrupted through prolonged litigation. No plan of apportionment has been adopted, yet the tendency of the provisions of the Michigan Constitution can be foretold, and the degree of departure from the principle of equal population accurately predicted.
In accordance with the decision in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, we hold that we have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the constitutional claim asserted in the complaint, that the plaintiffs have standing, and that we are not to be deterred from granting appropriate relief by the argument that the claim presents a political question.
.The Michigan Constitution provides for a House of Representatives apportioned on the basis of population, subject only to the qualifications that county lines are to be followed in the creation of districts and that counties having a population of not less than 0.7% of the population of the state are to be accorded separate representation. By statistical tests it may be shown that the districting set forth in the Senators' Map II A-2 embodies the principle of equal population most faithfully while adhering to county lines. Three classes have been established in our analysis — the five most populous counties, the remaining counties of the southern part of the Lower Peninsula, and the counties of the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula.
Wayne County, as the center of the Detroit metropolitan area, stands apart. It has 34.08% of the population of the state, nearly four times the population of the next most populous county. Together the five most populous counties have 57.52% of the population of the state, the remaining counties of the southern part of the Lower Peninsula 33.58%, and the counties of the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula 8.90%. Muskegon, Kent, Montcalm, Isabella, Midland, and Bay Counties have been selected to form a line dividing the Lower Peninsula. To the north of the line, the density of population falls sharply and there are distinct changes in climate and fertility of the soil and in the activities and income of the people.
By reference to Table I it may be seen that the effect in districts created in the five most populous counties would be minimal. The effect would be appreciable only in districts created in less populous areas. In the district for Ottawa County (No. 19, Senators' Map II A-2) and the district for Shiawassee and Livingston Counties (No. 22, Senators' Map II A-2), the degree of under-representation, expressed as a percentage of the ratio of representation, would be 38.8% and 28.9% respectively. The degree of over-representation would be an average of 28.9% for the districts created in Monroe County (No. 30, Senators' Map II A-2), 32.0% for the district for Van Burén County, and 18.8% for the district for Allegan County (No. 25, Senators' Map II A-2). The ratio of the population of the most populous district to that of the least populous will exceed two to one, since the ratio of the population of Ottawa County, 98,719, to that of Van Burén County, 48,395, will exceed two to one.
It is a matter of general knowledge that county lines continue to have significance for persons who live in less populous areas. The county seat will be a focal point of political organization, and will often be the market place and the social and economic center of the surrounding countryside. There the county remains a natural unit of apportionment. In the great metropolitan areas, the county may assume greater importance than it has ever had as cities are transcended. The model for local government in the future may be the City and County of Los Angeles.
Authority to depart from the county line could create significantly more complex issues in districting. Not only could heretofore unrelated townships, villages or cities be combined, but they could be combined, for this one purpose, in a manner that cut across existing relationships in the manifold matters of local government. Of particular significance, authority to depart from county lines could lead to a patchwork or an impasse in the Commission on Legislative Apportionment. Thus there are strong arguments in favor of the county line.
The 0.7% provision permits a slight increase in the representation of persons living in sparsely populated areas. It is argued, on the one hand, that the provision is a grant of authority to the Commission on Legislative Apportionment to be exercised in its discretion, and, on the other, that it must be given full effect. Whether the provision must be given full effect is a matter of state law, to be determined by the Supreme Court of Michigan. In any event, it represents a minor departure from the principle of equal population. In Tennessee, the standard for the apportionment of the House of Representatives is the number of qualified voters (as opposed to population), subject to the qualification that any county having two-thirds of the ratio of representation is entitled to one member. Tenn.Const. Art. II, § 5. The Supreme Court found such a qualification minor in Baker v. Carr, supra. In Michigan, only counties having not less than seventy-seven hundredths of the ratio of representation could be assured separate representation.
The effect of the provision would be appreciable, not in the most populous counties, but in the sparsely populated counties and the counties of intermediate population. At most, the representation of persons living in the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula would be increased by two seats. The possible increase in representation would be made through a shift of one seat from Monroe County and one seat from Oakland County. Table II gives a general view of the departure inherent in following county lines and giving full effect to the 0.7% provision. By reference to Table III it may be seen that the most populous counties would still enjoy representation in the House very nearly in proportion to their population, even with a shift of two seats.
If the 80%, 20%' formula is considered objectively, it will be found that it is equivalent to a formula in which greater weight is attached to population figures for sparsely populated areas, and that its effect is to increase the representation of persons living in the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. The mathematical precision of the formula adopted by the Constitutional Convention may be explained as a reaction to the decision reached by the Supreme Court of Michigan in Scholle v. Secretary of State, 367 Mich. 176, 116 N.W.2d 350, petition for certiorari pending before the United- States Supreme Court. However, the formula is more than a recasting of the balance that existed between urban and rural areas. It represents a profound change, as it gives urban areas a clear preponderance.
DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS IN THE SENATE
Under 1952 Amendment Under new Constitution
Urban Rural Total
16 18 34
22 or 23 15 or 16 38
Most of the additional seats for urban areas will go to the five most populous counties. Wayne County will gain three, Oakland County two, Macomb County one, and Genesee County one. Kent County will lose a seat. Together, the five most populous counties will have 18 seats, while under the 1952 Amendment they had 12.
The representatives of the four most populous counties of the state will not constitute a majority of the Senate, but the representatives of the six most populous counties will. Population and representation are compared for the Senate in Table IV. In the remaining tables, the degree of departure from the principle of equal population under three possible applications of the 80%, 20% formula is presented. The degree of under representation will be 76.39% in the district for Kent County and the average degree of under-representation will be 29.52% in the ten districts created in Wayne County. Thus the ratio of the population of the most populous district to that of the least populous will probably exceed four to one.
The people of northern Michigan are placed at an economic disadvantage due to the depletion of their natural resources and the decline of some of their industries. They are far from the seat of government, far from the great concentrations of wealth and power. The difficult problems they face often are not those faced in other areas of the state.
The Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula are separate areas economically. While they are connected by a great bridge at the Straits of Mackinac, daily travel from one area to the other is not always practicable. If the principle of equal population were applied strictly, as advocated by the plaintiffs, they would have three senators to represent them in a Senate of thirty-eight. They would have nine representatives in a House of one hundred and ten. The new Constitution will increase their representation in the Senate, possibly to seven. If full effect were given to the 0.7% provision, the new Constitution would increase their representation in the Plouse to eleven. We find entirely reasonable the belief that such an increase is necessary to assure the people of Northern Michigan an adequate voice in the legislature. Without some weighting, their interests could be ignored completely.
In our consideration of the constitutional questions, we have been guided by the analysis made by ' the Solicitor General of the United States in the apportionment cases argued before the Supreme Court. The three tests advanced by the Solicitor General have been adopted: (1) whether the basis for departure from the principle of equal population can be discerned, (2) whether it represents a legitimate objective in legislative apportionment, and (3) whether the principle of equal representation is subordinated to an excessive degree.
There is agreement that the first test has been met. The basis for departure from the principle of equal population can be ' discerned. It is not unintelligible. It was debated in the Michigan Constitutional Convention, and was known to the people when they voted in April 1963. The substantial departure in the Senate and the possibility of a slight departure in the House result from a determination deliberately made to increase the representation of the people of Northern Michigan.
The second and third tests are also met. The assurance of adequate representation to a sparsely populated and impoverished region constitutes a proper objective, and the provisions of the new Constitution do not subordinate the principle of equal population to an excessive degree. The processes of state government, we believe, should prove responsive to the needs and interests of all areas of the state. The propriety of the apportionment provisions was a matter within the legislative judgment of the people of Michigan.
It has been argued that the provisions of the new Constitution permit a tyranny by the minority. In April 1963, the vote was in favor of the adoption of the Constitution. In November 1952, the vote was against the system of apportionment now advocated by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and others who share their political philosophy have demonstrated that they possess the financial resources and the experience in political action necessary to place the matter before the people at any time. The amendment of the Constitution by.petition is a vital institution in Michigan and has been resorted to on numerous occasions. In addition, the matter of general constitutional revision must be placed before the people every sixteen years. Mich.Const, 1963, Art. XII, § 3. If, in the name of majority rule, we were to hold the provisions of the new Constitution invalid, after their recent adoption by a majority of the people voting on the question, and while they were subject to the processes of amendment, we would be substituting for democratic institutions, a tyranny by the judiciary.
We hold the provisions of the new Constitution neither invidious nor irrational, but (bearing in mind the almost insolvable problems of theory, the contrary opinions of politicial and legal commentators, and the confusion of judicial authority, both state and federal) a most remarkable result, openly and fairly reached, with ample facility for correction if need therefor arises.
The action should be dismissed.
APPENDIX
TABLE I
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES — DEPARTURE FROM PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL POPULATION THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED THROUGH ADHERENCE TO COUNTY LINES
Deviation from Ratio of Representation Districts in Five Most Populous Counties Remaining Districts in Southern Part of Lower Peninsula Districts in Upper Peninsula and Northern Part of Lower Peninsula
o ft CD Ph CD TD S «H O CD CD 5~t bo CD P bo CD P | .2 p g is Q PM M C'j > ® J?
40.1% -45.0%
35.1%-40.0% 1
30.1%-35.0%
25.1%-30.0% ' 1
20.1%-25.0% 2 1
15.1%-20.0% 2
10.1%-15.0% 3
5.1% -10.0%' 5 6
0.1% - 5.0% 42 2 3
0.1% - 5.0% 16 7 4
5.1% -10.0% 2 1
10.1%-15.0% 4
15.1%-20.0% • 1
20.1%-25.0% 4
25.1%-30.0% 2
30.1%-35.0% 1
35.1%-40.0%
40.1% -45.0% •
63 38 9
Note: Based on Senators' Map II A-2. Two districts on the line — the district for Osceola, Mecosta, and Montcalm Counties (No. 16, Senators' Map II A-2) and the district for Gladwin and Midland Counties (No. 10, Senators' Map II A-2) — are counted as as districts in the southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
TABLE II
HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES —DEPARTURE FROM ' PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL POPULATION THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED THROUGH ADHERENCE TO COUNTY LINES AND GIVING 0.7% PROVISION FULL EFFECT
Districts in Districts in Deviation Five Most Remaining Districts Peninsula & I from Ratio of Populous in Southern Part Part of Lowe: Representation Counties of Lower Peninsula sula
Degree of Over Representation Degree of Under Representation (Negative Deviation) (Positive Deviation)
40.1% -45.0% 1
35.1% -40.0% 1
30.1% -35.0%
25.1% -30.1% 1
20.1% -25.0% 2
15.1% -20.0% 2
10.1% -15.0% 3
5.1% -10.0% 14 6
0.1% - 5.0% 42 2
0.1% - 5.0% 6 6 1
5.1% -10.0% 2 2
10.1% -15.0% 4 2
15.1% -20.0% 1 2
20.1% -25.0% 5 4
25.1% -30.0%
30.1% -35.0% 1
35.1% -40.0%
40.1% -45.0%
62 37 11
Note: Based on Senators' Map II A-3. Two districts on the line — the district for Mecosta and Isabella Counties (No. 17 Senators' Map II A-3) and the district for Gladwin and Midland Counties (No. 10, Senators' Map II A-3) — are counted as districts in the southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
TABLE III
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES — COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND REPRESENTATION FOR THE MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES
Percentage of Seats in Seats Percentage of Population House Giving 0.7% Provision Full Effect
Wayne County 37 34.08 33.64
Oakland County 9 8.83 8.18
Macomb County 6 5.19 5.45
Genesee County 5 4.78 4.55
Kent County 5 4.64 4.55
Ingham County 3 2.70 2.73
Four Most
Populous Counties 57 52.88 51.82
Five Most Populous Counties 62 57.52 56.36
Six Most
Populous Counties 65 60.22 59.09
Ten Most Populous Counties 74 68.95 67.27
TABLE IV
SENATE — COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND REPRESENTATION FOR THE MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES
Seats Percentage of Population Percentage of Seats in Senate
Wayne County 10 34.08 26.32
Oakland County 3 8.83 7.89
Macomb County 2 5.19 5.26
Genesee County 2 4.78 5.26
Kent County 1 4.64 2.63
Ingham County 1 2.70 2.63
Four Most Populous Counties 17 52.88 44.74
Five Most Populous Counties 18 57.52 47.37
Six Most Populous Counties 19 60.22 50.00
TABLE Y
SENATE — STRAIGHT POPULATION APPORTIONMENT — DEPARTURE FROM PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL' POPULATION THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED THROUGH ADHERENCE TO COUNTY LINES
Deviation Districts in Five Most Remaining Districts in Districts in Upper Peninsula and from Ratio of Populous Southern Part of Northern Part of Representation Counties Lower Peninsula Lower Peninsula
Degree of Over Representation Degree of Under Representation (Negative Deviation) (Positive Deviation)
80.1%-90.0%
70.1%-80.0%
60.1% -70.0%
50.1%-60.0%
40.1%-50.0%
30.1%-40.0%
20.1% -30.0%
10.1%-20.0% 3
0.1%-10.0% 8 3
0.1%-10.0% 17 4
10.1%-20.0% 2 1
20.1%-30.0%
30.1%-40.0%
40.1%-50.0%
50.1%-60.0%
60.1%-70.0%
70.1%-80.0%
80.1%-90.0%
22 13 3
Note: Based on Senators' Map II B-l. Two districts on the line— the district for Oceana, Newago, Mecosta, and Muskegon Counties (No. 18, Senators' Map II B-l) and the district for Arenac, Bay, Midland, and Tuscola Counties (No. 14, Senators' Map II B-l) — are counted as districts in the Southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
TABLE VI
SENATE — DEPARTURE FROM PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL POPULATION THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED IF 78 COUNTIES HAVING LESS THAN 13 FACTORS ARE ARRANGED INTO DISTRICTS HAVING AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE 13 APPORTIONMENT FACTORS
Degree of Over Representation Degree of Under Representation (Negative Deviation) (Positive Deviation)
Deviation from Ratio of Representation Districts in' Five Most Populous Counties Remaining Districts in Southern Part of Lower Peninsula Districts in Upper Peninsula and Northern Part of Lower Peninsula
80.1% -90.0%
70.1%-80.0% 1
60.1%-70.0%
50.1%-60.0%
40.1%-50.0%
30.1%-40.0%
20.1%-30.0% 10
10.1%-20.0% 3 1
0.1%-10.0% 5
0.1%-10.0% 4 3
10.1%-20.0% 4
20.1%-30.0%
30.1%-40.0% 1
40.1%-50.0% 2
50.1% -60.0% 4
60.1%-70.0%
70.1%-80.0%
80.1% -90.0%
18 14 6
Note: Based on Senators' Map II B-2. Two districts on the line— the district for Oceana, Newaygo, and Muskegon Counties (No. 19, Senators' Map II B-2) and the district for Osceola, Clare, Gladwin, Mecosta, Isabella, and Midland Counties (No. 18, Senators' Map II B-2) — are counted as districts in the Southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
TABLE VII
SENATE — DEPARTURE FROM! PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL POPULATION THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED IF 78 COUNTIES HAVING LESS THAN 13 FACTORS ARE ARRANGED INTO DISTRICTS HAVING NOT LESS THAN 10 NOR MORE THAN 16 APPORTIONMENT FACTORS — MINIMUM DISPARITY
Degree of Over Representation Degree of Under Representation (Negative Deviation) (Positive Deviation)
Deviation from Ratio of Representation Districts in Five Most Populous Counties Remaining Districts in Southern Part of Lower Peninsula Districts in Upper Peninsula and Northern Part of Lower Peninsula
80.1% -90.0%
70.1 % -80.0% 1
60.1%-70.0%
50.1% -60.0%
40.1% -50.0%
30.1%-40.0%
20.1% -30.0% 10
10.1% -20.0% 3
0.1% -10.0% 3
0.1%-10.0% 4 4
10.1%-20.0% 7
20.1%-30.0% 1
30.1% -40.0% 1
40.1%-50.0% 2
50.1%-60.0% 2
60.1% -70.0%
70.1% -80.0%
80.1% -90.0%
18 15 5
Note: Based on Senators' Map II B-4. Thrée districts on the line— the district for Benzie, Manistee, Mason, Oceana, and Muske-gon Counties (No. 6, Senators' Map II B-2), the district for Osceola, Clare, Gladwin, Newaygo, Mecosta, Isabella, and Midland Counties (No. 7, Senators' Map II B-2), and the district for Arenac, Bay, Tuscola, and Huron Counties (No. 8, Senators' Map II B-2) — are counted as districts in the southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
TABLE VIII
" SENATE — DEPARTURE FROM PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL POPULATION : THAT MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED IF 78 COUNTIES HAVING LESS . THAN 13 FACTORS ARE ARRANGED INTO'DISTRICTS HAVING NOT LESS THAN 10 NOR MORE THAN 16 APPORTIONMENT FACTORS — MAXIMUM DISPARITY
' Deviation from Ratio of - Representation Districts in Five Most Populous Counties . Remaining Districts in Southern Part of Lower Peninsula Districts in Upper Peninsula and' Northern Part of Lower Peninsula
Degree of Over Representation Degree of Under Representation (Negative Deviation) (Positive Deviation)
80.1% -90.0%
70.1% -80.0%
60.1% -70.0%
50.1% -60.0%
40.1%-50.0%
30.1% -40.0%
20.1% -30.0% 10 2
10.1% -20.0% 3 3
0.1% -10.0% ( 4
0.1%-10.0% 4
10.1%-20.0% 3
20.1%-30.0% 1
30.1%:-40.0% 1
40.1%'-50.0%
50.1%'-60.0% 2
60.1%-70.0% 3
70.1% -80.0% 1
80.1% -90.0%
18 13 7
NOTE: Based on Senators' Map .II B-6. Two districts on the line— the district for Ogenaw, Iosco, Clare, Gladwin, Arenac, Isabella, ' ' and Midland Counties (No. 8, Senators' Map II B-6) and the district for Oceana, Newaygo, Mecosta, Montcalm, Gratiot, and Ionia Counties (No. 9, Senators' Map II B-6) — are counted as districts in the southern part of the Lower Peninsula.
. Districts lying on the line have been counted as districts in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula only if a majority of the population lives to the north of the line.
. The Michigan House of Representatives has 110 members, making the ratio of representation 0.9091% of the population, and 0.7% of the population is approximately seventy-seven hundredths of the latter.
. We have employed the figures for "urbanized areas" in the 1960 Census in determining the number of districts that are urban in character. The plaintiffs have not suggested any alternative figures, and apparently do not consider the balance between urban and rural areas material.
. See Comment, Baker v. Carr and Legislative Apportionments—A Problem of Standards, 72 Yale L.J. 968, 1002-1006.
It is assumed that Ingham County has been given separate representation. See Senators' Maps II B-2, II B-3, II B-4, and II B-5. Ingham County might be joined with Clinton County. See Map II B-6. The population figures would then be slightly greater.